Cranes and Derricks Standard

Monday,
August 9, 2010

Part II

Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

29 CFR Part 1926
Cranes and Derricks in Construction;
Final Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47906

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1926
[Docket ID–OSHA–2007–0066]
RIN 1218–AC01

Cranes and Derricks in Construction
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

OSHA is revising the Cranes
and Derricks Standard and related
sections of the Construction Standard to
update and specify industry work
practices necessary to protect employees
during the use of cranes and derricks in
construction. This final standard also
addresses advances in the designs of
cranes and derricks, related hazards,
and the qualifications of employees
needed to operate them safely. Under
this final rule, employers must
determine whether the ground is
sufficient to support the anticipated
weight of hoisting equipment and
associated loads. The employer is then
required to assess hazards within the
work zone that would affect the safe
operation of hoisting equipment, such
as those of power lines and objects or
personnel that would be within the
work zone or swing radius of the
hoisting equipment. Finally, the
employer is required to ensure that the
equipment is in safe operating condition
via required inspections and that
employees in the work zone are trained
to recognize hazards associated with the
use of the equipment and any related
duties that they are assigned to perform.
DATES: This final rule will become
effective November 8, 2010.
The incorporation by reference of
specific publications listed in this final
rule is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of November 8, 2010.
ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28
U.S.C. 2112(a)(2), the Agency designates
Joseph M. Woodward, Associate
Solicitor of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, Office of the
Solicitor, Room S–4004, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, to
receive petitions for review of the final
rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General information and press inquiries.
Contact Ms. Jennifer Ashley, Director,
Office of Communications, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N–3647,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693–1999 or fax (202) 693–1634.
• Technical inquiries. Contact Mr.
Garvin Branch, Directorate of
Construction, Room N–3468, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2020 or
fax (202) 693–1689.
• Copies of this Federal Register
notice. Available from the OSHA Office
of Publications, Room N–3101, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20210;
telephone (202) 693–1888.
• Electronic copies of this notice. Go
to OSHA’s Web site (http://
www.osha.gov), and select ‘‘Federal
Register,’’ ‘‘Date of Publication,’’ and
then ‘‘2010.’’
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Incorporated Standards.
The standards published by the
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI), the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the
American Welding Society (AWS), the
British Standards Institution (BSI), the
International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), the Power Crane
and Shovel Association (PCSA), and the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
required in subpart CC are incorporated
by reference into this subpart with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
other than the editions specified in
subpart CC, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) must
publish a notice of change in the
Federal Register and the material must
be available to the public.
All approved material is available for
inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, telephone 202–741–
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html. Also, the material is
available for inspection at any OSHA
Regional Office or the OSHA Docket
Office (U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room
N–2625, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone 202–693–2350 (TTY number:
877–889–5627)).
I. General
A. Table of Contents
The following Table of Contents
identifies the major preamble sections
in this notice and the order in which
they are presented:
I. General
A. Table of Contents

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

II. Background
A. History
B. The Cranes and Derricks Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(C–DAC)
C. Hazards Associated with Cranes and
Derricks in Construction Work
III. The SBREFA Process
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Rule
V. Procedural Determinations
A. Legal Authority
B. Executive Summary of the Final
Economic Analysis; Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
C. OMB Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
D. Federalism
E. State-Plan States
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Applicability of Existing Consensus
Standards
H. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926
V. Authority and Signature
VI. Amendments to Standards

II. Background
A. History
The Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590, 29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) (the OSH Act) authorizes the
Secretary of Labor to adopt safety and
health standards to reduce injuries and
illnesses in American workplaces.
Pursuant to that authority, the Secretary
adopted a set of safety and health
standards applicable to the construction
industry, 29 CFR part 1926. Initially,
standards for the construction industry
were adopted under the Construction
Safety Act, 40 U.S.C. 333. Under the
Construction Safety Act, those standards
were limited to employers engaged in
Federally-financed or Federally-assisted
construction projects. The Secretary
subsequently adopted them as OSHA
standards pursuant to Sec. 6(a) of the
OSH Act, 29 U.S. C. 655(a), which
authorized the Secretary to adopt
established Federal standards as OSH
Act standards within the first two years
the OSH Act was effective (see 36 FR
25232, Dec. 30, 1971). Subpart N of 29
CFR part 1926, entitled ‘‘Cranes,
Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and
Conveyors,’’ was originally adopted
through this process.
The section of subpart N of 29 CFR
part 1926 that applied to cranes and
derricks was former § 1926.550. That
section relied heavily on national
consensus standards that were in effect
in 1971, in some cases incorporating the
consensus standards by reference. For
example, former § 1926.550(b)(2)
required crawler, truck, and locomotive
cranes to meet applicable requirements
for design, inspection, construction,
testing, maintenance, and operation
prescribed in ANSI B30.5–1968,
‘‘Crawler, Locomotive and Truck
Cranes.’’ Similarly, former § 1926.550(e)

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

required derricks to meet applicable
requirements for design, construction,
installation, inspection, testing,
maintenance, and operation prescribed
in ANSI B30.6–1969, ‘‘Derricks.’’ Until
today, former § 1926.550 was amended
substantively only twice. In 1988,
former § 1926.550(g) was added to
establish clearly the conditions under
which employees on personnel
platforms may be hoisted by cranes and
derricks (see 53 FR 29116, Aug. 2,
1988). In 1993, former § 1926.550(a)(19)
was added to require that all employees
be kept clear of lifted and suspended
loads.
Considerable technological advances
have been made since the 1971 OSHA
standard was issued. For example,
hydraulic cranes were rare at that time,
but are now prevalent. In addition, the
construction industry has updated the
consensus standards on which the
original OSHA standard was based. For
example, the industry consensus
standard for derricks was most recently
updated in 2003, and that for crawler,
locomotive and truck cranes in 2007.
In recent years, a number of industry
stakeholders asked the Agency to
update subpart N’s cranes and derrick
requirements. They were concerned that
accidents involving cranes and derricks
continued to be a significant cause of
fatal and other serious injuries on
construction sites and believed that an
updated standard was needed to address
the causes of these accidents and to
reduce the number of accidents. They
emphasized that the considerable
changes in both work processes and
technology since 1971 made much of
former § 1926.550 obsolete.
In response to these requests, in 1998
OSHA’s Advisory Committee for
Construction Safety and Health
(ACCSH) established a workgroup to
develop recommended changes to the
subpart N requirements for cranes and
derricks. The workgroup developed
recommendations on some issues and
submitted them to the full committee in
a draft workgroup report. (ID–0020.) In
December 1999, ACCSH recommended
to OSHA that the agency consider using
a negotiated rulemaking process as the
mechanism to update subpart N.
(OSHA–ACCSH1999–4–2006–0187–
0035.)
B. The Cranes and Derricks Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (C–
DAC)
In July 2002, OSHA announced plans
to use negotiated rulemaking under the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA), 5
U.S.C. 561 et seq., to revise the cranes
and derricks standard. The Agency
made this decision in light of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

stakeholder interest in updating subpart
N, the constructive discussions and
work of the ACCSH workgroup,
ACCSH’s recommendation, a positive
assessment of the criteria listed in the
NRA (5 U.S.C. 563(a)) for the use of
negotiated rulemaking, and the
Department of Labor’s policy on
negotiated rulemaking (see ‘‘Notice of
Policy on Use of Negotiated Rulemaking
Procedures by Agencies of the
Department of Labor,’’ 57 FR 61925, Dec.
29, 1992). The Agency published a
Notice of Intent to Establish a Cranes
and Derricks Negotiated Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (‘‘C–DAC’’ or ‘‘the
Committee’’)) (see 67 FR 46612, Jul. 16,
2002).
Negotiated rulemaking is a process by
which a proposed rule is developed by
a committee comprised of members who
represent the interests that will be
significantly affected by the rule.
Section 562 of the NRA defines
‘‘interest’’ as follows:
‘‘[I]nterest’’ means, with respect to an issue
or matter, multiple parties which have a
similar point of view or which are likely to
be affected in a similar manner.

By including different viewpoints in the
negotiation process, the members of a
negotiated rulemaking committee learn
the reasons for different positions on the
issues as well as the practical effect of
various approaches. Each member of the
committee participates in resolving the
interests and concerns of other
members. Negotiation allows interested
parties, including members who
represent the interests of employers
subject to the prospective rule and the
employees who will benefit from the
safer workplaces the rule will produce,
to become involved at an earlier stage of
the rulemaking process. As a result, the
rule that OSHA proposes would receive
close scrutiny by affected parties at the
pre-proposal stage.
The goal of the negotiated rulemaking
process is to develop a proposed rule
that represents a consensus of all the
interests. The NRA defines consensus as
unanimous concurrence among the
interests represented on a negotiated
rulemaking committee unless the
committee itself unanimously agrees to
use a different definition of consensus.
As discussed below, C–DAC agreed by
unanimous vote to a different definition:
A consensus would be reached on an
issue when not more than two nonFederal members dissented on that
issue.
In the July 2002 Federal Register
notice announcing negotiated
rulemaking on cranes and derricks
mentioned earlier, the Agency listed key
issues that it expected the negotiations

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47907

to address, and the interests that OSHA
tentatively identified as being
significantly affected by the rulemaking.
The key interests were:
—Crane and derrick manufacturers,
suppliers, and distributors.
—Companies that repair and maintain
cranes and derricks.
—Crane and derrick leasing companies.
—Owners of cranes and derricks.
—Construction companies that use
cranes and derricks.
—General contractors.
—Labor organizations representing
construction employees who operate
cranes and derricks.
—Labor organizations representing
construction employees who work in
conjunction with cranes and derricks.
—Owners of electric power distribution
lines.
—Civil, structural and architectural
engineering firms and engineering
consultants involved with the use of
cranes and derricks in construction.
—Training organizations.
—Crane and derrick operator testing
organizations.
—Insurance and safety organizations,
and public interest groups.
—Trade associations.
—Government entities involved with
construction safety and with
construction operations involving
cranes and derricks.
In the Federal Register notice, OSHA
asked for public comment on whether
interests other than those listed would
be significantly affected by a new rule.
It also solicited requests for membership
on the Committee. OSHA also urged
interested parties form coalitions to
support individuals identified for
nomination to the Committee.
The Agency noted that the need to
limit the Committee’s membership to a
number that could conduct effective
negotiations may result in some
interests not being represented on the
Committee. OSHA further noted that
interested persons had means other than
Committee membership available to
participate in the Committee’s
deliberations, including attending
meetings and addressing the Committee,
providing written comments to the
Committee, and participating in
Committee workgroups (see 67 FR
46612, 46615, Jul. 16, 2002).
In response to its request for public
input, the Agency received broad
support for using negotiated
rulemaking, as well as 55 nominations
for committee membership. To keep
membership to a reasonable size, OSHA
tentatively listed 20 potential committee
members, and asked for public comment
on the proposed list (see 68 FR 9036,

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47908

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Feb. 27, 2003). In response to the
comments, OSHA added three members
to the committee—individuals from the
mobile crane manufacturing industry,
the Specialized Carriers & Rigging

Association, and the outdoor advertising
industry (see 68 FR 39879, Jul. 3, 2003).
The members of the Committee, the
organizations and interests they
represent, and a summary of their

qualifications at the time the Committee
was formed are in Table 1 below:

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

TABLE 1—THE QUALIFICATIONS OF C–DAC MEMBERS
Stephen Brown, International Union of Operating Engineers (labor)
Title: Director of Construction Training, International Union of Operating Engineers.
Organizations/interests represented: Organized construction employees who operate cranes and derricks, and work with such equipment.
Experience: Worked in numerous positions in the construction industry over 28 years, including Equipment Operator, Mechanic, and Training Director.
Michael Brunet, Manitowoc Cranes, Inc. (manufacturers and suppliers)
Title: Director of Product Support for Manitowoc Cranes.
Organizations/interests represented: Crane manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors.
Experience: Extensive engineering experience in crane engineering; participated in development of SAE and ISO standards for cranes.
Stephen P. Chairman, Viacom Outdoor, Inc. (employer users)
Title: Vice President (New York) of Viacom Outdoor Group.
Organizations/interests represented: Billboard construction.
Experience: Over 43 years’ experience with the construction industry, including specialized rigging.
Joseph Collins, Zachry Construction Corporation (employer users)
Title: Crane Fleet Manager.
Organizations/interests represented: Highway and railroad construction.
Experience: Over 30 years’ experience with the construction industry in a variety of positions including crane operator, mechanic, and rigger.
Noah Connell, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (government)
Title: Director, Office of Construction Standards and Guidance.
Organization/interests represented: Government.
Experience: 22 years’ experience with government safety and health programs.
Peter Juhren, Morrow Equipment Company, L.L.C. (manufacturers and suppliers)
Title: National Service Manager.
Organization/interests represented: Tower crane distributors and manufacturers.
Experience: 22 years’ experience with Morrow Equipment Company, L.L.C.
Bernie McGrew, Link-Belt Construction Equipment Corp. (manufacturers and suppliers)
Title: Manager for Crane Testing, Product Safety, Metal Labs and Technical Computing.
Organization/interests represented: Mobile crane manufacturers.
Experience: Extensive engineering experience in crane engineering.
Larry Means, Wire Rope Technical Board (manufacturers and suppliers)
Title: Rope Engineer.
Organization/interests represented: Wire rope manufacturing industry.
Experience: 36 years’ wire rope engineering experience.
Frank Migliaccio, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers (labor organization)
Title: Executive Director for Safety and Health.
Organization/interests represented: Organized construction employees who operate cranes and derricks, and work with such equipment.
Experience: 31 years’ experience in the ironworking industry, including 10 years as Director of Safety and Health Training for the Ironworker’s National Fund.
Brian Murphy, Sundt Corporation (employer users)
Title: Vice President and Safety Director.
Organization/interests represented: General contractors; crane owners and users.
Experience: Over 35 years’ experience in the construction industry, most of them with Sundt Corp.
George R. ‘‘Chip’’ Pocock, C.P. Buckner Steel Erection (employer users)
Title: Safety and Risk Manager.
Organization/interests represented: Steel erection crane users and employers.
Experience: Over 22 years’ experience in the construction and steel erection industry.
David Ritchie, St. Paul Companies (trainer and operator testing)
Title: Crane and Rigging Specialist.
Organization/interests represented: Employee training and evaluation.
Experience: Over 31 years’ experience in the construction industry.
Emmett Russell, International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) (labor)
Title: Director of Safety and Health.
Organization/interests represented: Organized construction employees who operate cranes and derricks, and work with such equipment.
Experience: Over 32 years’ experience in the crane and construction industry, including 10 years in the field as well as over 20 years with
IUOE.
Dale Shoemaker, Carpenters International Training Center (labor)
Organization/interests represented: Labor organizations representing construction employees who operate cranes and derricks and who
work with cranes and derricks.
Experience: Became a crane operator in 1973; served as a rigging trainer for labor organizations since 1986.
William Smith, Maxim Crane Works (lessors/maintenance)
Title: Corporate Safety/Labor Relations Manager.
Organization/interests represented: Crane and derrick repair and maintenance companies.
Experience: 24 years’ experience in the crane, rigging, and construction industry, both public and private sectors.
Craig Steele, Schuck & Sons Construction Company, Inc. (employer users)
Title: President and CEO.
Organization/interests represented: Employers and users engaged in residential construction.
Experience: 30 years’ experience in the construction industry with Schuck & Sons Construction Company, Inc.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

47909

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

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Darlaine Taylor, Century Steel Erectors, Inc. (employer users)
Title: Vice President.
Organization/interests represented: Steel erection and leased crane users.
Experience: 19 years’ with Century Steel Erectors, over 12 years’ in the construction safety field.
Wallace Vega III, Entergy Corp. (power line owners)
Organization/interests represented: Power line owners.
Experience: 35 years’ experience in the power line industry.
William J. ‘‘Doc’’ Weaver, National Electrical Contractors Association (employer users)
Organization/interests represented: Electrical contractors engaged in power line construction.
Experience: Over 53 years’ electrical construction experience, 37 of which spent in management positions.
Robert Weiss, Cranes, Inc. and A.J. McNulty & Company, Inc. (employer users)
Title: Vice President and Project Manager for Safety.
Organization/interests represented: Employers and users engaged in precast concrete erection.
Experience: 20 years’ experience in the precast and steel erection industry.
Doug Williams, C.P. Buckner Steel Erection (employer users)
Title: President.
Organization/interests represented: Buckner Heavy Lift Cranes.
Experience: 32 years’ experience in the construction industry.
Stephen Wiltshire, Sports and Public Assembly Group, Turner Construction Corp. (employer users)
Title: National Safety Director.
Organization/interests represented: Employers and users of owned and leased cranes.
Experience: 28 years’ experience in construction safety.
Charles Yorio, Acordia (Wells Fargo) (insurance)
Title: Assistant Vice President.
Organization/interests represented: Insurance.
Experience: 17 years’ experience in loss prevention and regulatory compliance.

As this summary of qualifications
shows, the Committee members had
vast and varied experience in cranes
and derricks in construction, which
gave them a wealth of knowledge in the
causes of accidents and other safety
issues involving such equipment. The
members used this knowledge to
identify issues that required particular
attention and to devise regulatory
language that would address the causes
of such accidents. Their extensive
practical experience in the construction
industry and the other industries
represented on the Committee helped
them to develop revisions to the current
subpart N requirements.
C–DAC was chaired by a facilitator,
Susan L. Podziba of Susan Podziba &
Associates, a firm engaged in public
policy mediation and consensus
building. Ms. Podziba’s role was to
facilitate the negotiations by: (1)
Chairing the Committee’s meetings in an
impartial manner; (2) Assisting the
members of the committee in
conducting discussions and
negotiations; and (3) Ensuring minutes
of the meetings were taken, and relevant
records retained; (4) Performing other
responsibilities such as drafting meeting
summaries to be reviewed and approved
by C–DAC members.
C–DAC first met from July 30 to
August 1, 2003. Before addressing
substantive issues, the Committee
developed ground rules (formally
approved on September 26, 2003) that
would guide its deliberations. (OSHA–
S030–2006–0663–0373.) In addition to
procedural matters, the ground rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

addressed the Committee’s decisionmaking process. C–DAC agreed that it
would make every effort to reach
unanimous agreement on all issues.
However, if the facilitator determined
that unanimous consent could not be
achieved, the Committee would
consider consensus to be reached when
not more than two non-Federal
members (i.e., members other than the
OSHA member) dissented; no consensus
could be achieved if OSHA dissented.
This consensus process reflects the
non-Federal members’ view that Agency
support of the Committee’s work was
essential. The non-Federal members
believed that, if OSHA dissented, the
Committee’s work product likely would
not be included in the final rule.
Therefore, the Committee members
would make every effort to resolve the
Agency’s concerns using the negotiation
process.
Under the ground rules, if C–DAC
reached final consensus on some or all
issues, OSHA would use the consensusbased language in its proposed standard,
and C–DAC members would refrain
from providing formal written negative
comment on those issues in response to
the proposed rule.
The ground rules provided that OSHA
could only depart from the consensusbased language by (1) reopening the
negotiated rulemaking process, or (2)
providing the C–DAC members with a
detailed statement of the reasons for
revising the consensus-based language,
and do so in a manner that would allow
the C–DAC members to express their
concerns to OSHA before it published

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the proposed rule. The Committee
members also could provide negative or
positive comments in response to these
revisions during the public-comment
phase of the rulemaking. (OSHA–S030–
2006–0663–0373.)
A tentative list of issues for the
Committee to address was published
along with the final list of Committee
members (68 FR at 39877, Jul. 3, 2003).
At its initial meeting, the Committee
reviewed and revised the issue list,
adding several issues. (OSHA–S030–
2006–0663–0372.) The Committee met
11 times between July 30, 2003 and July
9, 2004. As the meetings progressed, the
Committee reached consensus
agreement on various issues and, at the
final meeting, reached consensus
agreement on all outstanding issues.
The Committee’s work product,
which was the Committee’s
recommended regulatory text for the
proposed rule, is referred to in this
notice as the ‘‘C–DAC Document.’’
(OSHA–S030–2006–0663–0639.) On
October 12, 2006, ACCSH adopted a
resolution supporting the C–DAC
Document and recommending that
OSHA use it as the basis for a proposed
standard. (OSHA–ACCSH2006–1–2006–
0198–0021.)
OSHA issued a proposed rule based
on the C–DAC Document on October 9,
2008 (73 FR 59713, Oct. 9, 2008). In
reviewing the C–DAC Document and
drafting the proposed rule, OSHA
identified several problems in the C–
DAC Document. These problems ranged
from misnumbering and other
typographical and technical errors, to

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47910

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

provisions that appeared to be
inconsistent with the Committee’s
purpose, or that were worded in a
manner that required clarification. The
proposed rule deviated from the C–DAC
Document when revisions were clearly
needed to validly represent the
Committee’s purpose or to correct
typographical and technical errors. With
respect to substantive revisions, the
Agency identified and explained these
revisions in the portions of the preamble
to the proposed rule that addressed the
affected provisions. OSHA also
prepared a draft of the proposed
regulatory language identifying each
instance in which the proposed rule
differed from the C–DAC Document. In
accordance with the ground rules, prior
to publication of the proposed rule in
the Federal Register, OSHA provided
the draft showing the revisions to the C–
DAC Document, along with its draft of
the summary and explanation of the
proposed rule, to the C–DAC members.
Additionally, the Agency identified
other instances in which the regulatory
text drafted by the Committee did not
appear to conform to the Committee’s
purpose, or instances in which a
significant issue did not appear to have
been considered by C–DAC. In these
instances, OSHA retained the regulatory
language used in the C–DAC Document,
but asked for public comment on
whether specific revisions should be
made to the proposed regulatory
language in the final rule.
The proposed rule set a deadline of
December 8, 2008, for the public to
submit comments on the proposal. At
the request of a number of stakeholders,
this deadline was subsequently
extended to January 22, 2009 (73 FR
73197, Dec. 2, 2009). On March 17,
2009, OSHA convened a public hearing
on the proposal, with Administrative
Law Judge John M. Vittone presiding.
The hearing lasted four days, closing on
March 20. In addition to Judge Vittone,
Administrative Law Judge William S.
Colwell presided during the last part of
the hearing. At the close of the hearing,
Judge Colwell established a posthearing
comment schedule. Participants were
given until May 19, 2009 to supplement
their presentations and provide data and
information in response to questions
and requests made during the hearing,
make clarifications to the testimony and
record that they believed were
appropriate, and submit new data and
information that they considered
relevant to the proceeding. Participants
also were given until June 18, 2009, to
comment on the testimony and evidence
in the record, including testimony
presented at the hearing and material

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

submitted during the first part of the
posthearing comment period.
C. Hazards Associated With Cranes and
Derricks in Construction Work
OSHA estimates that 89 crane-related
fatalities occur per year in construction
work. The causes of crane-related
fatalities were recently analyzed by
Beavers, et al. (See J.E. Beavers, J.R.
Moore, R. Rinehart, and W.R. Schriver,
‘‘Crane-Related Fatalities in the
Construction Industry,’’ 132 Journal of
Construction Engineering and
Management 901 (Sept. 2006) (ID
OSHA–2007–0066–0012 1).) The authors
searched OSHA’s Integrated
Management Information System (IMIS)
database for all fatal accidents for 1997–
2003 investigated by OSHA involving
cranes in the construction industry. By
searching the database for cases using
the key words ‘‘crane,’’ ‘‘derrick,’’ or
‘‘boom,’’ they identified 381 IMIS files
for the covered year in the Federal
program states, which include states
with about 57% of all workers
throughout the country. The authors
requested the case files from OSHA so
that they could confirm that a crane or
derrick was involved in the fatality. Of
the 335 case files that OSHA provided,
the authors identified 125 (involving
127 fatalities) as being crane or derrick
related. From these files, they
determined the percentages of fatalities
caused by various types of incidents
(see Table 2 below).

TABLE 2—THE CAUSES OF FATALITIES
DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF
HOISTING ACTIVITIES
Struck by load (other than failure of boom/cable) ................
Electrocution .............................
Crushed during assembly/disassembly ...............................
Failure of boom/cable ...............
Crane tip-over ...........................
Struck by cab/counterweight ....
Falls ..........................................

32%
27%
21%
12%
11%
3%
2%

A study by Suruda et al. examined the
causes of crane-related deaths for the
1984–1994 period. (See A. Suruda, M.
Egger, and D. Liu, ‘‘Crane-Related Deaths
in the U.S. Construction Industry, 1984–
94,’’ The Center to Protect Workers’
Rights (Oct. 1997) (ID–0013).) The
authors examined OSHA IMIS data to
identify the number of fatal accidents
1 The term ‘‘ID’’ refers to the column labeled ‘‘ID’’
under Docket No. OSHA–2007–0066 on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov.
This column lists individual records in the docket.
Hereafter, this notice will identify each of these
records only by the last four digits of the record.
Records from dockets other than OSHA–2007–0066
are identified by their full ID number.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

involving cranes, and determined their
causes. For the years in question, they
found 479 accidents involving 502
fatalities. In the worst year, 1990, 70
deaths occurred. The authors noted
some limitations in the data they
examined: Data for California, Michigan,
and Washington State were not
available for 1984–1989; the proportion
of fatal accidents investigated by OSHA
and states having OSHA-approved State
plans is unknown; and some of the
investigation reports were not
sufficiently detailed to allow the authors
to determine the cause of the accident
or the type of crane involved.
The Suruda study determined the
number and the percentage of fatalities
from various causes (see Table 3 below).

TABLE 3—THE CAUSES OF CRANE
INCIDENTS
Electrocution .............................
Crane assembly/disassembly ...
Boom buckling/collapse ............
Crane upset/overturn ................
Rigging failure ...........................
Overloading ..............................
Struck by moving load ..............
Accidents related to manlifts ....
Working within swing radius of
counterweight ........................
Two-blocking .............................
Hoist limitations ........................
Other causes ............................

198 (39%)
58 (12%)
41 (8%)
37 (7%)
36 (7%)
22 (4%)
22 (4%)
21 (4%)
17
11
7
32

(3%)
(2%)
(1%)
(6%)

This final standard addresses the
major causes of the equipment-related
fatalities identified in the Beavers and
Suruda studies. The following synopsis
identifies the sections in the final
standard that address the major causes
of equipment-related fatalities.
Electrocution hazards are addressed
by §§ 1926.1407–1926.1411, which deal
with power-line safety. These sections
contain requirements to prevent
equipment from contacting energized
power lines. The final standard
delineates systematic, reliable
procedures and methods that employers
must use to prevent a safe clearance
distance from being breached. If
maintaining the safe clearance distance
is infeasible, additional protections are
required, including grounding the
equipment, covering the line with an
insulating sleeve, and using insulating
links and nonconductive tag lines.
These procedures and methods are
supplemented by requirements for
training the operator and crew in powerline safety (see § 1926.1408(g)), and
requirements for operator qualification
and certification in § 1926.1427. C–DAC
concluded that compliance with these
training and certification requirements
will not only reduce the frequency of
power-line contact, but will give the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
workers the knowledge they need to
help avoid injury in the event such
contact occurs.
Fatalities that involve employees
being struck or crushed during
assembly/disassembly are addressed in
§§ 1926.1403–1926.1406. These sections
require employers to follow specific
safe-practice procedures, and to address
a list of specific hazards. Also, assembly
and disassembly of a crane must be
supervised by an individual who is well
qualified to ensure that these
requirements of these provisions are
properly implemented.
As the above-mentioned studies
show, and the Committee’s experience
confirms, many disassembly accidents
occur when sections of lattice booms
unexpectedly move and strike or crush
an employee who is disassembling the
boom. The final standard addresses this
hazard in § 1926.1404(f) by prohibiting
employees from being under the boom
when pins are removed unless special
precautions are taken to protect against
boom movement.
Accidents resulting from boom or
cable failure are addressed in a number
of provisions. For example, the standard
includes requirements for: proper
assembly procedures (§ 1926.1403);
boom stops to prevent booms from being
raised too far and toppling over
backwards (§ 1926.1415, Safety devices);
a boom-hoist limiting device to prevent
excessive boom travel, and an anti twoblock device, which prevents
overloading the boom from twoblocking (§ 1926.1416, Operational
aids). Also, the inspection requirements
(§ 1926.1412) detect and address
structural deficiencies in booms before
an accident occurs. Cable failure will be
avoided by compliance with sections
such as § 1926.1413, Wire rope—
inspection, and § 1926.1414, Wire
rope—selection and installation criteria.
Crane tip-over is caused by factors
such as overloading, improper use of
outriggers and insufficient ground
conditions. Section 1926.1417,
Operations, includes provisions to
prevent overloading. This section
prohibits the equipment from being
operated in excess of its rated capacity,
and includes procedures for ensuring
that the weight of the load is reliably
determined and within the equipment’s
rated capacity. Section 1926.1404(q) has
requirements for outrigger/stabilizer use
that will ensure that outriggers and
stabilizers provide stability when a load
is lifted. Section 1926.1402 contains
requirements to ensure sufficient
ground conditions, which will prevent
crane tip-over.
The provisions addressing operator
training, qualification, and certification

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

also will prevent tip-over accidents by
ensuring that the operator is sufficiently
knowledgeable and skilled to recognize
situations when the crane may be
overloaded.
Fatalities that result from workers
being struck by the cab or
counterweights will be avoided under
§ 1926.1424, Work area control. That
section requires that workers who are
near equipment with a rotating
superstructure be trained in the hazards
involved, that employers mark or
barricade the area covered by the
rotating superstructure, and that the
operator be notified whenever a worker
must enter that area, and instructed not
rotate the superstructure until the area
is clear. Protection against being struck
by a counterweight during assembly or
disassembly is provided by
§ 1926.1404(h)(9), which requires the
assembly/disassembly supervisor to
address this hazard and take steps when
necessary to protect workers against that
danger.
The final rule addresses a number of
equipment failures that can result in the
load striking a worker. Such accidents
are directly addressed by § 1926.1425,
Keeping clear of the load, and
§ 1926.1426, Free fall/controlled load
lowering. In addition, improved
requirements in §§ 1926.1419–
1926.1422 for signaling will help avoid
load struck-by accidents caused by
miscommunication.
Improper operation, including failure
to understand and compensate for the
effects of factors such as dynamic
loading, can also cause workers to be
struck by a load. Such incidents will be
reduced by compliance with
§ 1926.1427, Operator qualification and
certification and § 1926.1430, Training.
Other provisions, such as those for
safety devices and operational aids
(§§ 1926.1415 and 1926.1416), and the
requirement for periodic inspections in
§ 1926.1412, will also reduce these
accidents.
Protection against falling from
equipment is addressed by § 1926.1423,
Fall protection. That section requires
that new equipment provide safe access
to the operator work station, using
devices such as steps, handholds, and
grabrails. Some new lattice-boom
equipment must be equipped with boom
walkways. The final standard also
contains fall-protection provisions
tailored to assembly and disassembly
work, and to other work. Section
1926.1431, Hoisting personnel,
addresses fall protection when
employees are being hoisted.
OSHA has investigated numerous
crane accidents that resulted in
fatalities. Below are examples from

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47911

OSHA’s IMIS investigation reports that
describe accidents that compliance with
this final standard would prevent.
1. February 16, 2004: four fatalities,
four injuries. A launching gantry
collapsed and fatally injured four
workers and sent four other workers to
the hospital. The launching gantry was
being used to erect pre-cast concrete
segments span by span. The
manufacturer required that the rear legs
and front legs be properly anchored to
resist longitudinal and lateral forces that
act on the launching gantry. The legs of
the launching gantry were not properly
anchored. (ID–0017.)
OSHA believes that this type of
accident will be prevented by
compliance with the provisions of this
final standard for assembling
equipment. Section 1926.1403 requires
that equipment be assembled in
compliance with the manufacturer’s
procedures, or with alternative
employer procedures (see § 1926.1406)
to prevent the equipment from
collapsing. In addition, under
§ 1926.1404, assembly must be
conducted under the supervision of a
person who understands the hazards
associated with an improperly
assembled crane and is well-qualified to
understand and comply with the proper
assembly procedures.
2. January 30, 2006. One fatality. An
employee was crushed by the lower end
section of the lattice boom on a truckmounted crane while working from a
position underneath the boom to
remove the 2nd lower pin. When the
2nd lower pin was removed, the
unsecured/uncribbed boom fell on the
employee. (ID–0017.1.)
Section 1926.1404(f) will prevent this
type of accident by generally prohibiting
employees from being under the boom
when pins are removed. In situations in
which site constraints require that an
employee be under the boom when pins
are removed, the employer must
implement other procedures, such as
ensuring that the boom sections are
adequately supported, to prevent the
sections from falling on the employee.
3. July 23, 2001: One fatality.
Employee failed to extend the outriggers
before extending the boom of a servicetruck crane to lift pipes. As the
employee extended the boom, the crane
tipped over on its side, and another
employee standing near the truck was
struck on the head by the hook block.
(ID–0017.10.)
This type of accident will be
prevented by compliance with
§ 1926.1404(q), which contains several
provisions to ensure that outriggers and
stabilizers are deployed properly before
lifting a load. In addition, the operator

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47912

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

qualification and certification
requirements of § 1926.1427, which
ensure that operators understand and
follow the safety-requirements for the
equipment they are operating, will help
prevent this type of accident.
4. March 8, 1999. One fatality.
Employees were using a mobile crane to
maneuver a load of steel joists. The
crane contacted a 7,200-volt overhead
power line, electrocuting an employee
who was signaling and guiding the load.
The crane operator jumped clear and
was not injured. (ID–0017.11.)
Section 1926.1408 includes
provisions that will prevent this type of
accident. This section requires the use
of ‘‘encroachment prevention’’ measures
to prevent the crane from breaching a
safe clearance distance from the power
line. It also requires that, if tag lines are
used to guide the load, the lines must
be non-conductive. Finally, if
maintaining the normal clearance
distance is infeasible, a number of
additional measures must be
implemented, one of which is the use of
an insulating link between the end of
the load line and the load.
These measures protect employees
guiding the load in several ways,
including: reducing the chance that a
crane would contact a power line;
employees using tag lines to guide a
load from being electrocuted should the
load become energized.
5. August 21, 2003. Three fatalities. A
crane operator and two co-workers were
electrocuted when a truck crane’s
elevated boom contacted a 7,200 volt
uninsulated primary conductor 31 feet
above the ground. When the operator
stepped from the cab of the truck, a
conduction pathway to the ground was
established through the operator’s right
hand and right foot, resulting in
electrocution. A co-worker attempted to
revive the incapacitated crane operator
with cardio-pulmonary resuscitation
(‘‘CPR’’), while a third co-worker
contacted 911, and then returned to the
incident location. When the third coworker simultaneously touched the
energized truck crane and the back of
the co-worker performing CPR, the
resulting pathway conducted the
electrical charge through the workers,
electrocuting them all. (ID–0017.12.)
The final standard will avoid this type
of accident. Section 1926.1408 ensures
that a minimum safe distance from the
power line is maintained, which
prevents equipment from becoming
energized. Also, when working closer
than the normal minimum clearance
distance, the crane must be grounded,
which reduces the chance of an
electrical pathway through the workers.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

In addition, § 1926.1408(g) requires
that the operator be trained to remain
inside the cab unless an imminent
danger of fire or explosion is present.
The operator also must be trained in the
hazards associated with simultaneously
touching the equipment and the ground,
as well as the safest means of evacuating
the equipment. The crane’s remaining
crew must be trained to avoid
approaching or touching the equipment.
The required training is reinforced by
the electrocution warnings that must be
posted in the cab and on the outside of
the equipment.
6. September 28, 1999: One fatality. A
19-year old electrical instrument helper
was at a construction site that was on a
manufacturing company’s property. A
contractor positioned a 50-ton hydraulic
crane in an open area that consisted of
compacted fill material. This area was
the only location that the crane could be
situated because the receiving area for
the equipment was too close to the
property border.
The crane’s outriggers were set, but
matting was placed only under one of
the outrigger pads. As the crane was
moving large sections of piping to a new
location, the ground collapsed and the
crane overturned, striking the helper.
(ID–0017.13.)
Section 1926.1402, Ground
conditions, will prevent this type of
accident. Under that section, employers
must ensure that the surface on which
a crane is operating is sufficiently level
and firm to support the crane in
accordance with the manufacturer’s
specifications. In addition, § 1926.1402
imposes specific duties on both the
entity responsible for the project (the
controlling entity) and the entity
operating the crane to ensure that the
crane is adequately supported. It places
responsibility for ensuring that the
ground conditions are adequate on the
controlling entity, while also making the
employer operating the crane
responsible notifying the controlling
entity of any deficiency in the ground
conditions, and having the deficiency
corrected before operating the crane.
7. June 17, 2006: One fatality. A spud
pipe, used to anchor a barge, was being
raised by a crane mounted on the barge
when the hoisting cable broke, causing
the headache ball and rigging to on an
employee. (ID–0017.3.)
This type of accident can have various
causes: an improperly selected wire
rope (one that has insufficient capacity);
a damaged or worn wire rope in need
of replacement; or two-blocking, in
which the headache ball is forced
against the upper block, causing the
wire rope to fail. The provisions of
§§ 1926.1413 and 1926.1414 address

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

wire rope inspection, selection, and
installation, and will ensure that
appropriate wire rope is installed,
inspected and removed from service
when continued use is unsafe. Section
1926.1416, Operational aids, contains
provisions to protect against twoblocking.
8. July 13, 1999: Three fatalities.
Three employees were in a personnel
basket 280 feet above the ground. They
were in the process of guiding a large
roof section, being lifted by another
crane, into place. Winds gusting to 27
miles per hour overloaded the crane
holding the roof section; that crane
collapsed, striking the crane that was
supporting the personnel basket,
causing the boom to fall. All three
employees received fatal crushing
injuries. (ID–0018.)
This type of accident will be
prevented by § 1926.1417(n), which
requires the competent person in charge
of the operation adjust the equipment
and/or operations to address the effect
of wind and other adverse weather
conditions on the equipment’s stability
and rated capacity. In addition,
§ 1926.1431, Hoisting personnel,
requires that, when wind speed
(sustained or gust) exceeds 20 mph,
employers must not hoist employees by
crane unless a qualified person
determines it is safe to do so.
9. November 7, 2005: One fatality. A
construction worker was crushed
between the outrigger and the rotating
superstructure of a truck crane. The
worker apparently was trying to retrieve
a level and a set of blueprints located
horizontal member of one of the
outriggers when the operator began to
swing the boom. (ID–0017.5.)
Section 1926.1424, Work area control,
will prevent this type of accident. This
section generally requires that
employers erect barriers to mark the
area covered by the rotating
superstructure to warn workers of the
danger zone. However, workers who
must work near equipment with a
rotating superstructure must be trained
in the hazards involved. If a worker
must enter a marked area, the crane
operator must be notified of the entry,
and must not rotate the superstructure
until the area is clear.
10. March 19, 2005: Two fatalities and
one injury. During steel-erection
operations, a crane was lifting three
steel beams to a parking garage. The
crane tipped over and the boom
collapsed. The boom and attached
beams struck concrete workers next to
the structure, killing two workers and
injuring one worker. The accident
apparently occurred because the crane
was overloaded. (ID–0017.6.)

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Overloading a crane can cause it to tip
over, causing the load or crane structure
to strike and fatally injure workers in
the vicinity of the crane. Section
1926.1417, Operations, includes
provisions to prevent overloading. This
section prohibits employers from
operating equipment in excess of its
rated capacity, and includes procedures
for ensuring that the weight of the load
is reliably determined and within the
equipment’s rated capacity.
The provisions of the final standard
addressing operator training,
certification, and qualification
(§ 1926.1427) will also prevent this type
of accident by ensuring that operators
recognize conditions that would
overload the crane.
11. December 7, 2005. One fatality.
Two cranes were used to lower a
concrete beam across a river. During the
lowering process, one end of the beam
dropped below the other end, causing
the load’s weight to shift to the lower
end; this shift in weight overloaded the
crane lifting the lower end, and it tipped
over. The lower end of the beam fell
into the river, while the higher end
landed on a support mat located on the
bank of the river, causing a flagger to be
thrown into the beam. (ID–0017.7.)
Section 1926.1432, Multiple crane/
derrick lifts—supplemental
requirements, will prevent this type of
accident. This section specifies that,
when more than one crane is supporting
a load, the operation must be performed
in accordance with a plan developed by
a qualified person. The plan must
ensure that the requirements of this
final standard are met, and must be
reviewed by all individuals involved in
the lifting operation. Moreover, the lift
must be supervised by an individual
who qualifies as both a competent
person and a qualified person as defined
by this final standard. For example, in
the accident just described, the plan
must include a determination of the
degree of level needed to prevent either
crane from being overloaded. In
addition, the plan must ensure proper
coordination of the lifting operation by
establishing a system of
communications and a means of
monitoring the operation.

12. May 7, 2004: One fatality. An
employee, a rigger/operator-in-training,
was in the upper cab of a 60-ton
hydraulic boom-truck crane to set up
and position the crane boom prior to a
lift. The crane was equipped with two
hoists—a main line and auxiliary. The
main hoist line had a multi-sheave
block and hook and the auxiliary line
had a 285 pound ball and hook. When
the employee extended the hydraulic
boom, a two-block condition occurred
with the auxiliary line ball striking the
auxiliary sheave head and knocking the
sheave and ball from the boom. The
employee was struck in the head by the
falling ball. (ID–0017.8.)
This type of accident will be
prevented by § 1926.1416, Operational
aids, which requires protection against
two-blocking. A hydraulic boom crane,
if manufactured after February 28, 1992,
must be equipped with a device that
automatically prevents two-blocking.
Also, the final rule, under
§ 1926.1427(a) and (f), prohibits an
operator-in-training from operating a
crane without being monitored by a
trainer, and without first having
sufficient training to enable the
operator-in-training to perform the
assigned task safely.
13. April 26, 2006: One fatality. A
framing crew was installing sheathing
for a roof. A crane was hoisting a bundle
of plywood sheathing to a location on
the roof. As the crane positioned the
bundle of sheathing above its landing
location, the load hoist on the crane free
spooled, causing an uncontrolled
descent of the load. An employee was
under the load preparing to position the
load to its landing spot when the load
fell and crushed him. (ID–0017.9.)
Section 1926.1426, Free fall and
controlled load lowering, will prevent
this type of accident. This section
prohibits free fall of the load-line hoist,
and requires controlled lowering of the
load when an employee is directly
under the load.
As discussed later in the section
titled, Executive Summary of the Final
Economic Analysis; Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, OSHA finds that
construction workers suffer 89 fatal
injuries per year from the types of
equipment covered by this final
standard. Of that number, OSHA

47913

estimates that 21 fatalities would be
avoided by compliance with the final
standard. In addition, OSHA estimates
that the final standard would prevent
175 non-fatal injuries each year. Based
on its review of all the available
evidence, OSHA finds that construction
workers have a significant risk of death
and injury resulting from equipment
operations, and that the risk would be
substantially reduced by compliance
with this final standard.
The OSH Act requires OSHA to make
certain findings with respect to
standards. One of these findings,
specified by Section 3(8) of the OSH
Act, requires an OSHA standard to
address a significant risk and to reduce
this risk substantially. (See UAW v.
OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (DC Cir. 1994)
(‘‘LOTO’’).) As discussed in Section II of
this preamble, OSHA finds that crane
and derrick operations in construction
constitute a significant risk and
estimates that the final standard will
prevent 22 fatalities and 175 injuries
annually. Section 6(b) of the OSH Act
requires OSHA to determine if its
standards are technologically and
economically feasible. As discussed in
Section V of this preamble, OSHA finds
that this final standard is economically
and technologically feasible.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C 601, as amended) requires that
OSHA determine whether a standard
will have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small firms.
As discussed in Section V, OSHA
examined the small firms affected by
this standard and certifies that the final
standard will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
firms.
Executive Order 12866 requires that
OSHA estimate the benefits, costs, and
net benefits of its standards. The table
below summarizes OSHA’s findings
with respect to the estimated costs,
benefits, and net benefits of this
standard. As is clear, the annual benefits
are significantly in excess of the annual
costs. However, it should be noted that
under the OSH Act, OSHA does not use
the magnitude of net benefits as
decision-making criterion in
determining what standards to
promulgate.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

ANNUAL BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS, 2010 DOLLARS
Annualized Costs*:
Crane Assembly/Disassembly ..............................................................................................................................................
Power Line Safety .................................................................................................................................................................
Crane Inspections .................................................................................................................................................................
Ground Conditions ................................................................................................................................................................
Operator Qualification and Certification ................................................................................................................................

$16.3 million.
68.2 million.
16.5 million.
2.3 million.
50.7 million.

Total Annualized Costs ..................................................................................................................................................

154.1 million.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47914

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
ANNUAL BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS, 2010 DOLLARS—Continued

Annual Benefits:
Number of Injuries Prevented ...............................................................................................................................................
Number of Fatalities Prevented ............................................................................................................................................
Property Damage from Tipovers Prevented .........................................................................................................................
Total Monetized Benefits ...............................................................................................................................................
Annual Net Benefits (Benefits minus Costs) ...............................................................................................................................

175.
22.
7 million.
$209.3 million.
$55.2 million.

Source: OSHA Office of Regulatory Analysis.
*Costs with 7% discount rate. Total costs with 3% discount rate: $150.4 million annually.

During the SBREFA process, several
Small Entity Representatives expressed
concern that the C–DAC Document was
so long and complex that small
businesses would have difficulty
understanding it and complying with it.
The SBREFA Panel recommended that
OSHA solicit public comment on how
the rule could be simplified and made
easier to understand. In the proposal,
OSHA requested public comment on
this issue. The Agency did not receive
any comments objecting to the length or
clarity of the overall rule, or any
comment on how to simplify the final
rule. Some commenters recommended
that specific provisions be clarified, and
these comments are addressed later in
this preamble.
III. The SBREFA Process
Before proceeding with a proposed
rule based on the C–DAC Document,
OSHA was required to comply with the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. (SBREFA). This process required
OSHA to draft an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis that would evaluate
the potential impact of the rule on small
entities (defined as small businesses,
small governmental units, and small
nonprofit organizations) and identify
the type of small entities that may be
affected by the rule. In accordance with
SBREFA, OSHA then convened a Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel
(‘‘Panel’’) composed of representatives of
OSHA, the Office of Management and
Budget, and the Office of Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
Individuals who were representative of
affected small entities (i.e., Small Entity
Representatives, or ‘‘SERs’’) were
identified for the purpose of obtaining
advice and recommendations regarding
the potential impacts of the proposed
rule.
OSHA provided the SERs with the C–
DAC Document and the draft Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, and requested that
they submit written comments on these
documents. The Agency also drafted
questions asking for their views on the
specific aspects of the C–DAC

Document that OSHA believed may be
of concern to small entities.
The Panel conducted two conference
calls with the SERs in which the SERs
presented their views on various issues.
After reviewing the SERs’ oral and
written comments, on October 17, 2006,
the Panel submitted its report
summarizing the requirements of the C–
DAC proposal and the comments
received from the SERs, and presenting
its findings and recommendations.
(OSHA–S030A–2006–0664–0019.) In its
findings and recommendations, the
Panel identified issues that it believed
OSHA should address in the proposal
(1) through further analysis, and (2) by
soliciting public comment. In the
proposed rule, OSHA addressed each of
the Panel’s findings and
recommendations in the section
pertaining to the issue involved, and
also solicited public comment on the
issues raised by the Panel. The
following table lists the
recommendations made by the Panel,
and OSHA’s responses to these
recommendations.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES
SBREFA Panel Recommendation

OSHA Response

The Panel recommends that OSHA provide full documentation for how
it estimated the number of affected small entities and all other calculations and estimates provided in the PIRFA.

OSHA has developed a full preliminary economic analysis (PEA) for
the proposal which explains all assumptions used in estimating the
costs and benefits of the proposed standard. The Final Economic
Analysis (FEA) also explains the changes made to the analysis as a
result of comments on the proposed rule, and OSHA’s responses to
these comments.
OSHA included homebuilding industries in the ‘‘Own but Do Not Rent’’
and ‘‘Crane Lessees’’ industrial profile categories.
OSHA has also made a number of additions to the industrial profile to
cover firms in general industry that sometimes use cranes for construction work, and has added costs for these sectors.
OSHA sought comments on the estimates and methodology. As a result of these comments, OSHA has increased its estimate of the unit
costs of certification.
OSHA sought public comment on all aspects (including economic impacts, wages, number of operators, demand, etc.) of the operator
certification requirements, specifically as it pertains to the State of
California.
OSHA has included 2 hours of travel time per operator into the unit
costs for operator certification.
OSHA also increased the unit costs of operator certification as a result
of comments. However, based on comments, OSHA also reduced
the OSHA percentage of crane operators still needing certification.

The Panel recommends that OSHA reexamine its estimate of crane
use in home building, the coverage of crane trucks used for loading
and unloading, and the estimates of the number of jobs per crane.
Changes in these estimates should be incorporated into the estimates of costs and economic impacts.
The Panel recommends that OSHA review its estimates for the direct
costs of operator certification and seek comment on these cost estimates.
The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully examine certain types of
impact that could result from an operator certification requirement, including reports of substantial increases in the wages of operators;
the possibility of increased market power for firms renting out cranes;
and loss of jobs for existing operators due to language, literacy, or
knowledge problems; and seek comment on these types of impacts.
The Panel also recommends studying the impacts of the implementation of operator certification in CA.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

47915

TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
SBREFA Panel Recommendation

OSHA Response

The Panel recommends that OSHA reexamine its estimates for the
amount of time required to assess ground conditions, the number of
persons involved in the assessment, and the amount of coordination
involved; clarify the extent to which such assessments are currently
being conducted and what OSHA estimates as new costs for this
rule represent; and seek comments on OSHA’s cost estimates.
The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully review the documentation
requirements of the standard, including documentation that employers may consider it prudent to maintain; estimate the costs of such
requirements; seek ways of minimizing these costs consistent with
the goals of the OSH Act; and solicit comment on these costs and
ways of minimizing these costs.
The Panel recommends that OSHA examine whether the inspection requirements of the proposed rule require procedures not normally
conducted currently, such as lowering and fully extending the boom
before the crane can be used, and removing non-hinged inspection
plates during the shift inspection, estimate the costs of any such requirements, and seek comment on these issues.

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider the costs of meeting the
requirements for original load charts and full manuals, and solicit
comments on such costs.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

The Panel recommends that OSHA provide full documentation for its
analysis of the benefits the proposed rule are expected to produce
and assure that the benefits analysis is reproducible by others.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on whether the scope language should be clarified to explicitly
state whether forklifts that are modified to perform tasks similar to
equipment (cranes and derricks) modified in that manner would be
covered.
The Panel recommends that there be a full explanation in the preamble
of how responsibility for ensuring adequate ground conditions is
shared between the controlling entity, and the employer of the individual supervising assembly/disassembly and/or the operator.

The Panel recommends that OSHA restate the applicable corrective
action provisions (which are set forth in the shift inspection) in the
monthly inspection section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

The Agency reviewed data on wage rates for operators in California
immediately before and after operator certification was required (Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, State of California, 2007). The data did not show much change
in operators’ wages.
OSHA also evaluated the changes in crane related fatality rates in
California and found these had significantly declined after the California certification requirements were put into place.
OSHA sought comment on the methodology used to calculate all of the
costs in the PEA, which includes the costs for assessing ground conditions.
As a result of these comments, OSHA has added costs for examination of ground conditions. This addition of costs does not change
OSHA’s conclusion that this standard is economically feasible.
The Agency describes the documentation requirements, along with
cost estimates, in the section of this preamble entitled ‘‘OMB Review
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.’’

As explained in the discussion of § 1926.1412, Inspections, OSHA’s
former standard at former § 1926.550 requires inspections each time
the equipment is used, as well as thorough annual inspections. In
addition, national consensus standards that are incorporated by reference include additional inspection requirements. This final standard
would list the inspection requirements in one place rather than rely
on incorporated consensus standards. This final standard does not
impose significant new requirements for inspections. OSHA received
comments on the issue of lowering and fully extending the boom before the crane can be used. However, OSHA concludes that the
comments were based on a general misunderstanding of the requirements. Section 1926.1413(a) explicitly says that booming down is
not required for shift (and therefore monthly) inspections.
Similarly, OSHA stated in the proposed preamble (73 FR 59770, Oct.
9, 2008) that it does not believe inspection of any of those items
would require removal of non-hinged inspection plates. In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1412, OSHA requested public comment on
this point. OSHA finalized § 1926.1412 as proposed because comments did not confirm that non-hinged plates needed to be removed
to meet the requirements of a shift inspection.
Previous subpart N, at former § 1926.550(a)(2), required load charts;
this is not a new cost. Subpart N did not require manuals. OSHA
concludes that most crane owners and operators have and maintain
crane manuals, which contain the load charts and other critical technical information about crane operations and maintenance. The
Agency determined that the cost of obtaining a copy of a manual
should be modest and solicited comment on how many owners or
operators do not have full manuals for their cranes or derricks. Few
commenters saw this as a major problem.
The Agency placed additional materials in the rulemaking docket to aid
in the reproduction of the benefits analysis. The Agency also developed a full benefits analysis (sec. 4 of the FEA) which includes the
methodology and data sources for the calculations.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1400(c)(8), OSHA requested public comment on this issue.

OSHA explained in the discussion of proposed § 1926.1402(e) how the
various employers, including the controlling entity, the employer
whose employees operate the equipment, and the employer of the
A/D director share responsibility for ensuring adequate ground conditions. OSHA did not receive any significant comments on this issue
and, therefore, considers this matter resolved.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1412(e) and requested public comment on the issue. Based
on these comments, OSHA concludes that the requirements were
clear as proposed, and repeating the provisions will create confusion. Therefore, OSHA did not restate the corrective actions in
§ 1926.1412(e).

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47916

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
SBREFA Panel Recommendation

OSHA Response

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether,
and under what circumstances, booming down should be specifically
excluded as a part of the shift inspection, and whether the removal
of non-hinged inspection plates should be required during the shift
inspection.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether
to include an exception for transportation systems in proposed
§ 1926.1412(a), which requires an inspection of equipment that has
had modifications or additions that affect its safe operation, and, if
so, what the appropriate terminology for such an exception would be.

OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1412(d) and requested public comment on the issues raised
in the recommendation.

The Panel recommends that OSHA explain in the preamble that the
shift inspection does not need to be completed prior to each shift but
may be completed during the shift.

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment about
whether it is necessary to clarify the requirement of proposed
§ 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) that the equipment be inspected for ‘‘level position.’’.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit comment on whether proposed § 1926.1412(f)(2)(xii)(D) should be changed to require that
pressure be inspected ‘‘at the end of the line,’’ as distinguished from
‘‘at each and every line,’’ and if so, what the best terminology would
be to meet this purpose. (An SER indicated that proposed
§ 1926.1412(f)(2)(xiv)(D) should be modified to ‘‘checking pressure
setting,’’ in part to avoid having to check the pressure at ‘‘each and
every line’’ as opposed to ‘‘at the end of the line.’’).
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether
proposed § 1926.1412(f)(2)(xx) should be deleted because an SER
believes that it is not always appropriate to retain originally-equipped
steps and ladders, such as in instances where they are replaced with
‘‘attaching dollies.’’.

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on the extent of documentation of monthly and annual/comprehensive inspections the rule should require.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether
the provision for monthly inspections should, like the provision for annual inspections, specify who must keep the documentation associated with monthly inspections.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider ways to account for the
possibility that there may sometimes be an extended delay in obtaining the part number for an operational aid for older equipment and
solicit public comment on the extent to which this is a problem.
The Panel recommends that the provision on fall protection (proposed
§ 1926.1423) be finalized as written and that OSHA explain in the
preamble how and why the Committee arrived at this provision.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider the potential advantages
of and solicit public comment on adding provisions to proposed
§ 1926.1427 that would allow an operator to be certified on a particular model of crane; allow tests to be administered by an accredited educational institution; and allow employers to use manuals that
have been re-written to accommodate the literacy level and English
proficiency of operators.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

OSHA solicited comments on this issue, but the Agency did not receive
any significant comments supporting an exception for transportation
systems. Based on the analysis of comments received about
§ 1926.1412(a), OSHA concludes that the inspections of modifications as required by the final rule are sufficient to ensure that safe
equipment is used. Therefore, OSHA did include the recommended
exclusion in the final rule.
In the explanation of § 1926.1412(d)(1) of the proposed rule, OSHA explained that the shift inspection may be completed during the shift.
OSHA finalized § 1926.1412(d)(1) as proposed because the comments did not demonstrate how it was safer to deviate from the rule
as proposed.
OSHA requested public comment on this issue and revised the regulatory text of § 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) to provide more clarity, in response to the comments the Agency received.
There is no requirement to check the pressure ‘‘at each and every
line.’’ The provision simply states that relief valves should be
checked for failure to reach correct pressure. If this can be done at
one point for the entire system, then that would satisfy the requirement.

Section 1926.1412(f)(2)(xx) of the final rule does not require the corrective action to which the SER refers. If an inspection under
§ 1926.1412(f) reveals a deficiency, a qualified person must determine whether that deficiency is a safety hazard requiring immediate
correction. If the inspection reveals that original equipment, such as
stairs and ladders, have been replaced with something equally safe,
there would be no safety hazard and no requirement for corrective
action.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1412(f)(7), OSHA requested public comment on this issue. OSHA finalized § 1926.1412(f)(7) as proposed because the comments did not demonstrate a need to modify
the extent of required documentation.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1412(e), OSHA requested public
comment on this issue. In response to these comments, OSHA has
explained in the final preamble that the employer who performs the
inspection must maintain documentation. If another employer wants
to rely on this inspection, but cannot ensure completion and documentation of the inspection, then that employer must conduct a
monthly inspection.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1416(d), and requested public comment on the issue. The
Agency did not receive any significant comments.
Except for a minor change to § 1926.1423(h), which was made for clarity purposes, OSHA has finalized § 1926.1423 as proposed. OSHA
explained the Committee’s rationale in the proposed preamble discussion of § 1926.1423.
OSHA addressed these recommendations in the discussion of proposed § 1926.1427, and requested public comment on the issues
raised by the Panel. Based on these comments, OSHA is not permitting certification on a particular crane model because the body of
knowledge and skills required to be qualified/certified on a particular
model of crane is not less than that needed to be qualified/certified
for that model’s type and capacity. OSHA is not allowing an institution accredited by the Department of Education (DOE) to certify
crane operators solely on the basis of DOE accreditation; such institutions would, like other operator-certification entities used to fulfill
Option (1), be accredited by a ‘‘nationally recognized’’ accrediting
body. Finally, OSHA is permitting employers to re-write manuals to
accommodate the literacy level and English proficiency of operators.

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

47917

TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
SBREFA Panel Recommendation

OSHA Response

The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify in the preamble how the
proposed rule addresses an SER’s concern that his crane operator
would not be able to pass a written qualification/certification exam
because the operator has difficulty in taking written exams.
The Panel recommends soliciting public comment on whether the
phrase
‘‘equipment
capacity
and
type’’
in
proposed
§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) needs clarification, suggestions on how to
accomplish this, and whether the categories represented in Figures 1
through 10 contained in ANSI B30.5–2000 (i.e., commercial truckmounted crane—telescoping boom; commercial truck-mounted
crane—non-telescoping boom; crawler crane; crawler crane—telescoping boom; locomotive crane; wheel-mounted crane (multiple
control station); wheel-mounted crane—telescoping boom (multiple
control station); wheel-mounted crane (single control station); wheelmounted crane—telescoping boom (single control station)) should be
used.
The Panel recommends that OSHA ask for public comment on whether
the rule needs to state more clearly that § 1926.1427(j)(1)(i) requires
more limited training for operators of smaller capacity equipment
used in less complex operations as compared with operators of higher capacity, more complex equipment used in more complex situations.

In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1427(h), OSHA proposed to allow
the oral administration of tests if two prerequisites are met. None of
the comments explained why the rule as proposed was not effective
for evaluating the knowledge of the candidate.
OSHA received public comments on this issue. In the final preamble
discussion of § 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B), OSHA explains that the Agency added a definition of ‘‘type’’ in response to public comment. The
Agency also references ANSI crane categories to illustrate the
meaning of ‘‘type’’ in this standard.

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

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and ask for public comment as to whether the supervisor responsible for oversight for an
operator in the pre-qualification period (§ 1926.1427(f)) should have
additional training beyond that required in the C–DAC document at
§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B).

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

The Panel recommends OSHA solicit comment on whether there are
qualified persons in the field with the necessary expertise to assess
how the rated capacity for land cranes and derricks used on barges
and other flotation devices needs to be modified as required by proposed § 1926.1437(n)(2).
The Panel also recommends that OSHA solicit comment on whether it
is necessary, from a safety standpoint, to apply this provision to
cranes used only for duty cycle work, and if so, why that is the case,
and how ‘‘duty cycle work’’ should be defined.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and ask for comment on
whether it would be appropriate to exempt from the rule small
sideboom cranes incapable of lifting above the height of a truck bed
and with a capacity of not more than 6,000 pounds.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on how the
proposed rule could be simplified (without creating ambiguities) and
made easier to understand. (Several SERs believed that the C–DAC
document was so long and complex that small businesses would
have difficulty understanding it and complying with it.).
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider outlining the inspection
requirements in spreadsheet form in an Appendix or developing
some other means to help employers understand what inspections
are needed and when they must be done.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1430(c), and explained that § 1926.1427(j)(1)’s requirement
for operator training in ‘‘the information necessary for safe operation
of the specific type of equipment the individual will operate’’ addressed the SERs’ concern. However, the Agency sought public
comment on this issue. OSHA finalized § 1926.1427(j)(1) as proposed because the comments failed to explain how the hazards related to the operation of smaller equipment differed from larger
equipment. OSHA then concluded that the comments also were not
persuasive as to why operators of smaller capacity equipment should
be allowed limited training.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1430(c) requested public comment on the issue. The comments failed to explain how the hazards related to smaller equipment
were any different from larger equipment. OSHA then concluded that
the comments also were not persuasive as to why operators of
smaller capacity equipment should be allowed limited training.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1430(c). and requested public comment on the issue. In the
proposed preamble, OSHA stated that, where a supervisor is not a
certified operator, ‘‘he/she must be certified on the written portion of
the test and be familiar with the proper use of the equipment’s controls; the supervisor is not required to have passed a practical operating test.’’ OSHA finalized this requirement without substantive
change in § 1926.1427(f)(3)(ii) as proposed because none of the
comments demonstrated a need to require additional training for this
qualified individual.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1437(n)(2), OSHA requested public comment on this issue. Based on these comments, OSHA has
concluded that there are qualified persons with dual expertise, and
that the requirement in § 1926.1437(n)(2) is necessary for safety
when equipment is engaged in duty cycle work.

In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1440(a), OSHA requested public
comment on this issue. These comments did not provide any specific
reason for exempting these small sideboom cranes and, therefore,
OSHA has not provided a small capacity sideboom crane exemption
from this standard.
The length and comprehensiveness of the standard is an issue for this
rulemaking. In the proposed preamble Introduction, OSHA requested
public comment on this issue; however, the Agency did not receive
any comments objecting to the length or clarity of the overall rule or
offer any suggestions as to how it could be simplified.
OSHA will consider developing such an aid as a separate guidance
document.

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47918

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
SBREFA Panel Recommendation

OSHA Response

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider whether use of the words
‘‘determine’’ and ‘‘demonstrate’’ would mandate that the employer
keep records of such determinations and if records would be required to make such demonstrations.

Some SERs requested clarification as to when documentation was required, believing that the document implicitly requires documentation
when it states that the employer must ‘‘determine’’ or ‘‘demonstrate’’
certain actions or conditions. OSHA notes that it cannot cite an employer for failing to have documentation not explicitly required by a
standard. See also the discussion under proposed § 1926.1402(e).
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1416(d), OSHA requested public
comment on this issue. As a clarification in response to the comments received, OSHA determines that the term ‘‘days’’ refers to calendar days.
OSHA proposed a scope section, § 1926.1400, and discussed in detail
the types of machinery proposed to be included and excluded under
this standard. OSHA received public comments on this proposed
scope, analyzed the comments, and provided more discussion of the
scope section in the final preamble.
OSHA obtained and evaluated a study by the Construction Safety Association of Ontario showing that Ontario’s certification requirement
led to a substantial decrease in crane-related fatalities there. OSHA
also examined both economic data of crane operator wage rates before and after the certification requirements, and fatality rates before
and after the certification requirements.
This data shows that costs disruptions were minimal, and that crane fatalities were significantly reduced as a result of the California certification standard.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1400(c), OSHA requested public
comment on this issue. Based on the analysis of the comments received, OSHA recognized an exclusion for delivery materials that
should exclude most true deliveries, while avoiding creating a loophole to the standard that would allow materials-delivery firms to engage in extensive construction activities.
The information and opinions submitted by the SERs are part of the
record for this rulemaking, and OSHA considered them along with
the other public comments on the proposed rule.

The Panel recommends soliciting public comment on whether the word
‘‘days’’ as used in §§ 1926.1416(d) and 1926.1416(e) should be clarified to mean calendar days or business days.
The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully discuss what is included
and excluded from the scope of this standard.

The Panel recommends that OSHA gather data and analyze the effects
of already existing certification requirements.

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider excluding and soliciting
comment on whether equipment used solely to deliver materials to a
construction site by placing/stacking the materials on the ground
should be explicitly excluded from the proposed standard’s scope.

The Panel recommends that OSHA should consider the information
and range of opinions that were presented by the SERs on the issue
of operator qualification/certification when analyzing the public comments on this issue.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on expanding the levels of certification so as to allow an operator to be certified on a specific brand’s model of crane.

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on expanding the levels of operator qualification/certification to
allow an operator to be certified for a specific, limited type of circumstance. Such a circumstance would be defined by a set of parameters that, taken together, would describe an operation characterized by simplicity and relatively low risk. The Agency should consider
and solicit comment on whether such parameters could be identified
in a way that would result in a clear, easily understood provision that
could be effectively enforced.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on allowing the written and practical tests described in Option
(1) to be administered by an accredited educational institution.

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on making it
clear that: (1) an employer is permitted to equip its cranes with
manuals re-written in a way that would allow an operator with a low
literacy level to understand the material (such as substituting some
text with pictures and illustrations), and (2) making it clear that, when
the cranes are equipped with such re-written manuals and materials,
the ‘‘manuals’’ and ‘‘materials’’ referred to in these literacy provisions
would be the re-written manuals.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1427, and requested public comment on the issue. Based on
these comments, OSHA is not permitting certification on a particular
crane model because the body of knowledge and skills required to
be qualified/certified on a particular model of crane is not less than
that needed to be qualified/certified for that model’s type and capacity.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1427(j)(1), and requested public comment on this issue.
Though several commenters were in favor of this option, they did not
explain how these lifts could objectively be distinguished from lifts
generally. Several other commenters indicated that the types of hazards present and the knowledge needed to address those hazards,
remained the same, regardless of the capacity of the crane involved
or the ‘‘routine’’ nature of the lift (see discussion of § 1926.1427(a)).
Based on these comments, the Agency has not promulgated such a
provision.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1427(b)(3), and requested public comment on the issue. Several comments were submitted in favor of allowing this option; however, they did not establish that Department of Education (DOE) accreditation would guarantee the same efficacy in certification as accreditation as a personnel certification entity.
The hearing testimony of Dr. Roy Swift explained the difference in the
types of accreditation and the reasons why DOE accreditation would
not adequately address operator certification issues. Therefore,
OSHA has finalized this provision as it was proposed.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1427(h)(1), OSHA requested public comment on this issue. Based on the analysis of the comments
received, OSHA concludes that these manuals may not be re-written
as recommended because it could cause information important for
safety to be omitted.

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

47919

TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
SBREFA Panel Recommendation

OSHA Response

The Panel recommends that OSHA explain in a Small Business Compliance Guide that the certification/qualification test does not need to
be administered in English but can be administered in a language
that the candidate can read; and that while the employee would also
need to have a sufficient level of literacy to read and understand the
relevant information in the equipment manual, that requirement
would be satisfied if the material is written in a language that the employee can read and understand.

OSHA will issue a Small Business Compliance Guide after the final
rule is issued, and will explain these points in the Guide.

IV. Summary and Explanation of the
Rule
Authority Citations
For all subparts affected by this
rulemaking, the authority citations have
been amended to refer to the
documentation that permits the
promulgation of this rule.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Removal of § 1926.31 and Addition of
§ 1926.6—Incorporation by Reference
Section 1926.31 of 29 CFR part 1926
provided information about locating
documents incorporated by reference
into all of the construction standards in
that part. The Agency is removing this
section and relocating the majority of its
text to new 29 CFR 1926.6 for several
reasons. First, the change in the location
of the section from § 1926.31 to § 1926.6
is for organizational purposes. New
§ 1926.6 is within 29 CFR part 1926
subpart A (‘‘General’’), which is a more
logical placement than § 1926.31, which
is within subpart C (‘‘General Safety and
Health Provisions’’), and is the same
section number (6) as the incorporation
reference section for general industry
standards: 29 CFR 1910.6. Second,
OSHA is relocating the list of all
documents incorporated by reference
into 29 CFR part 1926 from its previous
location in the ‘‘Finding Aids’’ of the
CFR to § 1926.6 because the Federal
Register is no longer publishing the list
in the hardcopy versions of the CFR.2
The Agency is restructuring the text
previously located in § 1926.31 to make
§ 1926.6 parallel 29 CFR 1910.6, which
lists the documents incorporated by
reference into the general industry
standards in 29 CFR part 1910. OSHA
is not including the text formerly in 29
CFR 1926.31(b), which could be read as
implying that OSHA intended to
incorporate into its standards, without
following the procedures specified in 1
CFR part 51, revised versions of
documents previously incorporated by
reference.
2 The list will still be available online at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr from the link to
‘‘Incorporated by Reference.’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

OSHA determined that the addition of
§ 1926.6 and the removal of § 1926.31
are not subject to the procedures for
public notice and comment specified by
sec 4 of the Administrative Procedures
Act (5 U.S.C. 553), sec. 6(b) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)), and 29 CFR part
1911. New § 1926.6, like the § 1926.31 it
replaces, is a rule of agency
organization, procedure, or practice
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(A), and the addition of
§ 1926.6 constitutes a technical
amendment that does not affect or
change any existing rights or
obligations. No member of the regulated
community is likely to object to it. In
conclusion, OSHA finds good cause that
the opportunity for public comment is
unnecessary within the meaning of 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 29 U.S.C. 655(b),
and 29 CFR 1911.5.
In addition to relocating the list of
documents from the Finding Aids list,
OSHA is adding to the list of documents
incorporated by reference those
documents that are newly incorporated
by reference in these final rules. The
Federal Register approved these
documents, which are listed as follows,
for incorporation by reference as of
November 8, 2010: ANSI B30.5–1968;
ASME B30.2–2005; ASME B–30.5–2004;
ASME B30.7–2001; ASME B30.14–2004;
AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2002; ANSI/AWS
D14.3–94; BS EN 13000:2004; BS EN
14439:2006; ISO 11660–1:2008(E); ISO
11660–2:1994(E); ISO 11660–3:2008(E);
PCSA Std. No. 2 (1968); SAE J185 (May
2003); SAE J987 (Jun. 2003); and SAE
J1063 (Nov. 1993).
Subpart L—Scaffolds
Amendments to § 1926.450
The agency is removing the reference
to former § 1926.550(g) from this section
because former § 1926.550(g) has been
redesignated and reserved by this
rulemaking. Section 1926.450(a)
explains that this section applies to all
scaffolds used in work covered by
subpart L. Prior to the promulgation of
this final rule, it referenced former
§ 1926.550(g) to explain that § 1926.450

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

did not apply to crane- or derricksuspended personnel platforms. Prior to
the promulgation of this final rule,
former § 1926.550(g)(2) regulated craneor derrick-suspended personnel
platforms. Personnel platforms
suspended by cranes or derricks are
now regulated by § 1926.1431. This
change does not affect the requirements
of § 1926.450(a), does not change any
existing rights or obligations, and no
member of the regulated community is
likely to object to it. OSHA, therefore,
finds good cause that the opportunity
for public comment is unnecessary
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), 29 U.S.C. 655(b), and 29
CFR 1911.5.
Subpart M—Fall Protection
Amendments to § 1926.500
Prior to the promulgation of this final
rule, § 1926.500(a)(2)(ii) stated that
subpart N set forth the workplaces,
conditions, operations, and
circumstances for which fall protection
must be provided for employees
working on ‘‘certain cranes and
derricks.’’ Because subpart CC now
provides comprehensive requirements
for the provision of fall protection to
workers on equipment covered by
subpart CC, the Agency amended
§ 1926.500(a)(2)(ii) by replacing the
reference to subpart N with a reference
to subpart CC and deleting the word
‘‘certain.’’
Section 1926.500(a)(3) provided that
the requirements for the installation,
construction, and proper use of fall
protection for construction workers
were set forth in § 1926.502 of subpart
M, with certain exceptions. OSHA
amended § 1926.500(a)(3) to provide an
exception for steps, handholds, ladders,
and grabrails/guardrails/railings
required by subpart CC because the
criteria for those forms of fall protection
are provided in subpart CC. This
exception, § 1926.500(a)(3)(v), also
clarifies that §§ 1926.502(a), (c)–(e), and
(i) apply unless otherwise stated in
subpart CC, and that no other
paragraphs of § 1926.502 apply to
subpart CC. The exception reduces the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47920

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

extent to which § 1926.502 applies to
work covered under subpart CC, and
clarifies that subpart CC generally sets
forth the criteria for the fall protection
systems required under subpart CC.
Section 1926.500(a)(4) stated that
§ 1926.503 sets forth the requirements
for training in the installation and use
of fall protection systems, except in
relation to steel erection activities. The
Agency added the phrase ‘‘and the use
of equipment covered by subpart CC’’ at
the end of the exception to make clear
that the fall protection training
requirements in § 1926.503 of subpart M
do not apply to fall protection systems
when used to comply with subpart CC.
Training for fall protection systems
required by subpart CC is governed by
§ 1926.1423(k).
Subpart N—Helicopters, Hoists,
Elevators, and Conveyors
The heading of subpart N has been
changed to ‘‘Helicopters, Hoists,
Elevators, and Conveyors.’’ The revision
of the heading reflects both the
equipment that is now regulated by
subpart N and the removal of sections
regulating cranes and derricks from
subpart N to subpart CC.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Amendments to § 1926.550
Cranes and derricks used in
construction had been regulated by
§ 1926.550. Subpart CC is now the
applicable standard for regulating the
use of cranes and derricks in
construction. Section 1926.550 has been
redesignated as § 1926.1501 and
reserved.
Amendments to § 1926.553
OSHA revised § 1926.553 to include a
new provision, § 1926.553(c). This
section explains that § 1926.553 does
not apply to base-mounted drum hoists
used in conjunction with derricks.
Instead, base-mounted drum hoists used
with derricks must conform to the
requirements of § 1926.1436. This
change was made in response to a
request by a commenter who wanted to
clarify that the requirements for basemounted drum hoists used with
derricks could be found in new subpart
CC. (ID–0130.1.) No information was
submitted to the record that indicates
OSHA should not make the revision to
§ 1926.553.
OSHA determined that the revision
addresses the commenter’s concerns
regarding the applicability of § 1926.553
and enhances the clarity of the final
rule. This revision ensures that basemounted drum hoists used in the design
of derricks meet the updated
requirements of ASME B30.7–2001,
which is referenced in § 1926.1436. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

older ANSI B30.7–1968, which is
referenced in § 1926.553, continues to
apply to all base-mounted drum hoists
not used in conjunction with derricks.

Subpart S—Underground Construction,
Caissons, Cofferdams, and Compressed
Air

Subpart O—Motorized Vehicles,
Mechanical Equipment, and Marine
Operations

This section regulates hoisting unique
to underground construction. Prior to
the promulgation of this final rule,
§ 1926.800(t) of this section referenced
former § 1926.550(g), which has been
redesignated § 1926.1501(g). The
Agency intended that the reference to
former § 1926.550(g) be replaced by a
reference to new subpart CC, but
inadvertently omitted that action from
the Federal Register notice for the
proposed rule. To avoid any potential
notice issues that might arise if the
Agency substituted a reference to
subpart CC in place of the prior
reference to former § 1926.550(g), the
Agency has instead elected to
redesignate § 1926.550 as § 1926.1501 in
new subpart DD, which has been
created for this purpose. The Agency
intends to revisit this issue in the near
future.
References to former § 1926.550(g)
have been replaced with references to
§ 1926.1501(g). This redesignation of
§ 1926.550 and the replacement of
references do not alter any of the
substantive requirements of
§ 1926.800(t), do not change any
existing rights or obligations, and no
member of the regulated community is
likely to object to it. OSHA, therefore,
finds good cause that the opportunity
for public comment is unnecessary
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), 29 U.S.C. 655(b), and 29
CFR 1911.5.

Amendments to § 1926.600
This section regulates motor vehicles,
mechanized equipment, and marine
operations. Prior to the promulgation of
this final rule, § 1926.600(a)(6)
referenced § 1926.550(a)(15), which has
been redesignated and reserved.
Because the Agency inadvertently did
not propose any revision of
§ 1926.600(a)(6), OSHA is preserving the
same requirements imposed by former
§ 1926.550(a)(15) pursuant to this
section by incorporating language
substantively identical to that of former
§ 1926.550(a)(15) into revised
§ 1926.600(a)(6). The revision of
§ 1926.600(a)(6) does not alter any of the
substantive requirements of that section,
does not change any existing rights or
obligations, and no member of the
regulated community is likely to object
to it. OSHA, therefore, finds good cause
that the opportunity for public comment
is unnecessary within the meaning of 5
U.S.C. 533(b)(3)(B), 29 U.S.C. 655(b),
and 29 CFR 1911.5.
Subpart R—Steel Erection
Amendments to § 1926.753 Hoisting and
Rigging
With the exception of former
§ 1926.550(g)(2), § 1926.753(a) applied
all of the provisions of former
§ 1926.550 to hoisting and rigging
during steel erection. Similarly,
§ 1926.753(c)(4) allowed cranes and
derricks to hoist workers on a personnel
platform in accordance with all of
former § 1926.550 except former
§ 1926.550(g)(2). Because former
§ 1926.550 has been redesignated and
reserved, § 1926.753 has been revised to
avoid changing the requirements of that
section. Section 1926.753(a) applies all
of subpart CC except § 1926.1431(a) to
hoisting and rigging, and
§ 1926.753(c)(4) applies all of
§ 1926.1431 except § 1926.1431(a).
These two paragraphs of § 1926.753
reference § 1926.1431(a) because the
requirement formerly found in
§ 1926.550(g)(2) is now contained in
§ 1926.1431(a) of subpart CC.

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Amendments to § 1926.800

Subpart T—Demolition
Amendments to §§ 1926.856 and
1926.858
These sections regulate the use of
cranes and in demolition work. Prior to
the promulgation of this final rule,
§§ 1926.856(c) and 1926.858(b)
referenced subpart N, part of which
(former § 1926.550) has been
redesignated as § 1926.1501. The
Agency intended for the reference to
subpart N in § 1926.856(c) to be
supplemented with a reference to new
subpart CC, and intended that the
reference to subpart N in § 1926.858(b)
be replaced by a reference to new
subpart CC, but inadvertently omitted
that action from the Federal Register
notice for the proposed rule. To avoid
any potential notice issues that might
arise if the Agency substituted a
reference to new subpart CC in place of
the prior reference to subpart N, the
Agency has instead elected to
redesignate § 1926.550 as § 1926.1501 in

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
a new subpart DD which has been
created for this purpose. The Agency
intends to revisit this issue in the near
future.
References to subpart N in
§§ 1926.856(c) and 1926.858(b) have
been supplemented or replaced with
references to § 1926.1501. This
redesignation of § 1926.550 and the
replacement of references do not alter
any of the substantive requirements of
§§ 1926.856(c) and 1926.858(b), do not
change any existing rights or
obligations, and no member of the
regulated community is likely to object
to it. OSHA, therefore, finds good cause
that the opportunity for public comment
is unnecessary within the meaning of 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 29 U.S.C. 655(b),
and 29 CFR 1911.5.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Subpart V—Power Transmission and
Distribution
Amendment to § 1926.952
The subpart V provisions have been
changed to reflect the terminology used
in the scope section of this standard and
its new subpart designation.
Accordingly, § 1926.952(c), which
referenced subpart N with respect to
derrick trucks and cranes, has been
revised to reference subpart CC. Prior to
this final rule, §§ 1926.952(c)(1)(i) and
(ii) addressed minimum clearance
distances. Because §§ 1926.1407
through 1926.1411 address minimum
clearance distances when clearance
distances in Table V–1 would apply to
derrick trucks and cranes used in
subpart V work, §§ 1926.952(c)(1)(i) and
(ii) have been deleted.
In conformance with language in
§ 1926.1400(c)(4), the agency is adding
new § 1926.952(c)(2) into subpart V. It
states that digger derricks used for
augering holes for electrical poles,
placing and removing the poles, or
handling associated materials to be
installed or removed from the poles
must comply with 29 CFR 1910.269.
This provision ensures comparable
safety requirements exist for digger
derricks performing electrical pole
work.
What was § 1926.952(c)(2) prior to the
promulgation of this final rule has been
redesignated § 1926.952(c)(3). Former
§§ 1926.952(c)(2)(i) and (ii) listed
precautions for operating mechanical
equipment closer to energized power
lines than allowed by § 1926.950(c). The
precautions (using an insulated barrier
and grounding the equipment) that were
specified in §§ 1926.952(c)(2)(i) and (ii)
are now required under § 1926.1410(d)
when equipment used in subpart V
work is operated closer than the Table
V–1 clearances. Since these precautions

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

are now required by § 1926.1410(d),
OSHA is deleting them from subpart V.
As a result of that deletion, former
§§ 1926.952(c)(2)(iii) and (iv) are
redesignated §§ 1926.952(c)(3)(i) and
(ii).
OSHA is also adding a note after new
§ 1926.952(c)(3) to cross-reference the
safe harbor in § 1926.1400(g), which
provides that employers performing
subpart V work have the option of
complying with 29 CFR 1910.269(p) in
lieu of the requirements in §§ 1926.1407
through 1926.1411 of new subpart CC.
For additional information, see the
discussion of § 1926.1400(g) in the
preamble to this final rule.
Subpart X—Stairways and Ladders
Amendment to § 1926.1050 Scope,
Application, and Definitions Applicable
to This Subpart
This section applies the provisions of
subpart X to all stairways and ladders
used in construction. However, C–DAC
concluded that the OSHA requirements
of subpart X did not account for the
characteristics of the equipment that
would be regulated by subpart CC.
OSHA agreed with the committee and,
accordingly, is amending § 1926.1050(a)
to explain that subpart X does not apply
to integral components of equipment
covered by subpart CC. It further
explains that only subpart CC
establishes the circumstances when
ladders and stairways must be provided
on equipment covered by subpart CC.
This revision is also discussed in the
preamble section for § 1926.1423(c).
Appendix A to Part 1926 Designations
for General Industry Standards
Incorporated Into Body of Construction
Standards
OSHA modified Appendix A to part
1926. Before the promulgation of this
final rule, Appendix A referred to
former § 1926.550(a)(19), which has
been redesignated and reserved.
Therefore, the reference to this section
and the reference to the general industry
standard it incorporated,
§ 1910.184(c)(9), have been deleted.
This deletion is a technical and
conforming change, does not change any
existing rights or obligations, and no
member of the regulated community is
likely to object to it. OSHA, therefore,
finds good cause that the opportunity
for public comment is unnecessary
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), 29 U.S.C. 655(b), and 29
CFR 1911.5
29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart CC
The Agency is promulgating Subpart
CC for regulating the use of cranes and

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47921

derricks in construction. Cranes and
derricks used in construction had been
regulated by § 1926.550. Accordingly,
§ 1926.550 has been redesignated and
reserved.
Section 1926.1400 Scope
As explained in the proposed rule,
C–DAC decided to describe the scope of
the rule with both a functional
description (‘‘power-operated
equipment used in construction that can
hoist, lower, and horizontally move a
suspended load’’) together with a nonexclusive list of the types of existing
equipment that are covered.3 By
defining the scope in this way, C–DAC
tried to provide the clearest possible
notice as to the equipment that is
covered by the standard while also
including new and/or other existing
equipment that is similar to the listed
examples.
One commenter objected to this
approach, believing that the approach
does not provide the regulated
community with clear notice of the
bounds of the regulated equipment.
(ID–0286.1.) This commenter
recommended that OSHA avoid this
perceived notice problem by limiting
the scope of the standard to equipment
described in ASME B30 standards. It
recommended adding the words ‘‘and is
described in American Society of
Mechanical Engineers ASME B30
standards’’ at the end of the first
sentence of proposed paragraph (a) of
this section.
OSHA disagrees with this commenter
that paragraph (a), when read together
with the list of exclusions in paragraph
(c) of this section, does not provide clear
notice as to what equipment is covered
and what is excluded. As explained
earlier, paragraph (a) is designed to
make clear the types of existing
equipment that are covered while also
covering newly-developed equipment
that is similar to the listed examples.
The approach suggested by the
commenter would limit any coverage of
newly developed equipment to any such
equipment that might be included in an
unspecified future ASME B30 standard,
without the opportunity for OSHA to
assess that equipment to determine
whether its exemption from subpart CC
would be appropriate. OSHA concludes
that this approach may unduly limit the
scope of subpart CC. In addition, it
would contradict the intent of C–DAC
with respect to several specific types of
equipment. For example, at least three
3 The scope of the standard with respect to some
of the listed equipment is further delineated in the
section of the standard that specifically relates to
that equipment (for example, § 1926.1436, Derricks
and § 1926.1438, Overhead & Gantry Cranes).

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47922

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

types of covered equipment that meet
the functional definition in paragraph
(a), dedicated pile drivers,4 digger
derricks (see the discussion of digger
derricks below under paragraph (c)(4)),
and straddle cranes are not covered in
ASME B30 standards, while the ASME
B30 standards include equipment (e.g.,
stacker cranes) not covered under this
standard. Thus, adopting the
commenter’s suggestion would exclude
certain equipment that C–DAC intended
to include and would introduce
ambiguity over whether certain types of
equipment that C–DAC intended to
exclude are included. Where the
commenter has not made a compelling
argument as to why the standard would
be improved by adopting the ASME
standards, OSHA defers to C–DAC’s
expertise on this issue.
A commenter objected to defining the
scope of the standard in terms of types
of equipment, saying that it represented
an unexplained departure from OSHA’s
practice of describing the scope of
construction standards in terms of
conditions and practices. (ID–0203.1.)
Contrary to this commenter’s belief,
OSHA has often defined construction
standards in terms of equipment. See,
e.g., subpart L, ‘‘Scaffolds.’’ Indeed, this
rule for cranes and derricks replaces a
previous rule for cranes and derricks at
former § 1926.550, the scope of which
was also defined in terms of types of
equipment.
Several commenters asked OSHA to
clarify the meaning of ‘‘construction’’ as
it is used in paragraph (a) of this
section. (ID–0147.1; –0165.1; –0214.1;
–0235.1.) Some of these comments
asked OSHA to clarify whether the use
of lifting equipment to deliver materials
to a construction site is covered under
the standard. That issue is addressed
below and is clarified in a new
§ 1926.1400(c)(17). One commenter
noted that OSHA draws a distinction
between construction work and routine
maintenance and asked for examples of
activities that fall under ‘‘construction’’
and under ‘‘maintenance.’’ (ID–0147.1.)
OSHA notes that considerable guidance
on this distinction is already available.
Several interpretive documents that
discuss the distinction between
construction and maintenance in the
context of specific inquiries and issues
are available on OSHA’s Web site. See,
e.g., November 18, 2003, Letter of
Interpretation to Raymond V. Knobbs,
Minnotte Contracting Corporation,
available at http://www.osha.gov;
4 The proposed rule explained in detail why
C–DAC decided to include dedicated pile drivers
under this rule even though they are not
traditionally considered to be cranes or derricks
(see 73 FR 59727, Oct. 9, 2008).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

February 1, 1999, Letter of
Interpretation to Randall A. Tindell,
Williams Power Company, available at
http://www.osha.gov; August 11, 1994,
Memorandum from James W. Stanley,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, available at
http://www.osha.gov.
Two commenters objected to the
inclusion of overhead and gantry cranes
on the basis that such cranes are rarely
used in construction and that a number
of the most significant provisions of the
standard, such as those covering ground
conditions and proximity to power
lines, do not apply to overhead and
gantry cranes. (ID–0122.0; –0191.1.)
OSHA agrees that overhead and gantry
cranes that are installed in general
industry workplaces and used only
incidentally for construction work in
such facilities should be covered under
the general industry standard. This final
standard accommodates this objective
by providing, in § 1926.1438, that
overhead and gantry cranes that are
permanently installed in a facility are
covered by the general industry
standard even though used in
construction work, such as renovating
the facility in which they are installed.
However, under § 1926.1438, overhead
and gantry cranes that are not
permanently installed in a facility, such
as a launching gantry used in the
construction of a bridge, are covered by
this standard. Such cranes are intended
to be used for construction work,
present many of the same hazards as
other equipment used in construction
work, and are properly regulated under
this construction standard.
No other comments were received
objecting to the inclusion of items on
the non-exclusive list in paragraph (a).
Several commenters asked that
construction work performed in certain
industries be excluded from the
standard. The industries making such
requests include railroads (ID–0170.1;
–0176.1); shipbuilders (ID–0195.1);
electric utilities (ID–0203.1; –0215.1);
and companies that install signs in
buildings under construction
(ID–0189.1). For all of these industries,
the commenters identify what they
believe are specific problems in
applying the standard to their activities
and suggest that the most direct way of
solving those problems is to exclude
them from the standard entirely. For the
following reasons, OSHA declines to
exempt construction work performed by
employers in these industries from the
scope of this standard.
Two commenters ask that work along
railroad rights-of-way be excluded from
the standard. (ID–0170.1; –0176.1.) They
claim that a number of provisions in the
proposed rule are not suitable for

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

railroad operations, including: (1) The
operator qualification/certification
requirement because no current
certifying organization tests for the type
of cranes used by railroads; (2) the
requirements for ground conditions,
work area control, and level positioning;
and (3) the requirement for a dedicated
channel if electronic signals are used.
They also say that most such work is
maintenance rather than construction.
OSHA concludes there is merit in some
of the specific concerns raised by these
commenters and addresses those
concerns in the sections of the standard
pertaining to them. However, OSHA
sees no basis for excluding work along
railroad rights-of-way from this rule.
Some such work, such as the
replacement or renovation of
automotive bridges over railroads, is
plainly ‘‘construction work’’ that is
appropriately regulated under this
construction standard.
Several commenters raised concerns
with the effect that this rulemaking
would have on electric utilities,
including: (1) The limited exclusion for
digger derricks used in the industry; (2)
the proposed requirement that
employers performing subpart V work
show that it is infeasible to maintain the
normal clearance from energized power
lines before they can use the less
restrictive clearances in subpart V; (3)
application of the operator
qualification/certification requirement
to the industry; and (4) the duties
imposed on utility employers when
other employers operate equipment near
power lines owned or operated by the
utility employers. (ID–0201.1; –0203.1;
–0215.1.) The commenters suggest that
all of these issues can be resolved by
excluding utilities entirely from the
standard.
OSHA does not agree that this limited
group of concerns justifies completely
excluding utilities from this standard.
The use of cranes in utility construction
work has always been subject to the
construction crane standards (see
§ 1926.952(c)), and these commenters
have not advanced a persuasive
argument to discontinue this practice.
The specific issues addressed by these
commenters with respect to the
application of this rule to electric
utilities will be addressed below in
sections dealing with those issues.
A commenter that operates shipyards
in three states asks that shipyards be
excluded from the standard.
(ID–0195.1.) This commenter states that
it currently has an excellent crane safety
program that is based on general
industry and shipyard standards, and
asserts that its program would be
adversely affected by the need to

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
administer a separate program for the
‘‘small percentage of lifts’’ that would
fall under the construction standard.
The commenter notes that the proposed
standard has partially addressed its
concern by providing that overhead and
gantry cranes that are permanently
installed in a facility are subject to the
general industry standard for such
cranes rather than this proposed
construction standard. It states that
shipyards ‘‘could potentially’’ use other
types of cranes to support construction
activities at its sites.
OSHA finds that the proposed rule
appropriately addressed this issue.
Overhead and gantry cranes are one of
the most common type of crane used in
shipyards and, as the commenter notes,
§ 1926.1438 allows employers with
permanently installed overhead and
gantry cranes to continue to follow the
general industry standard. Moreover, 29
CFR 1915.2(a), provides that the
shipyard standards ‘‘apply to all ship
repairing, shipbuilding and
shipbreaking employments and related
employments.’’ Therefore, some work
that would otherwise be considered
construction work and subject to
subpart CC is in fact included in such
‘‘related employments.’’ Therefore,
subpart CC will likely affect shipyards
only to a limited extent.
While it is understandable that the
commenter may find it more convenient
to administer a single program
addressing only the general industry
and shipyard standards, it has not
substantiated its claim that the
integration of this standard into that
program or implementation of an
additional program addressing this
standard would not improve safety. The
Agency notes that the commenter’s
construction operations have
historically been subject to part 1926
subpart N.
A representative of employers who
install signs in buildings asks that sign
erection be excluded from the standard.
(ID–0189.1.) This commenter says that
sign erection is low-risk work because
most signs are relatively light (rarely
exceeding 2,000 pounds) and the
equipment used is ‘‘light duty’’
equipment with relatively simple
operating controls. For heavier signs, it
states that sign installers typically hire
crane companies that employ certified
and professional crane operators. The
commenter notes that proposed
§ 1926.1441 would exempt equipment
with a rated capacity of 2,000 pounds or
less from the standard but says this
would not provide the industry with
relief because sign installers must use
higher capacity cranes due to the reach
needed to install signs. Although it asks

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

for complete exclusion, the commenter
makes clear that its objection pertains to
the requirement for operator
qualification/certification in
§ 1926.1427. It asks for less stringent
requirements for its industry, such as
employer self-certification and a broader
range of training and certifying entities,
such as accredited educational
institutions.
OSHA declines to exempt sign
installation from the standard. Using
cranes for sign installation on
construction sites involves the same
hazards as when used for other
purposes. Examples include installation
of signs near power lines; operation of
the crane at an extended radius due to
the need for long reach, which can
heighten the risk of tip-over; the risk to
the sign installers of losing the load;
failures due to poor equipment
condition or miscommunication
between the operator and signal person.
Finally, the commenter’s objections to
the operator qualification/certification
requirements for its industry parallels
objections raised by others and will be
addressed in the discussion of
§ 1926.1427.
A commenter representing the
propane gas industry says that industry
does not use cranes in ‘‘construction
work’’ and asks OSHA to ‘‘affirm’’ this in
the final rule. (ID–0198.1.) The
commenter asserts that the industry
installs propane storage tanks ranging
from 120 to 5,000 gallons capacity using
truck-mounted cranes to lift and place
the tanks onto supports.
From this limited description of the
industry’s use of cranes, it is likely that
at least some of the industry’s work is
construction work. If the site at which
the tank is installed is a building under
construction, installation of a propane
tank would qualify as construction
work, just as the installation of an air
conditioning unit on that site would be
construction work. At the other extreme,
replacing a small tank at an existing site
with a new tank of the same capacity
would be considered general industry
work. In sum, based on the information
provided, it appears that some of the
industry’s work is construction work
and some is general industry. OSHA
therefore cannot ‘‘affirm’’ that the
propane industry is excluded from the
standard.
For the foregoing reasons, OSHA is
promulgating paragraph (a) as proposed
except for a grammatical correction to
clarify that the standard applies to only
equipment used for construction
activities. Employers who use covered
equipment for both general industry
work and construction work would not
be required to comply with subpart CC

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47923

when the equipment is used for general
industry work and not construction
work.
Paragraph (b)
Proposed paragraph (b) of this section
provided that equipment covered by
paragraph (a) remains within the scope
of the standard when used with
attachments that are either ‘‘craneattached or suspended.’’ As defined in
§ 1926.1401, an ‘‘attachment’’ is ‘‘any
device that expands the range of tasks
that can be done by the equipment.
Examples include, but are not limited
to: an auger, drill, magnet, pile-driver,
and boom-attached personnel platform.’’
C–DAC decided to include such
attachments, even though they might
not use the crane’s hoisting mechanism,
to avoid the confusion that would result
if the equipment moved in and out of
coverage of the rule as attachments are
put on and taken off. Furthermore, most
of the operational characteristics and
hazards of the equipment remain the
same while the attachment is in use. No
comments were received regarding this
paragraph, and it is being promulgated
as proposed.
Paragraph (c)
Proposed paragraph (c) of this section
listed machinery that would be
specifically excluded from the scope of
the rule. As discussed below, several of
these proposed exclusions generated
public comment.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) provided
that machinery otherwise included
under § 1926.1400(a) but ‘‘converted or
adapted for non-hoisting/lifting use’’ is
excluded. Power shovels, excavators
and concrete pumps are listed as
nonexclusive examples of such
‘‘conversions/adaptations’’ or modified
machinery.
A commenter suggested that OSHA
consider including concrete pumping
trucks because they are configured as
cranes and suspend loads over a
distance. (ID–0178.1.) C–DAC
considered this issue but decided not to
include them. While a concrete
pumping truck does pose some of the
same hazards as a crane, its load (i.e.,
the concrete being pumped) is carried in
a piping system affixed to its boom,
rather than being suspended.
Consequently, it does not fit the
functional definition in paragraph (a) of
this section. This commenter noted that,
like a crane, a concrete pumping truck
may have outriggers or be located near
a power line. However, this standard is
designed to address the hazards that are
specific to cranes and derricks rather
than to address stability and power line

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47924

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

clearance issues for all types of
construction equipment.
A commenter asked that a type of
equipment for which it holds patent
rights, the ‘‘Linemaster Robotic Arm,’’ be
excluded. (ID–0209.1.) According to the
commenter, this equipment is a
hydraulically powered, boom mounted,
rotating and telescopic robotic arm that
is used to separate live power lines from
poles. The commenter states that crews
using the robotic arm use a crane only
as a non-hoisting support machine, and
that the crane cannot be used to lift or
haul materials because its winch line is
removed. The commenter believes that
such equipment should be excluded
under paragraph (c)(1) because the crane
has been converted to a non-hoisting
use.
OSHA does not agree with this
commenter. As discussed above, under
paragraph (b) of this section, equipment
otherwise covered by the standard
remains covered when used with
attachments that are either ‘‘craneattached or suspended.’’ The description
of the robotic arm supplied by the
commenter suggests that the robotic arm
fits within paragraph (b). As explained
above, paragraph (b) is designed to
avoid having equipment move in and
out of coverage as attachments are
added and removed. Excluding a crane
when a robotic arm is attached would be
inconsistent with that objective.
Moreover, as the preamble to the
proposed rule stated, even when a crane
is being used for a non-hoisting
purpose, its hoisting capability is still
present, and most of its operational
characteristics and hazards remain the
same while the attachment is in use.
For those reasons, and those
explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule, paragraph (c)(1) is
promulgated as proposed (see 73 FR
59729, Oct. 9, 2008).
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) excluded
power shovels, excavators, wheel
loaders, backhoes, loader backhoes, and
track loaders. It provided that such
machinery is also excluded when used
with chains, slings or other rigging to
lift suspended loads. These types of
material handling machinery were
excluded even though, when used to lift
suspended loads, they present hazards
similar to those associated with
equipment covered by the proposed
rule. However, C–DAC proposed to
exclude them because it determined that
the differences between the equipment
included in the standard and the
material handling machinery that is
excluded are such that one standard
could not be readily designed to suit
both. OSHA agrees. It should be noted
that another construction standard,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

§ 1926.602 in subpart O—Motor
Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and
Marine Operations, covers the material
handling equipment that is excluded
from this standard. No comments were
received concerning paragraph (c)(2),
and it is promulgated as proposed.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) excluded
automotive wreckers and tow trucks
‘‘when used to clear wrecks and haul
vehicles’’ (see explanation at 73 FR
59729, Oct. 9, 2008). No comments were
submitted on this paragraph, and it is
promulgated as proposed for the reasons
provided in the preamble to the
proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (c)(4) would have
excluded service trucks with mobile
lifting devices that are designed
specifically for use in the power line
and electric industries when those
trucks are used either to auger holes to
set power and utility poles or to handle
associated materials that will be
installed or removed from utility poles.
A digger derrick, or radial boom derrick,
is an example of such a truck.
This machinery is currently covered
by subpart N, with the exception of
certain provisions, by virtue of
§ 1926.952(c). We note that ASME
B30.5–2004 excludes digger derricks
and ‘‘cranes manufactured specifically
for, or when used for, energized
electrical line service’’ from the scope of
that industry consensus standard.
Digger derricks are a specialized type
of equipment designed to install utility
poles. They are equipped with augers to
drill holes for the poles and with a
hydraulic boom to lift the poles and set
them in the holes. The booms can also
be used to lift objects other than poles,
and electric utilities use them both to
place objects on utility poles and for
general lifting purposes at worksites
such as utility substations. (ID–0139.1.)
Digger derricks have rated capacities as
high as 36,000 pounds. (ID–0369.1.)
When electric utilities are finished with
them, they sell them to other
construction companies. (ID–0341.)
Since its promulgation in 1972,
subpart V (‘‘Power Transmission and
Distribution’’) has excluded digger
derricks from certain requirements of
subpart N. C–DAC considered whether
to continue special treatment of digger
derricks used in subpart V work and
proposed to exclude digger derricks
used in Subpart V work from the
standard to the extent they are used to
auger holes and to handle associated
materials to be installed on or removed
from utility poles. C–DAC determined
that such an exclusion was appropriate
because of the ‘‘narrow, specialized
range of activities and circumstances in

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

which such trucks are used’’ (73 FR
59729, Oct. 9, 2008).
Most of the commenters on this issue
favored an exclusion for digger derricks
but asked that the proposed exclusion
be broadened to all uses of digger
derricks by electric utilities.
(ID–0129.1; –0139.1; –0144.1; –0162.1;
–0200.1; –0215.1; –0217.1; –0226.)
Several noted that the proposed
exclusion would lead to the
incongruous result in that digger
derricks would move in and out of
coverage depending on the task they are
performing. Noting that most of the
exclusions developed by C–DAC
applied to types of equipment rather
than specific tasks, a commenter stated
that C–DAC contradicts itself by
proposing a task-related exclusion
instead of an equipment-related
exclusion. (ID–0200.1.) One commenter
recommended that the proposed
exclusion be extended to the setting and
removal of poles. (ID–0209.1.) Another
opposed any exclusion for digger
derricks because digger derricks work in
proximity to power lines. (ID–0092.20.)
Some commenters suggested that any
exclusion for digger derricks should also
apply to other industries. One stated
that a similar exclusion should apply to
digger derricks used to auger holes and
set poles in the telecommunication
industry. (ID–0234.) Another contended
that it would be inconsistent to exclude
a digger derrick used to set an electric
utility pole but not a
telecommunications pole. (ID–0129.1.)
The same commenter also said that
digger derricks are used to set poles for
outdoor lighting along roadways and
indicated that the exclusion should
apply to such use. A commenter in the
railroad industry said that the exclusion
should apply to digger derricks used in
the railroad industry to install utility
and communication signal poles.
(ID–0176.1.)
Certain commenters criticized the
description of the equipment in
proposed paragraph (c)(4), which
described the equipment subject to the
exclusion as ‘‘service trucks with
mobile-lifting devices designed
specifically for use in the power line
and electric service industries, such as
digger derricks (radial boom derricks).’’
One objected to the limitation that the
equipment be ‘‘designed specifically for
use in the power line and electric
service industries’’ on the basis that
employers should not be required to
show the purpose for which their
equipment is designed. (ID–0215.1.)
Another, a witness at the public hearing,
stated that the term ‘‘service truck’’ used
in the proposal has no commonly

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
understood meaning in the industry.
(ID–0342.)
OSHA agrees with these commenters
that the description of the excluded
machinery should be clarified and is
using the term ‘‘digger derrick’’
exclusively to describe the equipment
that is subject to the exclusion. The term
‘‘digger derrick’’ is well understood in
the industry and is the only term used
to describe the equipment by the ANSI
standard applicable to such equipment,
ANSI/ASSE A10.31–2006, Safety
Requirements, Definitions, and
Specifications for Digger Derricks.
Accordingly, OSHA concludes that
using ‘‘digger derrick’’ without reference
to the purpose for which the equipment
is designed or synonyms such as
‘‘service truck’’ is the clearest way to
describe the exclusion. The Agency
notes that despite its name, a ‘‘digger
derrick’’ is not a ‘‘derrick’’ as defined in
§ 1926.1436(a). Thus, the additional
requirements applicable to derricks in
§ 1926.1436 do not apply to digger
derricks, and the exception from
operator certification requirements in
§ 1926.1427(c) for derrick operators does
not apply to operators of digger derricks
included within the scope of § 1926
subpart CC.
OSHA also agrees with the majority of
commenters who argued that the
exclusion should be broadened so that
it encompasses all digger derrick work
on electric utility poles. Digger derricks
are specifically intended to be used for
augering holes for utility poles, placing
the poles in the holes (and removing
them when necessary), and handling
materials being installed on or removed
from the poles. Excluding all of these
uses will minimize the incongruous
result of having digger derricks move in
and out of coverage while they are being
used for their intended purposes at the
same worksites. OSHA also agrees with
those commenters who argued that the
exclusion should encompass similar
work on poles carrying
telecommunication lines, since the
rationale described above is equally
applicable.
In addition, OSHA has drafted the
exclusion in the final rule so that it is
based on the type of work done with the
digger derrick, rather than the industry
classification of the employer
performing the work. For example,
digger derricks used by a railroad to
install poles for telecommunication
lines would be excluded.
When digger derricks are used in the
operation and maintenance of existing
electric power lines, they are subject to
the general industry standard at
§ 1910.269. OSHA is currently
conducting another rulemaking

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

designed to avoid inconsistencies
between subpart V of the construction
standards, which applies to power line
construction work, and § 1910.269 (see
70 FR 34821, Jun. 15, 2005). Pending the
completion of that rulemaking, digger
derricks excluded from this rule will be
subject to the same requirements
regardless of whether they are used for
work subject to subpart V or work
subject to § 1910.269. To ensure that
digger derricks excluded from this rule
(Subpart CC) are subject to appropriate
safety requirements, OSHA is including
language in § 1926.1400(c)(4), and is
amending subpart V, to explicitly state
that the activities from which digger
derricks are excluded from subpart CC
are subject to applicable provisions of
§ 1910.269. Those rules include
§ 1910.269(p) (mechanical equipment),
§ 1910.269(a)(2) (training), and
§ 1910.269(l) (work on or near exposed
energized parts).
Similarly, digger derricks used in
general industry telecommunication
work are subject to the general industry
standard at § 1910.268. Section
1910.268 includes requirements for
working near energized power lines and
requirements pertaining to the operation
of the equipment, such as the need to
comply with manufacturer load ratings.
The requirements applicable to digger
derricks under the general industry
telecommunications standard
(§ 1910.268) are comparable to those in
the general industry electric utility
standard (§ 1910.269). Accordingly, to
ensure that comparable safety
requirements apply to digger derricks
during pole work, OSHA is including
language in final § 1926.1400(c)(4)
stating that § 1910.268 applies when
digger derricks are used in construction
work for telecommunication service.
Section 1910.268 includes requirements
for working near energized power lines
and requirements pertaining to the
operation of the equipment, such as the
need to comply with manufacturer load
ratings.
In addition, § 1926.952(c)(2) is also
being amended to conform subpart V to
§ 1926.1400(c)(4).
While OSHA agrees that the limited
exclusion recommended by C–DAC
should be broadened in this manner, the
Agency does not agree that the
exclusion should encompass all uses of
digger derricks in electric utility
construction work, as some commenters
suggested. Digger derricks are
specifically designed to be used to
install and remove utility poles.
However, their lifting ability is not
limited to utility poles, and the record
shows that they are used by electric

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47925

utilities for general lifting work, such as
setting transformers in substations.
Their use with utility poles falls
within the ‘‘narrow, specialized range of
activities and circumstances’’ that led C–
DAC to develop the proposed exclusion
(see 73 FR 59729, Oct. 9, 2008). But
when digger derricks are used for
general lifting purposes, the hazards are
the same as when other equipment of
similar capacity is used for general
lifting, and the exclusion developed by
C–DAC is not appropriate for such
work. OSHA determines that an
exclusion limited to augering holes,
setting and removing poles from those
holes, and handling associated material
to be installed on or removed from the
poles will provide employees with an
appropriate level of protection while
accommodating the unique uses for
which digger derricks are designed. It
will also minimize the practical
problems associated with equipment
moving in and out of coverage at the
same worksite.
OSHA recognizes that excluding
digger derricks only when they are used
for pole work would mean that the same
machinery might be excluded for some
work but covered when it is used at
different worksites. However, the
general lifting work done at those other
worksites would be subject to this
standard if done by other types of lifting
equipment, and the same standards
should apply as apply to that
equipment. OSHA concludes that
excluding digger derricks only for the
work for which they are primarily
designed and used is a reasonable
approach. It accommodates the
considerations that led C–DAC to
propose a partial exclusion while
treating digger derricks used for other
construction work the same as other,
similar equipment used for such work.
OSHA also declines to extend the
exclusion broadly to installation of all
poles for outdoor lighting along
roadways, as one commenter suggested.
OSHA notes that some poles that carry
electric and telecommunication lines
also have street lights installed on them,
and use of digger derricks to install such
lights would qualify for the exclusion to
the extent that the employer complies
with either §§ 1910.268 or 1910.269. It
is unclear whether, and to what extent,
digger derricks are used to install other
types of poles used for lighting alone
which do not carry electric power lines
or telecommunication lines. Many such
poles are installed on aboveground
concrete bases rather than set in holes
in the ground, and it is unclear whether
and to what extent digger derricks are
used to install them. In this regard,
OSHA notes that the commenter asking

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47926

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

for the exclusion to be extended to light
poles represents equipment
manufacturers, and no company that
installs lighting poles suggested such an
exclusion. To the extent that some light
pole installation would not be covered
by either §§ 1910.268 or 1910.269,
extending the exclusion to such work
would leave the excluded work without
coverage by an appropriate general
industry standard and leave workers
without the protection they receive
when performing electric utility or
telecommunication work.
OSHA disagrees with the comment
that digger derricks should not be
excluded at all because of the danger of
power line contact. As discussed above,
the digger derrick exclusion is limited to
situations in which certain general
industry standards apply, and those
general industry standards, both
§§ 1910.268 and 1910.269, contain
requirements for protecting against
power line contact.
Proposed paragraph (c)(5) specifically
excludes machinery originally designed
as vehicle mounted aerial lifts and selfpropelled elevating work platforms. The
language of this provision reflects C–
DAC’s intent to differentiate between
equipment with an attachment such as
a personnel platform pinned to the
boom, which is within the scope of the
proposed rule, and machinery originally
designed to be configured only as an
aerial lift, which is excluded. Another
standard, § 1926.453, addresses aerial
lifts. The only comments to address this
exclusion supported retaining it.
(ID–0129.1; –0312.1.) Accordingly,
paragraph (c)(5) is promulgated as
proposed.
Proposed paragraph (c)(6) excluded
telescopic/hydraulic gantry systems. C–
DAC excluded this machinery because it
presents hazards that differ in many
respects from those presented by the
equipment covered by this standard. As
a result, many provisions of this
standard would not be workable or
needed for this equipment, and hazards
unique to this type of machinery would
not be addressed. In the proposed rule,
OSHA noted that the Specialized
Carriers & Rigging Foundation recently
issued a voluntary consensus standard
for telescopic/hydraulic gantry systems.
(73 FR 59730, Oct. 9, 2008; ID–0027.) As
no comments on this exclusion were
received, paragraph (c)(6) is
promulgated as proposed.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(7),
stacker cranes were excluded. C–DAC
noted that these cranes are rarely used
in construction, and their configuration
is too unlike other equipment covered
by the proposed standard to warrant
inclusion. No comments on this

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

exclusion were received, and paragraph
(c)(7) is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c)(8) of the proposed rule
excluded ‘‘powered industrial trucks
(forklifts).’’ C–DAC proposed to exclude
such machines because forklifts are
mostly used in a manner that does not
involve suspended loads and would
often require different responses to the
hazards presented than are provided in
this standard.
OSHA solicited public comment on
whether the scope language should be
modified to explicitly state that forklifts
modified to perform tasks similar to
cranes are covered. Two commenters
stated that the inclusion in paragraph (a)
of this section of multi-purpose
machines when configured to hoist and
lower by means of a winch or hook
would include forklifts that are
modified to perform tasks similar to a
crane. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1.) Several
other commenters argued that forklifts
should be excluded even if they are
configured to perform tasks similar to
cranes and suggested adding specific
language to that effect. (ID–0187.1;
–0231.1; –0232.1) These commenters
noted that forklifts are regulated under
a different section, § 1926.602(c), and
believed that § 1926.602(c) was better
suited to the hazards presented by such
equipment than this standard. One
commenter stated that the challenges
facing modified forklift operators are
fundamentally different from the
challenges facing crane operators, thus
the standards regulating them should
also be fundamentally different.
(ID–0231.1.)
The comments submitted on this
issue highlight the need for greater
clarity. This standard applies to
equipment that can hoist, lower and
horizontally move a suspended load.
First, as a preliminary matter, the
standard does not apply to forklifts used
exclusively in their most traditional
form: placing the forks underneath a
load and using the forks to lift or lower
the load. With a ‘‘suspended’’ load, the
forks (or modified lifting device) would
be above the load.
Second, OSHA has included
paragraph (c)(8) to exclude forklifts
when used to suspend a load from its
forks. OSHA recognized that a forklift
could technically meet the criteria of
subpart CC coverage whenever it is used
to suspend a load from its forks (such
as by hanging the load from a chain
wrapped around the forks), hoist it
vertically by raising or lowering the
forks, and move the load horizontally by
moving the entire forklift. Under such a
scenario the forks are used as the
primary support for a load suspended
directly from the forks, but OSHA

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

concludes that these forklifts warrant an
exception from the scope of this subpart
CC because they do not utilize the
components in the same manner as
other equipment covered by this
standard. In contrast, a piece of
equipment covered by this standard
manipulates suspended loads by
utilizing components such as winches,
booms, jibs, gantries, and trolleys.
Outriggers and stabilizers are also often
needed to stabilize the equipment while
hoisting a load.
Third, OSHA is revising paragraph
(c)(8) to clarify that the forklift
exclusion applies only to forklifts that
do not meet the definition of multipurpose machines covered under
subpart CC (those that are configured to
hoist and lower (by means of a winch
or hook) and horizontally move a
suspended load). This standard covers
multi-purpose machines because they
are configured with the abovementioned components (winches,
booms, jibs, gantries, trolleys,
stabilizers, etc.), even though they also
have a dual function. OSHA recognizes
that a powered industrial truck could be
modified so that it would qualify as a
multi-purpose machine, such as by
adding an after-market boom and hook
attachment in addition to the fork
attachment. It is the Agency’s intent that
forklifts that are capable of multiple
configurations are treated as multipurpose machines and excluded from
coverage of subpart CC only as set forth
in § 1926.1400(a). A forklift with a boom
attachment affixed to its forks that uses
a hook to raise and lower the load like
a crane would be covered by subpart
CC. However, as noted in the preamble
to the proposed rule, a forklift would be
excluded from the coverage of subpart
CC when its sole means of suspending
a load is a chain wrapped around the
forks.
Proposed paragraph (c)(9) excluded
mechanics’ trucks with hoisting devices
when used in activities related to
equipment maintenance and repair. One
commenter stated that similar trucks are
used in the power line industry for tasks
such as installing transformers and
suggested that such equipment should
also be excluded. (ID–0144.1.) However,
as explained in the proposed rule, this
provision was not intended to exclude
mechanics’ trucks when used to hoist
materials during construction work but
only to provide a limited exception
when they are used for equipment
maintenance and repair activities. Their
use in this manner is similar to the way
automotive wreckers and tow trucks,
which are excluded under paragraph
(c)(3) of this section, are used. OSHA
determines that this exclusion should be

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
limited in the manner stated in the
proposed rule, and paragraph (c)(9) is
promulgated as proposed.
In proposed paragraph (c)(10),
machinery that hoists by using a comea-long or chainfall was excluded for the
reasons explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule (see 73 FR 59730, Oct. 9,
2008). No comments were received on
this provision, and it is promulgated as
proposed.
Proposed paragraph (c)(11) excluded
dedicated drilling rigs. This exclusion
received substantial attention during the
C–DAC negotiations and was discussed
at length in the proposed rule (see 73 FR
59730, Oct. 9, 2008). OSHA requested
public comment on issues related to this
exclusion. No written comments were
submitted but, in testimony at the
public hearing, a trade association
supported the proposed exclusion. (ID–
0341.) Accordingly, paragraph (c)(11) is
promulgated as proposed.
Proposed paragraph (c)(12) excluded
‘‘gin poles when used for the erection of
communication towers.’’ (See discussion
at 73 FR 59730, Oct. 9, 2008). A
commenter stated that this exclusion
should be extended to also cover gin
poles used to erect electrical
transmission towers and lines, but gave
no supporting rationale or information.
(ID–0209.1.)
The use of gin poles for erecting
communications towers is highly
specialized; the communication tower
industry has developed a detailed
consensus standard that specifically
addresses their use in that application.5
However, the Agency is unaware of a
similar degree of specialization and
development of safe practices for gin
poles used for erecting electrical
transmission towers. Accordingly,
OSHA lacks a basis for extending the
exclusion to work other than that
covered in proposed paragraph (c)(12);
paragraph (c)(12) is promulgated as
proposed with the addition of the word
‘‘when’’ before ‘‘used’’ to clarify that the
exclusion does not apply when gin
poles previously used to erect
communication towers are used for
other purposes.
Proposed paragraph (c)(13) excluded
tree trimming and tree removal work
from the scope of the proposed rule.
One commenter favored the exclusion
as written (ID–0040.1), but another
suggested limiting the exclusion to tree
trimming performed for maintenance
and including tree trimming related to
5 See ANSI/TIA–1019 (2004), Structural
Standards for Steel Gin Poles Used for Installation
of Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting
Structures, which contains detailed provisions for
installing and using gin poles to erect
communication towers.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

construction (ID–0172.1). The latter
commenter stated that tree trimming
related to construction is particularly
dangerous because the weight of the
pick is uncertain and the ground
conditions to support the equipment
may be inadequate.
C–DAC agreed to exclude tree
trimming and removal because the vast
majority of the tree care industry’s work
does not take place in construction and
is therefore governed by general
industry standards. OSHA continues to
agree that this is a valid reason for the
exclusion. OSHA is promulgating
paragraph (c)(13) as proposed.
Proposed paragraph (c)(14) excluded
anchor handling with a vessel or barge
using an affixed A-frame. Two
commenters suggested that the vessels
to which this paragraph pertains should
be excluded even when used for
purposes other than anchor handling to
avoid having the vessels move in and
out of coverage depending on how they
are used. (ID–0376.1; –0383.1.) These
commenters stated that such vessels are
sometimes used for dredging operations
and suggested rewording the exclusion
to state: ‘‘Anchor handling or dredge
related operations with a vessel or barge
using an affixed A-frame.’’
OSHA is adopting these commenters’
suggestion and their recommended
wording of paragraph (c)(14). As
explained in the proposed rule, C–DAC
agreed to the exclusion in proposed
paragraph (c)(14) because its Cranes on
Barges Work Group concluded that the
requirements of this rule could not
readily be applied to the specialized
equipment listed in the exclusion. That
rationale favors the broader exclusion
recommended by the commenters.
Proposed paragraph (c)(15) excluded
roustabouts because C–DAC concluded
that the proposed standard was
similarly unsuited to address these
devices (see 73 FR 59731, Oct. 9, 2008).
No commenters addressed this issue,
and paragraph (c)(15) is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (c)(16) excludes helicopter
cranes. Such cranes are regulated under
§ 1926.551 of subpart N, which is not
affected by this final rule and continues
in effect. C–DAC and OSHA did not
intend to cover helicopter cranes under
this subpart. However, such cranes fit
the description in § 1926.1400(a) of the
equipment covered by this rule in that
they are power-operated equipment that
can hoist, lower, and horizontally move
a suspended load. To avoid any
uncertainty over whether they are
subject to this rule or to § 1926.551,
OSHA is explicitly excluding them from
this rule through paragraph (c)(16).

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47927

Paragraph (c)(17) Delivery of Material to
Construction Sites
It is common for material that is to be
used in construction work to be
delivered to the construction site on a
truck equipped with a lifting attachment
that is used either to place the materials
on the ground or to place them on the
structure. For example, articulating/
knuckle-boom truck cranes are often
used to deliver bundles of drywall to the
site and then move the bundles from the
truck up to a floor of the building under
construction. To the extent these cranes
are used in ‘‘construction work,’’ they
fall within the scope of this final rule as
defined in § 1926.1400(a).
OSHA has long taken the view that an
employer who delivers materials to a
construction site is not engaged in
‘‘construction work’’ if that employer’s
work once at the site is limited to
simply placing/stacking the materials on
the ground. OSHA requested comment
from the public on whether the final
rule should include an explicit
exclusion to this effect (see 73 FR
59731, Oct. 9, 2008).
Most commenters on this issue
favored such an exclusion to clarify that
such equipment was not being used in
construction. (ID–0145.1; –0147.1;
–0165.1; –0184.1; –0206.1; –0218.1;
–0232.1; –0233.1; –0235.1; –0299.1.)
Certain commenters expressed the view
that any such exclusion should also
extend to delivery of materials onto
structures at the construction site
because, in their view, this was also not
a construction activity. (E.g., ID –0184.1;
–0233.1; –0235.1.) Some of these
commenters represented employers who
deliver building materials such as
lumber, drywall, and roofing materials.
(See, e.g., ID–0184.1; –0233.1.) Others
represented employers in the heating,
ventilation, air conditioning, and
refrigeration (HVACR) industry. (ID–
0165.1; –0235.1.) Several of the
commenters pointed to the operator
training and/or certification
requirements in § 1926.1427 of the
proposed rule as particularly
burdensome given the distinctions
between delivery activities and what
they characterized as the more complex
activities typically associated with the
equipment covered by the proposed
rule. (ID–0165.1; –0184.1; –0218.1;
–0231.1; –0233.1; –0235.1.)
OSHA notes some commenter
confusion regarding instances when the
construction materials are not delivered
to the curb or a stockyard but instead to
a designated area on the construction
site where the materials are staged/
organized to facilitate hoisting activities.
In these scenarios, OSHA construction

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47928

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

standards apply. See, e.g., Letter to
Johnson (2/6/08) (stacking of materials),
Letter to Reynolds (1/5/01) (delivery of
materials onto structure). When hoisting
equipment is used to arrange the
materials in a particular sequence for
hoisting or to lift materials onto a
structure that is under construction, it is
being used to expedite work that is
integral to the construction process and
is, therefore, construction work.
However, to remain consistent with
existing compliance guidance, this final
rule states that when lifting equipment
is used solely to deliver building supply
materials from a supplier to a
construction site by placing/stacking the
materials on the ground, without
arranging the materials in a particular
sequence for hoisting, OSHA does not
regard the delivery process as a
construction activity. OSHA believes
that this limited and conditional
exclusion will exclude this equipment
when used to perform such deliveries
and address the concerns of commenters
who only deliver construction materials
to the ground.
Construction typically consists of a
process of assembling and attaching (or
in some cases, disassembling) a vast
variety of materials to form a building
or other structure.6 In building
construction, those materials typically
include small, individual items (a few
examples include: nails, lumber, pipes,
duct work sections, electrical items,
sheet goods), large individual items (a
few examples include: structural steel or
precast concrete columns and beams),
and prefabricated structural and
building system components (a few
examples include: roof trusses, precast
concrete wall sections, and building
machinery such as boilers, pumps, and
air handling equipment). All of these
items must be delivered to the jobsite
and unloaded from the vehicle
delivering them before they can be used
in the building or structure.
C–DAC indicated that to facilitate the
assembling or attaching of such items,
cranes and derricks are often used to
hoist and hold, support, stabilize,
maneuver, or place them. Sometimes
they are used to place items in a
convenient location for subsequent use.
For example, they are often used to
place a bundle of steel decking sheets
onto the structure for later ‘‘shaking out’’
(i.e., after being landed on the structure,
workers ‘‘break’’ the bundle and
distribute the decking sheets for
subsequent attachment). One of OSHA’s
construction standards contains specific
requirements related to the landing and
6 Construction also includes the deconstruction or
demolition of a portion, or all, of a structure.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

placing of such bundles (see
§ 1926.754(e)(1)).
Sometimes cranes and derricks are
used to place an item in a specific
location for immediate attachment. For
example, cranes are typically used to
precisely place steel columns on
concrete footings, which involves
aligning holes at the column’s base with
anchor rods/bolts in the footing so that
the column can be secured to the
footing. In building and bridge
construction, cranes are often used to
precisely place precast concrete
members so that workers can attach
them to other precast members (or
sometimes to a structural steel frame).
Cranes are also used to place precast
concrete components so that other items
can be connected to them. For example,
in utility and sewer construction,
precast concrete manholes or vaults are
placed for proper alignment with utility
pipes; in residential construction,
precast concrete septic systems are
placed for proper location in an
excavation. Clearly, such movement and
placement of material by cranes and
derricks is integral to the construction
process, and the fact that this may be
done by the vehicle that delivered the
material to the site does not make it a
non-construction activity.
Cranes are also commonly used to
hoist building materials onto a structure
for subsequent use. Although this is also
a construction activity,7 OSHA
determines that a limited exclusion for
articulating/knuckle-boom truck cranes
used for such work is appropriate to
minimize having this equipment move
in and out of coverage of this rule.
The record shows that articulating/
knuckle-boom truck cranes are often
used to deliver sheet goods (e.g.,
drywall), or packaged materials (e.g.,
roofing shingles) to construction sites
and that it is common for the delivery
to be made onto the structure.
Delivering material to a structure can
pose a hazard that is typically not
present when material is placed on the
ground: when the boom is extended, as
when lifting the material to an upper
floor, the possibility of exceeding the
crane’s rated capacity, with the resultant
possibility of boom collapse and crane
tipover, is present. A representative of a
material delivery trade association
testified that articulating/knuckle-boom
7 Moving building materials onto a structure for
subsequent use is an integral part of the
construction process. This is the case whether the
materials are brought onto the structure by hand,
with the aid of a crane after the materials had been
previously delivered to the ground, or by the same
equipment that brought them to the site. See e.g.,
January 5, 2001, Letter of Interpretation to Mr. Jeff
Reynolds, Division Safety Manager Pacific Supply,
available at http://www.osha.gov.

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

cranes are equipped with automatic
safety systems that detect whether the
crane is close to being overloaded and
automatically prevent such overloading.
(ID–0341; –0380.1; –0381.1.)
The representative described a test on
a crane with a load of 2,900 pounds and
a maximum extension of 78 feet, 11
inches, and said that the automatic
device preventing the boom from
extending beyond its maximum safe
length for that load and angle of 46 feet.
(ID–0341.) Thus, with a load that is
typical of the loads that are often
delivered, the hazard of the crane
collapsing exists with the boom at far
less than its maximum possible
extension. Another representative of the
material delivery industry, also noted
the presence of such devices on the
equipment used by its members and,
while it asked for such equipment to be
exempt completely from this rule,
alternatively suggested an exemption for
equipment with such devices installed.
(ID–0184.1.)
OSHA is, to a large extent, adopting
the commenter’s suggestion. The
overloading and subsequent collapse of
cranes is one of the primary hazards this
final rule seeks to address. The trade
association witness’s testimony shows
that the potential for collapse is present
when articulating/knuckle-boom cranes
are used to deliver materials onto a
structure. The industry has, however,
addressed this hazard by equipping
such cranes with automatic overload
prevention devices. Therefore, OSHA is
excluding articulating/knuckle-boom
cranes used to deliver materials onto a
structure from the final rule, but only
when the cranes are equipped with
properly functioning automatic overload
prevention devices. Without such a
device, the crane is subject to all
provisions of this final rule. It should be
noted that electrical contact with power
lines is another serious hazard covered
by the final rule. The limited exemption
for articulating/knuckle-boom cranes
used for certain construction operations
also exempts this equipment from the
requirements for operations near power
lines contained in the final rule. When
performing an exempt operation, this
equipment (like must of the other
exempt equipment and operations) will
be covered by revised § 1926.600(a)(6).
OSHA is limiting this exclusion to the
delivery of sheet goods and packaged
materials including, but not limited to:
sheets of sheet rock, sheets of plywood,
bags of cement, sheets or packages of
roofing shingles, and rolls of roofing
felt. The placement of other materials on
a structure under construction is the
type of core construction activity this
rule seeks to address, and excluding the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
hoisting and movement of other types of
materials, such as precast concrete
members, prefabricated building
sections, or structural steel members,
would severely reduce the rule’s
effectiveness. Moreover, equipment
used to lift these types of materials on
construction sites is rarely, if ever, used
for non-construction activities on those
sites and does not often present the
problem of equipment moving in and
out of coverage when used for different
activities.
OSHA is also limiting the exclusion
by making it clear that it does not apply
when the crane is used to hold, support
or stabilize the material to facilitate a
construction activity, such as holding
material in place while it is attached to
the structure. For example, while
placing a package of shingles onto the
roof of a structure would fall within the
exemption, suspending the shingles in
the air and moving them to follow the
progress of the roofer would not. When
the crane is being used to facilitate the
construction activity, it has exceeded
the ‘‘delivery’’ of goods and is therefore
engaged in a process that is more
complex than the scenarios addressed
by the commenters who supported an
exclusion for materials delivery. OSHA
is also concerned that exempting this
activity would provide an incentive for
employers to use materials delivery
cranes for other purposes, thereby
undermining the rationale for the
materials delivery exclusion.
In particular, OSHA declines to
exclude the handling of HVACR units,
as some commenters urged. Using a
crane to deliver HVACR equipment is
an example of using a crane to hoist and
position a component of the building’s
mechanical systems, which is an
integral part of the construction process.
According to one industry commenter,
during a typical installation of a large
commercial rooftop HVACR unit, a
mobile crane delivers the equipment to
its intended location on the roof, where
an HVACR technician connects the
equipment to the ventilation system.
(ID–0165.1) Thus, unlike sheet goods
and packaged materials, which are not
placed in their location of final use by
the delivery vehicle, delivery of HVACR
equipment may be integral to its
installation. Like the hoisting and
movement of other building
components, use of cranes and derricks
to move HVACR equipment falls
squarely within this rule.
OSHA also received a comment from
a representative of the precast concrete
industry requesting the exclusion of
equipment used to deliver materials
such as concrete manholes, septic tanks,
burial vaults, concrete block, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

concrete pipe. (ID–0299.1) This
commenter stated that their portion of
the precast concrete industry solely
delivers materials to a construction site,
and believed that they simply supply
materials for a construction project but
are not involved in actual construction.
(ID–0299.1)
OSHA agrees that in circumstances
where the equipment is used solely to
deliver these types of concrete materials
from a supplier to a construction site by
placing/stacking the materials from the
delivery vehicle to the ground in, for
example, a storage or staging area,
without arranging the materials in a
particular sequence for subsequent
hoisting, the equipment is not being
used for a construction activity.
However, if the equipment is used to
hoist, hold, support, stabilize or place
precast concrete material as part of the
installation process, it is engaged in a
construction activity and would be
subject to this rule. For example, a
truck-mounted articulating crane may
be used to maneuver a precast
component such as a vault or concrete
pipe from the truck to its installation
point in an excavation. As previously
discussed, such use is a typical
construction activity.
To summarize, when a delivery
vehicle is used solely to deliver building
supply materials from a supplier to a
construction site by placing/stacking the
materials on the ground, without
arranging the materials in a particular
sequence for hoisting, the equipment is
not being used for a construction
activity and is not subject to this rule.
When an articulating/knuckle-boom
truck crane that brings material to a site
is used to transfer building supply sheet
goods or building supply packaged
materials from the vehicle onto a
structure, the activity is a construction
activity but the crane is excluded from
this rule if it is equipped with a
properly functioning automatic overload
prevention device and satisfies the other
requirements of the exception in
§ 1926.1400(c)(17). All other equipment
that falls under § 1926.1400(a) is subject
to this rule when delivering materials
onto a structure.
OSHA is including in the final rule a
new § 1926.1400(c)(17) to clarify the
circumstances under which material
delivery is subject to the rule. Paragraph
(c)(17)(i) excludes from the scope of this
standard an articulating/knuckle-boom
truck crane that delivers material to a
construction site when it is used to
transfer materials from it to the ground,
without arranging the materials in a
particular sequence for hoisting.
Paragraph (c)(17)(ii) contains the
exclusion for an articulating/knuckle-

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47929

boom truck crane that delivers material
to a site when it is used to transfer
building supply sheet goods or building
supply packaged materials from it onto
a structure, using a fork/cradle at the
end of the boom. This provision
conditions this exclusion on the truck
crane being equipped with a properly
functioning automatic overload
prevention device and lists examples of
the sheet goods or packaged materials
that qualify for the exclusion, stating
that these include, but are not limited
to: sheets of sheet rock, sheets of
plywood, bags of cement, sheets or
packages of roofing shingles, and rolls of
roofing felt. These are typical building
supply materials that pose a reduced
risk of falling when being lifted by the
truck crane because of their
configuration and/or packaging, and
because the truck crane was designed to
safely handle this type of material.
Any delivery activities not excluded
under paragraphs (c)(17)(i) and (ii) are
subject to the standard. However, to
avoid any possible ambiguity on this
point, OSHA has included paragraph
(c)(17)(iii). Paragraphs (c)(17)(iii)(A)–(C)
list explicit activities for which the
exclusion does not apply. Paragraph
(c)(17)(iii)(D) is included to avoid any
possible implication that paragraphs
(c)(17)(iii)(A)–(C) represent an exclusive
list of delivery activities that are subject
to the final rule.
Paragraph (d)
Paragraph (d) of this section is
included because there are some types
of equipment for which only limited
requirements apply, and others where
there are special requirements that
supplement, rather than displace, the
other requirements in the rule. To avoid
confusion, this paragraph establishes
that all parts of the rule apply unless a
provision specifically identifies other
parts of the rule as inapplicable, or
identifies the only provisions of the
standard that are applicable. No
comments were received on this
paragraph, and it is promulgated as
proposed except that ‘‘subpart CC’’
replaces the phrase ‘‘this standard’’ from
the proposed rule.
Paragraph (e)
Proposed paragraph (e) of this section
provided that the duties of controlling
entities 8 are not limited to the duties
specified in §§ 1926.1402(c),
1926.1402(e) and 1926.1424(b). The
paragraphs referenced in this provision
listed specific duties imposed on
controlling entities under this rule.
8 The definition of ‘‘controlling entity’’ is
explained in the discussion of § 1926.1402(c).

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47930

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Paragraph (e) was included to avoid any
implication that the listing of certain
duties placed on controlling entities by
this rule displaces the duties placed on
them under OSHA’s multi-employer
policy.
Several commenters questioned
OSHA’s authority to enforce its multiemployer policy against controlling
entities as well as the provisions in the
proposed rule that would impose
specific duties on controlling entities.
(ID–0166.1; –0197.1; –0214.1; –0232.1.)
OSHA explained in detail in the
proposed rule why it has such authority
(see 73 FR 59731–59733, Oct. 9, 2008).
Paragraph (e) is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (f)
Paragraph (f) requires that where a
provision in the rule directs an operator,
crewmember or other employee to take
a specified action, it is the employer’s
responsibility to establish work rules to
require the relevant employees to take
that action, and to effectively
communicate and enforce those work
rules. This paragraph clarifies the
employer’s obligations with regard to
such provisions. No comments on this
paragraph were received, and it is being
promulgated as proposed with only a
minor grammatical correction.9
Paragraph (g)
Some commenters requested that
OSHA provide a complete exemption
from subpart CC for subpart V work. As
discussed in § 1926.1410(k), OSHA has
addressed their concerns through
exclusions from specific requirements of
the rule.
Most employers engaged in
construction work under subpart V are
also engaged in general industry work
under § 1910.269, which covers the
operation and maintenance of electric
power generation, transmission, and
distribution installations. The
requirements for mechanical equipment
in § 1910.269(p) are at least as protective
as the requirements in §§ 1926.1407–
1926.1411 of subpart CC. Therefore,
OSHA determines it is appropriate to
give employers doing subpart V work

the option of complying with
§ 1910.269(p) in lieu of the requirements
in §§ 1926.1407–1926.1411 of this final
rule. This decision has been codified in
paragraph (g) of this section and a note
referencing this new paragraph has been
added to § 1926.952(c)(3).
Paragraph (h)
Paragraph (h) notes that § 1926.1402,
Ground conditions, does not apply to
cranes used on railroad tracks that are
part of a general railroad system that is
regulated by the Federal Railroad
Administration. OSHA added paragraph
(h) to this section of the final rule to aid
the public in finding this exception.
(See discussion of this provision at
§ 1926.1402(f).)
Section 1926.1401

Definitions

OSHA includes a number of
definitions to clarify the meaning of
terms used in this subpart. Many of the
defined terms are commonly used in the
industry, and C–DAC in most instances
relied on standard industry sources or
its own understanding of how terms are
used in the industry to help ensure that
the definitions would be readily
understood by employers and
employees. Industry sources on which
C–DAC relied include existing OSHA
standards, consensus standards, and ‘‘A
Glossary of Common Crane and Rigging
Terms’’ (Specialized Carriers and
Rigging Foundation 1997) (‘‘SC&RF
Handbook’’) (ID–0019.). OSHA includes
other definitions to ensure that certain
terms used in the proposed standard
have a precise, unambiguous meaning.
One commenter noted that definitions
as proposed were not identical to those
in certain consensus standards and
requested they be changed to match.
(ID–0178.1.) The commenter cited to
various consensus standards, including
ANSI A10.31–2006, ANSI A10.28–1998,
ANSI A10.33–1998, and ANSI Z359.0–
2007. The commenter did not explain
why the definitions as proposed were
inappropriate nor how the change
would improve safety. As noted above,
consensus standards were utilized as a
resource in developing the definitions

for this subpart. OSHA disagrees with
the commenter’s position that the
definition must match consensus
standards. OSHA established definitions
that would work in the framework of the
equipment covered by this subpart,
would coordinate with other OSHA
standards and provide a foundation for
enforcing the requirements of this
subpart. As a result, OSHA is not
making modifications to definitions
based on this commenter’s request.
A few definitions in this final rule
have been modified from or added to
those in the proposed rule. Those
definitions are: A/D director; Assembly/
Disassembly; Builder; Controlling
entity; Digger derrick; Duty cycle;
Freeboard; Hoist; Load moment (or rated
capacity) indicator; Load moment (or
rated capacity) limiter; Nationally
recognized accrediting agency;
Positioning device system; Range
control limit device; Repetitive lift;
Tower crane; Type; Upperworks; and
Wire rope.
The reasons for these additions or
modifications are discussed in the
preamble at the location indicated in
Table 5 below, with the exception of the
definition for hoist, which is discussed
below.
OSHA received one comment on the
definition of ‘‘hoist’’ in the proposed
rule. (ID–0122.0.) This commenter
expressed concern that the proposed
definition would exclude hoists that
utilized wire rope or chains. To address
this concern, OSHA modified the
definition of ‘‘hoist’’ in the final rule to
refer to ‘‘a line’’ rather than ‘‘rope.’’ The
use of the more general term ‘‘line’’ is
intended to refer to any material (e.g.,
rope, wire rope, chain, etc.) used to
connect the hoist to that which is being
hoisted.
Definitions that did not receive
comment are adopted for the reasons set
forth in the preamble of the proposed
rule (see 73 FR 59733–59739, Oct. 9,
2008).
The preamble location for discussion
of all definitions provided in
§ 1926.1401 can be found in Table 5
below.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

TABLE 5—INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS
Term

Location of preamble
discussion

Term

A/D director ..............................................
Articulating crane ......................................

§ 1926.1404(a) ...................
§ 1926.1401 ........................

Assembly/Disassembly .............................
Assist crane ..............................................

§ 1926.1403 ........................
§ 1926.1404(h)(4) ...............

Load ........................................................
Load moment (or rated capacity) indicator.
Load moment (or rated capacity) limiter
Locomotive crane ...................................

9 For clarity, OSHA is substituting references to
‘‘shall’’ in the proposed rule with ‘‘must’’ in this final

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Location of preamble
discussion

rule to remove any implication that the sentence is
descriptive, rather than imperative.

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1416(e)(4)
§ 1926.1416(e)(4)
§ 1926.1401

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

47931

TABLE 5—INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS—Continued
Term

Location of preamble
discussion

Term

Attachments ..............................................
Audible signal ...........................................
Blocking ....................................................
Boatswain’s chair .....................................
Bogie ........................................................
Boom (equipment other than tower
crane).
Boom (tower cranes) ................................

§ 1926.1400(b)(2) ...............
§ 1926.1419(b) ...................
§ 1926.1404(h)(2) ...............
§ 1926.1431(o) ...................
§ 1926.1435 ........................
§ 1926.1401 ........................

Luffing jib limiting device ........................
Marine hoisted personnel transfer device
Marine worksite .......................................
Mobile cranes .........................................
Moving point-to-point ..............................
Multi-purpose machine ...........................

§ 1926.1416(d)(2)
§ 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii)
§ 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1423(e)(1)
§ 1926.1400(a)

§ 1926.1435(e)(5)(ii) ...........

§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(i)

Boom angle indicator ...............................
Boom hoist limiting device .......................
Boom length indicator ..............................
Boom stop ................................................
Boom suspension systems ......................
Builder ......................................................
Center of gravity .......................................
Certified welder ........................................
Climbing ....................................................
Come-a-long .............................................
Competent person ....................................
Controlled load lowering ...........................
Controlling entity .......................................
Counterweight ..........................................
Crane/derrick ............................................
Crawler crane ...........................................
Crossover points ......................................
Dedicated channel ....................................
Dedicated pile-driver ................................
Dedicated spotter (power lines) ...............
Digger derrick ...........................................
Directly under the load .............................
Dismantling ...............................................
Drum rotation indicator .............................
Duty cycle .................................................
Electrical contact ......................................
Employer-made equipment ......................
Encroachment ..........................................
Equipment ................................................
Equipment criteria ....................................
Fall protection equipment .........................
Fall restraint system .................................
Fall zone ...................................................
Flange points ............................................
Floating cranes/derricks ...........................
For example .............................................
Free fall (of the load line) .........................
Free surface effect ...................................
Freeboard .................................................
Hoist .........................................................
Hoisting .....................................................
Include/including .......................................
Insulating link/device ................................
Jib stop .....................................................
Land crane/derrick ....................................
List ............................................................

§ 1926.1416(d)(1)(i)(A) .......
§ 1926.1416(d)(1) ...............
§ 1926.1416(e)(3) ...............
§ 1926.1416(a)(2) ...............
§ 1926.1404(h)(7) ...............
§ 1926.1436(c) ....................
§ 1926.1404(h)(6) ...............
§ 1926.1431(e)(5) ...............
§ 1926.1435(b)(7) ...............
§ 1926.1400(c)(10) .............
§ 1926.1401 ........................
§ 1926.1426(d) ...................
§ 1926.1402(c) ....................
§ 1926.1404(h)(9) ...............
§ 1926.1400 ........................
§ 1926.1401 ........................
§ 1926.1413(a)(3)(iii) ..........
§ 1926.1420(b) ...................
§ 1926.1439(a) ...................
§ 1926.1407(b) ...................
§ 1926.1400(c)(4) ...............
§ 1926.1425(e)(1) ...............
§ 1926.1405 ........................
§ 1926.1416(e)(5)(ii) ...........
§ 1926.1414(e)(2) ...............
§ 1926.1407–1411 ..............
§ 1926.1437(m)(4) ..............
§ 1926.1407–1411 ..............
§ 1926.1400 ........................
§ 1926.1412(b)(1)(i) ............
§ 1926.1423(e) ...................
§ 1926.1423(d)–(e), (g) ......
§ 1926.1425(b) ...................
§ 1926.1413(a)(3)(iii) ..........
§ 1926.1437 ........................
§ 1926.1401 ........................
§ 1926.1426(d) ...................
§ 1926.1437(m)(5)(ii) ..........
§ 1926.1437(m)(2) ..............
§ 1926.1401 ........................
§ 1926.1401 ........................
§ 1926.1401 ........................
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(v) ...........
§ 1926.1415(a)(3) ...............
§ 1926.1437 ........................
§ 1926.1437(e)(1) ...............

Nationally recognized accrediting agency.
Non-conductive .......................................
Operational aids ......................................
Operational controls ................................
Operator ..................................................
Overhead and gantry cranes ..................
Paragraph ...............................................
Pendants .................................................
Personal fall arrest system .....................
Portal cranes ...........................................
Positioning device system ......................
Power lines .............................................
Procedures ..............................................
Proximity alarm .......................................
Qualified evaluator (not a third party) .....
Qualified evaluator (third party) ..............
Qualified person ......................................
Qualified rigger .......................................
Range control limit device ......................
Range control warning device ................
Rated capacity ........................................
Rated capacity indicator .........................
Rated capacity limiter .............................
Repetitive lift ...........................................
Repetitive pickup points ..........................
Running wire rope ..................................
Runway ...................................................
Section ....................................................
Side-boom crane ....................................
Special hazard warnings ........................
Stability (flotation device) ........................
Standard Method ....................................
Such as ...................................................
Superstructure ........................................
Tag line ...................................................
Tender .....................................................
Tilt-up or tilt down operation ...................
Tower crane ............................................
Travel bogie (tower cranes) ....................
Trim .........................................................
Two blocking ...........................................
Type ........................................................
Unavailable procedures ..........................
Up to .......................................................
Upperstructure ........................................
Upperworks .............................................
Wire rope ................................................

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Section 1926.1402

Ground Conditions

The Committee determined that the
failure to have adequate ground
conditions is a significant crane safety
problem. Adequate ground conditions
are essential for safe equipment
operations because the equipment’s
capacity and stability depend on such
conditions being present. In the
Committee’s view, there are two key
problems regarding ground conditions:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(1) Equipment is commonly brought on
site by a subcontractor, who typically
has neither control over ground
conditions nor knowledge of hidden
hazards, and (2) the entity that usually
does have such authority—the
controlling entity—may not have the
expertise to know what changes are
needed to make the ground conditions
suitable for equipment operations. This
section is designed to address these

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Location of preamble
discussion

§ 1926.1407(b)(2)
§ 1926.1416
§ 1926.1417(b)(2)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1438
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1404(h)(8)
§ 1926.1423(g)
§ 1926.1415(a)(1)
§ 1926.1423
§ 1926.1407–1411
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1407(b)(3)
§ 1926.1428(a)(2)
§ 1926.1428(a)(2)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1425(c)(3)
§ 1926.1408(a)
§ 1926.1407(a)(3)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1416(e)(4)
§ 1926.1416(e)(4)
§ 1926.1414(e)(2)
§ 1926.1413(a)(3)(iii)
§ 1926.1413(a)(2)(ii)(A)
§ 1926.1431(k)(12)(ii)(A)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1440
§ 1926.1417(c)(1)
§ 1926.1437(m)
§ 1926.1419(c)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1424(a)(1)
§ 1926.1407(b)(2)
§ 1926.1437(j)(3)
§ 1926.1425(e)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1435(d)(2)(iv)
§ 1926.1437(e)(1)
§ 1926.1416(d)(3)
§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B)
§ 1926.1417(b)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1424(a)(1)
§ 1926.1424(a)(1)
§ 1926.1413

problems so that ground conditions will
be made sufficient for safe equipment
operations.
One commenter asserted that, with
respect to digger derricks, the ground
conditions provision should be
changed. In particular, the commenter
stated that the Committee should
incorporate by reference secs. 7 through
10 of ANSI/ASSE A10.31–2006, Safety
Requirements, Definitions, and

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47932

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Specifications for Digger Derricks;
American National Standard for
Construction and Demolition
Operations. (ID–0178.1.) In addition, the
commenter asserted that the ANSI/
ASSE standard ‘‘addresses worksite
selection that is clearer than what
OSHA has proposed. For example, the
proposed rule does not recognize the
danger that ditches can have on
placement, which is a common
occurrence.’’
OSHA first notes that these
suggestions apply only to digger
derricks and thus interprets the
comment as a recommendation that
digger derricks be treated differently
than other equipment under
§ 1926.1402. As we noted in the
preamble to the proposed rule, the
Committee determined that the failure
to have adequate ground conditions is a
significant safety problem. The
Committee’s determination that this
safety problem exists for various types
of equipment is underscored by the
application of § 1926.1402 to nearly all
equipment covered by this subpart. In
addition, where the Committee intended
for certain equipment to be exempted
from § 1926.1402, it indicated that
expressly (see, e.g., § 1926.1440,
Sideboom Cranes). OSHA defers to the
expertise of the Committee on this issue.
Secondly, OSHA has reviewed ANSI/
ASSE A10.31–2006 and found that it is
substantively distinguishable from
§ 1926.1402. Specifically, the two
standards differ in the assignment of
responsibilities. ANSI/ASSE A10.31–
2006 divides responsibilities among
digger derrick dealers/installers,
owners, users, and operators. Notably,
controlling entities (who often do not
fall into any of the ANSI/ASSE A10.31–
2006 categories) are assigned no
responsibility at all. Furthermore, the
discussion of worksite conditions is
included only in sec. 10,
Responsibilities of Operators. ANSI/
ASSE A10.31–2006 places the
responsibility of examining ground
conditions entirely on the operator.
Also, ANSI/ASSE A10.31–2006 does not
require that the ground condition
requirements be met before the
equipment is installed; it requires only
that the worksite be surveyed before the
digger derrick is used. In sum, OSHA
concludes that § 1926.1402 is more
effective than ANSI/ASSE A10.31–2006
and declines to incorporate ANSI/ASSE
A10.31–2006 by reference.
The Agency disagrees with the
commenter that § 1926.1402 fails to
adequately address ditches. The hazard
posed by a ditch is that the ground is
less firm in the area adjacent to it.
Under § 1926.1402, the ground must be

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

sufficiently firm to provide ‘‘adequate
support’’ for the equipment. The section
as proposed therefore addresses this
hazard.
Paragraph (a) Definitions
Paragraph (a) provides definitions of
key terms used in this section. The term
‘‘ground conditions’’ is defined as the
ability of the ground to support the
equipment (including slope, compaction
and firmness). The Committee
determined that slope, compaction and
firmness are the key factors that are
involved in the ability of the ground to
support the equipment.
‘‘Supporting materials’’ is defined as
meaning blocking, mats, cribbing, marsh
buggies (in marshes/wetlands), or
similar supporting materials or devices.
Such materials typically help to
distribute the load of the crane over a
broad area and/or assist in leveling the
equipment. The list in the definition of
examples of such materials is
nonexclusive—it includes similar
materials and devices that would serve
the same purpose(s).
The one comment that was received
that referenced this provision is
addressed in the discussion below of
§ 1926.1402(b). (See ID–0178.1.)
Paragraph (b)
Under paragraph (b) of this section,
the equipment is prohibited from being
assembled or used 10 unless ground
conditions are firm, drained, and graded
to a sufficient extent so that, in
conjunction (if necessary) with the use
of supporting materials, the equipment
manufacturer’s specifications for
adequate support and degree of level of
the equipment are met. A crane’s
stability depends (in part) on the crane
being level, and ‘‘degree of level’’ is a
term used in the industry to describe the
manufacturer’s specification for how
level the crane must be. The Agency
determined that the text of the proposed
rule did not make it clear that the
drainage requirement did not apply to
marshes/wetlands. Accordingly, the
final rule’s text has been modified to
clearly state that this is the only
exception. All other conditions related
to have a stable surface for the
equipment is applicable.
In the Committee’s experience, crane
tip-over incidents caused by inadequate
ground conditions are a significant
cause of injuries and fatalities. For
example, on September 28, 1999, a 19
year old electrical instrument helper
was killed by a crane that overturned
10 Note that ‘‘used’’ is not limited to use of the
equipment at a fixed location; it also includes when
the equipment is traveling with a load.

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

because insufficient care was taken to
ensure that the ground under the crane
was firm and that the crane’s outriggers
were properly supported. (ID–0017.13.)
Conditions that enhance the chance of
such accidents include ground that is
wet or muddy, poorly graded, or that is
loose fill (or otherwise disturbed soil)
that has not been compacted. The
Committee determined that requiring
adequate ground conditions will
prevent many of these accidents. The
exception for marshes and wetlands is
included because the Committee was
aware that, in many instances, the
draining of marshes/wetlands is
prohibited or restricted by
environmental laws and there are
devices available (such as marsh
buggies) that are designed to provide
adequate support to cranes in such
areas.
One commenter suggested that the
term ‘‘level’’ could be confusing and
suggested that it be defined as ‘‘less than
one degree of grade change or as
required by the manufacturer.’’ (ID–
0178.1.) OSHA finds this comment
unpersuasive. The suggested language is
circular because it does not use the term
‘‘level’’ by itself; it refers to ‘‘the
equipment manufacturer’s
specifications for * * * degree of level
of the equipment.’’ The reason the
provision refers to the manufacturer’s
specification in this regard is that it is
the manufacturer that establishes the
load chart, and the load chart is valid
only for the parameters, including
degree of level, established by the
manufacturer.
At the public hearing, a representative
of the railroad industry raised an issue
that OSHA determines could be the
source of some confusion. The
commenter indicated that the railroad
industry regularly has to work in out-oflevel conditions, since some sections of
track are not level. (ID–0342.) The
commenter explained that the
manufacturers of track-mounted cranes
provide specialized load charts which
take into account these out-of-level
conditions.
The manufacturers of these cranes
apparently specify that the cranes can
be used in certain out-of-level
circumstances, as evidenced by their
provision of load charts for those
conditions. Therefore, the use of
equipment in accordance with
manufacturer specifications regarding
degree of level would meet
§ 1926.1402(b)’s requirement because
the provision permits use of the
equipment in accordance with those
specifications.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (c)
Under § 1926.1402(c), the controlling
entity has several specific duties
regarding ground conditions. OSHA’s
authority to impose these duties is
discussed in detail in the preamble to
the proposed rule (see 73 FR 59731–
59732, Oct. 9, 2008), and the Agency reasserts the same authority with respect
to the final rule. As it did with respect
to the proposed rule, the Agency is
again stating that the duties imposed on
the controlling entity through the
promulgation of this final rule are
supplemental to, and do not displace,
controlling entity duties under OSHA’s
multi-employer policy. (See
§ 1926.1402(e), discussed below; 73 FR
59731, Oct. 9, 2008).
‘‘Controlling entity’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘an employer that is a
prime contractor, general contractor,
construction manager or any other legal
entity which has the overall
responsibility for the construction of the
project—its planning, quality and
completion.’’ This definition, which
generally mirrors the definition of
‘‘controlling contractor’’ in the steel
erection standard, 29 CFR part 1926,
subpart R, reflects the core principle of
general supervisory control over the
construction site. In this final rule,
OSHA is clarifying the definition to
make it clear that the controlling entity
must be an employer.
Section 1926.1402(c)(1) requires the
controlling entity to ensure that ground
preparations necessary to meet the
requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section are provided. The Committee
determined that it is necessary to
specify who will have ground condition
responsibility because in many
instances the parties are unable to agree
on who will have (or has) that
contractual responsibility, with the
result that often no one corrects
inadequate ground conditions.
In the Committee’s view, the crane
user and operator typically do not have
the equipment or authority to make
such preparations. In contrast, the
controlling entity, due to its control of
the worksite, has the requisite authority
and is in the best position to arrange for
adequate ground conditions. The
Committee was concerned, however,
that some controlling entities may lack
the expertise to recognize when ground
conditions are inadequate. To address
this concern, the Committee developed
§ 1926.1402(e).
One commenter said that adequate
site assessment requires defining ground
bearing capacity compared to loading of
the machine, along with soil testing and
proper analysis for ground conditions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(ID–0143.1.) As explained in the
preamble of the proposed rule, C–DAC
considered, but rejected, including
specification requirements regarding the
soil conditions (see 73 FR 59739–59740,
Oct. 9, 2008). This reflected the view
that most sites and circumstances do not
require sophisticated soil testing. In
light of C–DAC’s decision not to add
new testing or soil specifications, the
many variables that may affect ground
conditions, and the existing body of law
and OSHA guidance relating to testing
duties under the Agency’s multiemployer policy, the Agency concludes
that it is appropriate to allow the
controlling entity flexibility in the
manner in which it satisfies its duties
under § 1926.1402 and the multiemployer policy.
Under § 1926.1402(c)(2), the
controlling entity is required to inform
the user of the equipment and the
equipment operator of the location of
hazards beneath the equipment set-up
area (such as voids, tanks, and utilities,
including sewer, water supply, and
drain pipes) that are identified in
documents (such as site drawings, asbuilt drawings, and soil analyses) that
are in the possession of the controlling
entity. These underground hazards can
compromise the ability of the ground
above them to support the equipment.
In the experience of members of the
Committee, because of the hidden
nature of these hazards, accidents have
occurred when cranes have been set up
above such hazards and a portion of the
ground has given way.
In developing this provision, the
Committee was mindful that the
controlling entity often possesses
documents obtained or developed
during the ordinary course of business
that identify the location of such
hazards. Under the provision as
proposed, if the controlling entity has
such a document, whether at the site or
at an off-site location, it is required to
inform the equipment user and operator
of the location of the hazard as
identified in it. If the controlling entity
does not possess the information, it is
not required to obtain it from another
source. The Committee concluded that
requiring the controlling entity to obtain
such information from other sources
would, in effect, require it to arrange for
testing. As explained above, the
Committee determined such a duty
would be unduly burdensome and
unnecessary.
Some commenters indicated that
clarification is needed regarding
whether the controlling entity is
required to possess particular
documents. (ID–0166.1; –0214.1.) OSHA
agrees that additional clarification is

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47933

needed and is making two changes in
the final text of paragraph (c)(2) of this
section. Both of these clarifications are
consistent with the rationale of the rule
that the controlling entity need only
share information that it possesses, and
that the controlling entity has no
obligation under § 1926.1402 to seek out
additional information not in its
possession.
First, OSHA is replacing the proposed
phrase ‘‘available to the controlling
entity’’ with ‘‘in the possession of the
controlling entity, whether at the site or
off-site.’’ As explained in the preamble
to the proposed rule,
[i]n developing this proposed provision, the
Committee was mindful that the controlling
entity often has access to documents that
may identify the location of such hazards.
* * * Under this proposed provision, if the
controlling entity has such a document,
whether at the site or at an off-site location,
it would be required to inform the equipment
user and operator of the location of the
hazard as identified in it. If the controlling
entity does not possess such a document, it
would not be required to obtain it from
another source.

The phrase ‘‘available to’’ may be
interpreted as including documents that
the controlling entity does not already
have in its possession but has the ability
to obtain, i.e., procure, from other
entities. As is evident from the proposed
rule explanation quoted above, the
intent is to apply the duty only with
respect to information that is already in
the controlling contractor’s possession,
whether at the site or off-site.
Second, OSHA is revising the text of
paragraph (c)(2) of this section to
emphasize that the employer’s existing
responsibilities under OSHA’s multiemployer policy are not changed by this
new rule. As noted above and in the
preamble to the proposed rule, the
duties provided in § 1926.1402
supplement, and do not displace, the
controlling entity’s duties under the
multi-employer policy.11 The multiemployer policy reflects the Secretary’s
reasonable interpretation of the OSH
11 The Agency anticipates that the majority of
controlling entities will also be controlling
employers for the purposes of the multi-employer
policy. However, even to the extent that a
controlling entity does not also meet the definition
of a controlling employer, the Agency has the
authority to require the controlling entity to comply
with the requirements of § 1926.1402. (See
discussion of authority at 73 FR 59731–59732, Oct.
9, 2008.) With respect to the controlling entity’s
duty to warn the operator and other users of the
equipment about hidden ground condition hazards,
§ 1926.1402(c) constitutes OSHA’s exercise of its
authority to ‘‘prescribe the use of labels or other
appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to
insure that employees are apprised of all hazards
to which they are exposed * * * and proper
conditions and precautions of safe use or exposure.’’
29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7).

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47934

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Act and requires controlling employers
to exercise reasonable care to prevent
and detect violations on the site. See
OSHA CPL 02–00–124, Multi-Employer
Citation Policy, Dec. 10, 1999. Under
this policy, the controlling employer has
a duty to address hazards the employer
either creates or controls, regardless of
whose employees are threatened by the
hazard. See, e.g. Universal Const. Co.,
Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health
Review Comm’n, 182 F3d 726, 730 (10th
Cir. 1999). Implicit in those duties is a
duty to notify employees of hazards the
controlling employer controls and has
already detected, particularly where
such notification would prevent a
violation. As noted in the preamble to
the proposed rule, requiring employers
to include hazard information needed
by downstream employees is a
necessary and appropriate means to
ensure that the employees are apprised
of all hazards to which they are
exposed. (See 73 FR 59731, Oct. 9, 2008;
see also American Petroleum Institute v.
OSHA, 581 F.2d 493, 510 (5th Cir.
1978).) (OSHA may require upstream
employers to warn downstream
employees of concealed hazards when
the upstream employer knows of those
hazards under remedial purpose of the
OSH Act and OSHA’s broad authority to
prescribe warning labels under 29
U.S.C. 655(b)(7)).
OSHA is therefore clarifying in
paragraph (c)(2) that the controlling
entity still must share both documentary
and non-documentary information
about other hazards when the hazards
are ‘‘known to the controlling entity.’’
This requirement only applies to hazard
information already in the possession of
the controlling entity, and does not
require the controlling entity to obtain
any additional information. For
example, if the controlling entity is
setting up non-crane equipment and
discovers during the course of that work
that there is an undocumented void in
the area where the crane is to be set up,
the controlling entity would be required
to share that information with the crane
operator. Although this requirement
extends beyond the ‘‘documents’’
specified in the proposed rule, it is
consistent with the rationale provided
in the proposed rule and is supported
by those commenters who favor this
provision: C–DAC sought to distinguish
between information in the possession
of the controlling entity, and
information that must be sought out by
the controlling entity. Thus, to comply
with § 1926.1402(c)(2) of the final rule,
the controlling entity has no duty to
seek out new information not already in
its possession; it is only required to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

share information already in its
possession, whether or not such
information is contained in a document.
OSHA received several comments
about whether these responsibilities
should rest with the controlling entity
as it is defined in § 1926.1401 (prime
contractor, general contractor,
construction manager or any other legal
entity which has the overall
responsibility for the construction of the
project—its planning, quality and
completion).
One commenter sought clarification
on whether a construction manager/
general contractor or a site/project
owner is considered the controlling
entity where the latter contracts with
the former but retains responsibility for
oversight of certain matters (e.g., quality
control, safety). The commenter also
wanted to know if the site/project owner
is still responsible for inspecting ground
conditions under § 1926.1402 if the
construction manager/general contractor
is the controlling entity. (ID–0107.1.) As
explained above, the ‘‘controlling entity’’
is the entity which has the overall
responsibility for the construction of the
project—its planning, quality and
completion. Where this responsibility is
split among several entities, there may
not be a controlling entity. In that case,
§ 1926.1402(d) applies: whichever
employer has authority to make or
arrange for ground preparations is
required to ensure that the necessary
ground preparations are made. If more
than one entity each possesses this
authority, then OSHA holds each of
those entities separately liable for the
duty to ensure that the necessary ground
preparations are made.
Some commenters suggested that the
provision is unclear as to which
hazards, i.e., known or unknown, the
controlling entity is required to disclose.
(ID–0166.1; –0214.1.) The purpose of
this requirement is to ensure that the
user of the equipment and the operator
are informed of hazards that might not
be known to them, because they are
beneath the set-up area, but are known
to the controlling entity. In other words,
under this provision, the controlling
entity must examine information in its
possession (such as site drawings, asbuilt drawings, and soil analyses) to see
if there are hazards beneath the set-up
area. If there are hazards identified in
those documents, or if the controlling
entity has already identified other
hazards not in those documents, the
controlling entity must inform the user
and operator of the hazards. As
explained above and in the proposed
rule preamble, new § 1926.1402 does
not place any new requirements on the
controlling entity to discover hazards

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

that are not already known to it (see 73
FR 59741, Oct. 9, 2008). The Agency
concludes that the provision’s language
adequately reflects this intent.
One commenter suggested that
§ 1926.1402(c) be replaced with a
section that would simply encourage a
cooperative meeting between the
controlling entity, the employer using
the crane, and the employer best
situated to control and prepare the
ground conditions. (ID–0218.1.) OSHA
determines that such a change would
merely replicate the status quo, an
arrangement which the Committee
found to be inadequate for ensuring
adequate ground conditions.
Several commenters argued that the
crane operator, not the controlling
entity, should be required to obtain
information about the location of
hazards beneath the equipment set-up
area. (ID–0165.1; –0179.1; –0191.1;
–0197.1; –0214.1; –0232.1; –0235.1;
–0285.1.) These comments fell into one
of two groups.
The first group argued that some
controlling entities are either not
engaged in construction work,12 may
have little to no expertise concerning
ground conditions in general, or may
hire subcontractors to work at a remote
location of which the controlling entity
may have little knowledge. (See, e.g.,
ID–147.1; –0165.1; –0232.1; –0235.1.)
This group appears to read
§ 1926.1402(c)(1) to mean that the
controlling entity must personally
determine and provide the ground
conditions necessary to meet the
requirements in § 1926.1402(b).
C–DAC considered the concern that
some controlling entities would not
have the expertise needed to determine
if ground conditions were adequate. The
final rule therefore addresses this
concern in two ways. First, paragraph
(c)(1) provides that the controlling
contractor is responsible for ‘‘ensuring’’
that these ground conditions are
provided. In other words, if the
controlling contractor is not familiar
with the crane’s requirements or with
the ground conditions at the particular
site, then it must make sure that
someone who is familiar with those
requirements and conditions provides
what is required by § 1926.1402(b).
Second, under § 1926.1402(e), if the
A/D director or operator determines that
ground conditions are inadequate, the
controlling entity will, through a
discussion, obtain the relevant
information. (See discussion of
12 In most cases entity that meets the definition
of ‘‘controlling entity’’ will be engaged in
construction.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
1926.1402(e) at 73 FR 59741, Oct. 9,
2008).
One of the commenters suggested that
§ 1926.1402(c) be revised to place
requirements on either the controlling
entity or a competent person designated
by the controlling entity. (ID–0191.1.)
As explained above, § 1926.1402, as
promulgated, does not preclude a
controlling entity from using a
competent person to provide the
information it needs to meet its
responsibilities under this section.
However, C–DAC’s experience indicates
that it is important to ensure that one
entity with the authority to address
ground condition hazards has the
responsibility to do so. To permit a
controlling entity to divest itself of its
ground condition responsibilities would
unduly fragment responsibility for
ground conditions, thus defeating one of
the goals of the section.
The second group argued that the rule
may result in situations that are beyond
the capacity and responsibility of
certain subcontractors. (See, e.g.,
ID–0165.1; –0191.1; –0235.1.) One
commenter suggested that the definition
of ‘‘controlling entity’’ be revised ‘‘to
reflect that subcontractors and others
who have little to do with the overall
project including site conditions and do
not have the expertise to determine
compliance with crane manufacturer
specifications are not included in the
definition, purpose, or requirements of
a controlling entity.’’ (ID–0191.1) These
commenters also argued that, because
such subcontractors do not know or
control the site conditions, the
responsibilities in § 1926.1402(c) should
fall on the crane owner or operator. The
other two commenters were concerned
about the effect of the rule on heating,
ventilating, air conditioning, and
refrigeration (HVACR) contractors in
particular. (ID–0165.1; –0235.1.)
These commenters have
misunderstood § 1926.1402(c). For
example, an HVACR contractor, if
contracted to do only HVACR work and
is not in control of the entire work site,
would not be the controlling entity, and
would be subject to the limited
requirements in § 1926.1402(d) only if it
had authority to make changes to the
ground conditions.
One commenter requested that the
term ‘‘user of the equipment’’ be defined.
(ID–0214.1.) OSHA determines this term
does not need to be defined in
§ 1926.1401, since its meaning is
sufficiently clear. ‘‘User of the
equipment’’ refers to the employer that
is using the equipment to perform a
task. For example, a drywall installation
employer engaged in erecting precast
wall panels would be a ‘‘user of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

equipment’’ if that employer directs a
crane to hoist the panels into place.
Similarly, an employer installing
wooden roof trusses would be a ‘‘user of
equipment’’ if that employer directs a
crane to place the trusses on the
structure. A general contractor handling
several subcontracting areas, but not the
controlling entity for the worksite,
would also be a ‘‘user of equipment’’ if
it directs its subcontractors to use a
crane to hoist materials. In the latter
example, the general contractor and the
subcontractor would each be a ‘‘user of
equipment.’’
Paragraph (d)
In the event that no controlling entity
exists, § 1926.1402(d) provides that the
requirement in § 1926.1402(c)(1) must
be met by the employer that has
authority at the site to make or arrange
for ground preparations needed to meet
the requirements of § 1926.1402(b). For
example, if the employer who hires the
crane has the authority to get the ground
prepared in the absence of a controlling
entity, the responsibility for complying
with § 1926.1402(b) would fall to that
employer. However, that employer
would not be required to comply with
§ 1926.1402(c)(2) because the
information required to be disclosed
under § 1926.1402(c)(2) is not likely to
be available to that employer.
One commenter suggested that
paragraph (d) of this section be revised
to read that the requirements in
§ 1926.1402(c)(1) must be met by a
competent person designated by the
employer that has authority at the site
to make or arrange for ground
preparations needed to meet the
requirements of § 1926.1402(b). (ID–
0191.1.) As explained above with
respect to a similar suggestion regarding
§ 1926.1402(c), OSHA determines this
would have the effect of unduly
fragmenting the responsibility for
ground conditions, which is contrary to
the intent of the provision.
For the reasons above, OSHA is
promulgating § 1926.1402(d) as
proposed.
Paragraph (e)
Proposed § 1926.1402(e) established a
mechanism for a controlling entity to
obtain information from the A/D
director or the equipment operator
about insufficient ground conditions
and the preparations needed to correct
the problem. Specifically (as discussed
above in the context of
§ 1926.1402(c)(1)), if the A/D director or
equipment operator determines that
ground conditions do not meet the
criteria in § 1926.1402(b), that person’s
employer is required to have a

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47935

discussion with the controlling entity
regarding the ground preparations
needed so that, with the use of suitable
supporting materials/devices (if
necessary), the requirements in
§ 1926.1402(b) can be met.
The Committee determined that, in
some instances, the controlling entity
may lack the expertise needed to know
what ground preparations may be
needed. In such cases, it is necessary for
the information it needs to be provided
by the A/D director or operator, who has
that expertise, so that the preparations
needed for safe crane operations can be
made. The Committee concluded that,
in such circumstances, such a
discussion would make it more likely
that the requirements in § 1926.1402(b)
would be met, which, as discussed
above, is necessary for safe crane
operations.
One commenter suggested that the
provision will encourage disputes. The
commenter suggested that rental
companies would not accept a
controlling entity’s ground conditions
unless the controlling entity purchases
services from the rental company to
improve them. (ID–0105.1.)
OSHA determines that the
commenter’s concerns are unwarranted.
Section 1926.1402(e) is a mechanism for
a controlling entity to obtain
information to facilitate its compliance
with § 1926.1402(c)(1). Once ground
conditions meet the criteria in
§ 1926.1402(b), the controlling entity is
not required to make further
improvements, even if the rental
company objects.
For the reasons above, OSHA is
promulgating § 1926.1402(e) as
proposed, with the substitution of the
word ‘‘director’’ for the word
‘‘supervisor’’ to be consistent with the
change made and discussed in
§ 1926.1404.
Paragraph (f)
At the public hearing, a representative
of the railroad industry explained that,
in his experience, railroads use cranes
to: remove, replace or renew rails; build
bridges; handle materials; and to pick
up and repair railroad cars. (ID–0342.)
In addition, the witness explained that
the railroad industry uses a variety of
construction equipment, some on the
tracks (locomotive cranes, rubber-tired
off-road cranes that are capable of being
used on the tracks) and others off the
tracks (rubber-tired off road cranes,
truck cranes, and service trucks). (ID–
0342.) The witness estimated that 95%
of railroad industry crane operations
take place on or around railroad tracks.
(ID–0342.)

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47936

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

One commenter expressed concern
about the application of § 1926.1402 to
the railroad industry’s use of cranes and
requested an exemption for the use of
cranes on and alongside tracks. (ID–
0176.1; –0292.1.) The commenter
expressed two specific concerns. First,
that, unlike most construction sites, a
railroad construction site may include
many miles of railroad track. The
commenter elaborated that the time and
cost associated with locating and
checking site drawings and soil
analyses—which the commenter said
may arguably be available to the railroad
industry—for thousands of miles of
track would be ‘‘exorbitant’’ and would
‘‘not appreciably lower the risks to the
crane operator.’’ (ID–0176.1.)
As for the cost associated with
locating and checking documents,
§ 1926.1402 does not require the
controlling entity to possess or acquire
any particular documents or other
information, but requires that the
controlling entity share any information
about underground hazards that it has
in its possession with the crane user and
operator. As explained above, OSHA
has replaced ‘‘available to’’ with ‘‘in the
possession of’’ to make this clear.
The commenter also suggested that
there is no need to apply § 1926.1402 to
cranes used by railroads along track
rights of way because the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) has
regulations that specify minimum
requirements for roadbeds and areas
immediately adjacent to roadbeds that
concern the ground conditions
underneath and alongside the track, as
well as requirements for how the track
must be laid.
The Federal Railroad Administration
has established requirements for the
ballasts beneath railroad tracks,13
limited requirements for the roadbed,14
13 The FRA regulations for the ballast (the
foundation for most railroad tracks) can be found
at 49 CFR 213.103 and 213.334, depending on the
class of track. The provisions are otherwise
identical, and provides:
Unless it is otherwise structurally supported, all
track shall be supported by material which will—
(a) Transmit and distribute the load of the track
and railroad rolling equipment to the subgrade;
(b) Restrain the track laterally, longitudinally, and
vertically under dynamic loads imposed by railroad
rolling equipment and thermal stress exerted by the
rails;
(c) Provide adequate drainage for the track; and
(d) Maintain proper track crosslevel, surface, and
alignment.
14 FRA requirements address issues other than
ground support in the area adjacent to the track
roadbed. Specifically, 49 CFR 213.31 requires that
each drainage or other water carrying facility under
or immediately adjacent to the roadbed be
maintained and kept free of obstruction, to
accommodate expected water flow for the area
concerned. Section 213.37 requires the control of
vegetation on railroad property which is on or

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

and requirements for the track surface.15
The failure of any one of these elements
(the ballast, the roadbed or sub-grade, or
the track) is detrimental to the
effectiveness of the system as a whole.
These provisions are designed to, in
concert, enable trains to travel safely,
and involve conditions adjacent to the
track only to the extent that they affect
track stability.
The comment is persuasive to the
extent that it pertains to cranes that
operate on railroad tracks that are part
of the general railroad system of
transportation because FRA’s
regulations address ground support for
the tracks.16 Therefore, OSHA has
decided to exempt from the
requirements of § 1926.1402 cranes used
on railroad tracks that are part of the
general railroad system of transportation
subject to FRA regulation. To effectuate
this change from the proposed rule,
OSHA has added § 1926.1402(f), which
exempts cranes that are designed for use
on railroad tracks and that are being
used on tracks regulated by the Federal
Railroad Administration requirements at
49 CFR part 213. In addition, OSHA has
exempted railroad tracks and their
underlying support from the ground
conditions inspection requirements in
§ 1926.1412(d)(1)(x).
The commenter also stated that the
FRA has regulations that ‘‘concern[] the
ground conditions * * * alongside the
track.’’ (ID–0176.1.) The only aspects of
the ground conditions of the area
adjacent to the track roadbed addressed
by the FRA regulations are drainage and
vegetation.17 An area with adequate
drainage can nonetheless present
problems for equipment set-up with
respect to slope, compaction and
firmness, as well as have hazards
beneath the set-up area. For this reason,
the Agency has decided not to exempt
equipment used alongside railroad
tracks. Therefore, for example, a rubber
tired off-road crane designed for use on
tracks would be exempted from
§ 1926.1402 while being operated on the
immediately adjacent to roadbeds to prevent fires,
maintain visibility and signals, and to prevent
interference with other duties.
15 49 CFR 213.51 et seq. contains requirements for
the gage, alignment, and surface of the track.
16 The general railroad system of transportation is
defined as ‘‘the network of standard gage track over
which goods may be transported throughout the
nation and passengers may travel between cities
and within metropolitan and suburban areas.’’
Appendix A to 49 CFR part 209. If a railroad that
is part of the general railroad system of
transportation operates over track that is confined
to an industrial installation, that plant trackage is
also considered part of the general railroad system
of transportation.
17 See the description of FRA requirements that
relate to the area adjacent to the track roadbed in
footnote 11.

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

tracks, but would be subject to the
requirements of § 1926.1402 if used
adjacent to the tracks.
Sections 1926.1403—1926.1406
Assembly and Disassembly
Sections 1926.1403 through
1926.1406 set out requirements
designed to ensure the safety of
employees while equipment is
assembled and disassembled (and, in
the case of tower cranes, during
erecting, climbing and dismantling). C–
DAC members indicated that, in their
experience, the failure to adequately
address hazards associated with these
processes is a significant cause of
injuries and fatalities. The Committee
also concluded that the most effective
way to reduce these injuries and
fatalities would be to have a standard
that comprehensively addresses these
hazards (see also the Agency’s
discussion of fatality data associated
with assembly/disassembly at 73 FR
59741–59742, Oct. 9, 2008).
Note that the term ‘‘procedures,’’
which is used in the assembly/
disassembly provisions, is defined to
include (but is not limited to)
instructions, diagrams,
recommendations, warnings,
specifications, protocols and limitations
(see § 1926.1401). The operation of an
‘‘assist’’ crane used to help in the
assembly/disassembly process is not
covered by the assembly/disassembly
requirements but is covered by the other
sections of this standard.18
One commenter suggested that the
Agency clarify whether §§ 1926.1403
through 1926.1406 apply to activities
that modify or increase the height of the
crane such as ‘‘jumping.’’ (ID–0156.1.)
‘‘Jumping’’ (or ‘‘climbing’’) refers to the
process of adding mast sections to a
tower crane to increase its height. In
many cases a tower crane is first erected
and used at one height, and then as the
height of the structure being built
increases, the height of the tower crane
is increased in stages to keep pace with
it.
Irrespective of whether the crane is
initially erected to its full height, or is
‘‘jumped’’ in stages, the process of
increasing the height of the crane is an
assembly/erection process. Sections
1926.1403 through 1926.1406 apply
whenever the crane’s height is modified.
To ensure that this intent is reflected in
the standard, OSHA has added a
sentence to the definition of ‘‘assembly/
disassembly’’ in § 1926.1401 to this
effect.
18 However, the rigging requirements in
§§ 1926.1404(r) and 1926.1425(c)(3) apply to the
rigging used by the assist crane.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

In proposed § 1926.1401, ‘‘assembly/
disassembly’’ was defined to mean ‘‘the
assembly and/or disassembly of
equipment covered under this
standard.’’ With regard to tower cranes,
‘erecting and climbing’ replaces the
term ‘assembly,’ and ‘dismantling’
replaces the term ‘disassembly.’ C–DAC
did not originally include a definition of
‘‘assembly/disassembly,’’ but OSHA
included this definition in the proposed
rule to avoid any implication that
§§ 1926.1403–1926.1406 do not apply to
tower cranes because the terms
‘‘assembly’’ and ‘‘disassembly’’ are not
commonly used in the industry in
referring to tower cranes. Instead, the
words ‘‘erecting,’’ ‘‘climbing,’’ and
‘‘dismantling,’’ are used, and the
definition of ‘‘assembly/disassembly’’
makes it clear that §§ 1926.1403–
1926.1406 also apply to tower cranes.
Section 1926.1403 Assembly/
Disassembly—Selection of Manufacturer
or Employer Procedures
Final § 1926.1403 requires that when
assembling or disassembling equipment
(or attachments), the employer must
comply with all manufacturer
prohibitions applicable to assembly and
disassembly and must also comply with
either manufacturer procedures, or
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
and may not be used during rigging if
the employer uses synthetic slings, as
explained in the discussion below
regarding § 1926.1404(r).
Two commenters suggested that only
manufacturer procedures for crane
assembly/disassembly be allowed. (ID–
0151.1; –0305.1.) One of these
commenters clarified its comment at the
hearing (ID–0343.) and confirmed this
clarification in post-hearing
submissions (ID–0387.1.) that they did
not believe the assembly/disassembly
procedures should be limited to just
manufacturer procedures. The
commenter suggested using a procedure
designed by a registered professional
engineer or by a qualified person. (ID–
0387.1.) Note that § 1926.1406(b) of the
final rule requires employer procedures
to be developed by a qualified person.
As explained in the proposed rule
preamble, the Committee members
discussed whether employers should be
required to comply with the
manufacturer’s procedures, or if
deviations from those procedures
should be allowed. The Committee
determined that deviations should be
allowed for two reasons. First,
manufacturers’ procedures are typically

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

designed for use in ‘‘ideal’’
environments: Large, flat, dry,
unencumbered open areas. However, in
C–DAC’s experience, such conditions
are not typical, especially in urban
areas. Consequently, employers are
currently unable to implement those
procedures in those situations. Second,
members were of the view that there is
often more than one way to safely
assemble and disassemble a crane, and
that it is unnecessary to mandate that in
every case the manufacturer procedures
be used. The inclusion of specific
requirements in the standard that
employer procedures must meet (see
§ 1926.1406) addresses the concern that
those procedures ensure worker safety.
Another commenter suggested that
employer procedures not be allowed for
climbing operations unless approved by
the manufacturer. (ID–0137.1.) As
explained in the discussion below
regarding § 1926.1404(r), the Agency has
decided to require manufacturer
procedures to be used with regard to the
use of synthetic slings. Since the
commenter has not provided
information substantiating the need for
manufacturer approval with respect to
deviation from climbing procedures, the
Agency is unaware of any basis to
conclude that the requirements in
§§ 1926.1403 and 1926.1406 would be
inadequate to ensure the safety of
employer procedures in this regard.
Therefore, OSHA has decided not to
adopt the commenter’s suggestion.
Another commenter suggested that if
the Agency is going to allow employer
procedures, a written copy should be
required to be kept on the job site for the
use of the entire crew. (ID–0178.1.)
The final rule requires that the A/D
director understand the assembly/
disassembly procedures. In addition, the
A/D director must review the assembly/
disassembly procedures prior to starting
the assembly/disassembly process
unless the A/D director is experienced
in having used them on the same type
and configuration of equipment and is
able to recollect the procedures such
that review is unnecessary. (See
§ 1926.1404(b).) Furthermore, before
beginning assembly/disassembly
operations, the A/D director must
determine that the crew members
understand their tasks and the
associated hazards, as well as any
hazardous positions/locations that they
need to avoid. (See § 1926.1404(d).)
These requirements ensure that both the
A/D director and crew members
understand the assembly/disassembly
procedures that are going to be
undertaken.
C–DAC declined to require the
procedures to be in writing and at the

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47937

site. In some cases, the procedures are
not complex and are very familiar to the
A/D director. In such cases C–DAC
determined that having them in writing
is not necessary. In other cases, such as
where the procedures are complex, the
equipment is new to the employer, or
the A/D director has not often
assembled/disassembled the equipment,
there is an inherent incentive for the
employer to have them in writing. In
such instances, OSHA expects that the
employer will have written procedures
on site to facilitate meeting the
requirements in §§ 1926.1404(b) and (d).
The Agency therefore finds that it is not
necessary to have a requirement that
they be in writing and at the site.
Lastly, a commenter suggested that
this section incorporate by reference the
ANSI/ASSE A10.31 American National
Standard, Safety Requirements,
Definitions and Specifications for Digger
Derricks. (ID–0178.1.) Because the
commenter did not explain how
incorporating this standard would make
the final rule more effective, OSHA has
decided not to incorporate ANSI/ASSE
A10.31 into § 1926.1403.
In the proposed rule, § 1926.1404(n)
set forth the requirement (now set forth
in this section) that an employer must
comply with manufacturer prohibitions.
The Agency decided that this important
caveat to § 1926.1403 would be better
understood if it was moved to this
section. Therefore, § 1926.1404(n) is
now reserved and its text is integrated
in this section.
Additionally, OSHA has substituted
an ‘‘or’’ in place of the ‘‘and’’ separating
‘‘assembling’’ and ‘‘disassembling’’ to
clarify that the listed requirements
apply when the employer is assembling
or disassembling. Finally, a reference to
§ 1926.1404(r) has been added to
§ 1926.1403(b) to clarify when employer
procedures may not be used.
Section 1926.1404 Assembly/
Disassembly—General Requirements
(Applies to All Assembly and
Disassembly Operations)
Paragraph (a) Supervision—
Competent—Qualified Person
Section 1926.1404(a) requires
assembly/disassembly to be directed by
a person who meets the criteria for both
a competent person and a qualified
person, or by a competent person who
is assisted by one or more qualified
persons (‘‘A/D director’’). Where the
assembly/disassembly is being
performed by only one person, that
person must meet the criteria for both a
competent person and a qualified
person. For purposes of this standard,

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47938

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

that person is considered the A/D
director.
Section 1926.1401 defines ‘‘A/D
director’’ as ‘‘an individual who meets
this standard’s requirements for an A/D
director, irrespective of the person’s
formal job title or whether the person is
non-management or management
personnel.’’ C–DAC constructed the
definition in this way to make clear that
it is the substance of the individual’s
qualifications, and not his or her job
title or position in the company
hierarchy, that determines whether the
person is qualified to act as an A/D
director.
In the proposed rule, OSHA used the
term ‘‘A/D supervisor.’’ Some
commenters objected by written
submission and at the hearing to the use
of the word ‘‘supervisor’’ in this
provision. (ID–0182.1; –0199.1; –0172.1;
–0341.) They were concerned that the
use of this term would imply that
anyone who serves in this role under
§ 1926.1404 would be considered a
supervisor under the National Labor
Relations Act (‘‘NLRA’’).19 Their
objections are rooted in the fact that the
word ‘‘supervisor’’ is used and defined
in the NLRA. The commenters’ only
objection to § 1926.1404(a) was the use
of the term ‘‘supervisor’’; they did not
object to the actual duties or
prerequisites spelled out in the
proposed rule applicable to this
individual/team. Several commenters
suggested that the word ‘‘supervisor’’ be
replaced with the term ‘‘designated
individual’’ and that the regulatory text
be amended to definitively indicate that
OSHA has no intention of creating
NLRA implications by use of the term.
(ID–0182.1; –0199.1; –0172.1.)
The use of ‘‘supervisor’’ in this rule
would not be determinative of
supervisor status under the NLRA.20
Nonetheless, OSHA understands the
commenters’ concerns that workers in
the industry may be confused by the use
of this term. However, the term
‘‘designated individual,’’ suggested by a
labor representative and other
commenters, could also cause
confusion, since it is ambiguous as to
whether that person had been granted
the authority to correct hazards. Such
ambiguity in the minds of the A/D crew
members regarding the authority of the
19 29

U.S.C. 159–169 (1935).
‘‘A/D supervisor,’’ OSHA was merely
creating a descriptive term for use solely in the
application of an OSHA standard. OSHA’s use of
the term is a less significant designation for the
purposes of the NLRA than even a job title, which
is itself not determinative under the NLRA. See,
e.g., N.L.R.B. v. St. Mary’s Home, Inc., 690 F.2d
1062, 1066 (4th Cir. 1982) (‘‘As the [NLRB] itself has
put it, ‘job titles are meaningless).
20 With

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

A/D supervisor would undermine the
effectiveness of the provision itself.
Therefore, OSHA has decided to use
the term ‘‘A/D director.’’ ‘‘Director’’ is not
a defined term in the NLRA nor does it
have any particular significance as a job
title with respect to NLRA
jurisprudence. Furthermore, like ‘‘A/D
supervisor,’’ it is consistent with C–
DAC’s intent to use a term that conveys
the concept of authority to oversee the
assembly/disassembly process. To
remain consistent with this new term, in
§ 1926.1404(a)(1), OSHA has replaced
the word ‘‘supervised’’ with ‘‘directed.’’
The A/D director has to meet the
definition of both a ‘‘competent’’ and
‘‘qualified’’ person as OSHA defines
those terms.21 The Committee
determined that having an A/D director
overseeing the assembly/disassembly
process who had both the authority to
correct a hazard and who had the
expertise of a qualified person was
necessary to ensure the safety of the
operation. Several commenters strongly
endorsed the new A/D director
requirement, believing the addition will
improve workplace safety. (See, e.g., ID–
0343.)
A commenter asserted that the
qualifications for A/D directors are too
abstract and allowed for too much
interpretation. The commenter suggests
that the qualifications for an A/D
director should be more similar to the
requirements for operator certification
in § 1926.1427. (ID–0137.1.)
C–DAC thoroughly discussed the
necessary qualifications for an A/D
director and determined that the best
option for ensuring employee safety
during assembly/disassembly was to
require an A/D director to be both a
qualified and a competent person. (See
ID–0321.5.) Furthermore, the terms
qualified person and competent person
and their definitions are well
established and well recognized in the
construction industry. For these
reasons, OSHA is deferring to the
judgment of the Committee and is not
making the suggested change.
21 Section

1926.1401, Definitions, defines a
‘‘competent person’’ as: ‘‘one who is capable of
identifying existing and predictable hazards in the
surroundings or working conditions which are
unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees,
and who has authorization to take prompt
corrective measures to eliminate them.’’ Section
1926.1401 defines a ‘‘qualified person’’ in this
proposed standard as: ‘‘One who, by possession of
a recognized degree, certificate, or professional
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training,
and experience, has successfully demonstrated his
ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the
subject matter, the work, or the project.’’ These
definitions are essentially the same as the
definitions in §§ 1926.32(f) and 1926.32(m).

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Paragraphs (b) Knowledge of the
Procedures and (c) Review of the
Procedures
Section 1926.1404(b) requires that the
A/D director understand the assembly/
disassembly procedures. In addition,
§ 1926.1404(c) requires the A/D director
to review the procedures immediately
prior to starting the process unless the
director’s experience in having used
them on the same type and
configuration of equipment, and
recollection and understanding of the
procedures is such that it makes their
review unnecessary.
These two sections work together to
ensure that an experienced A/D director
understands the procedures. Even if an
A/D director has experience, he/she
must still meet the knowledge
requirement in § 1926.1404(b). For
example, if an A/D director configured
a type of crane a number of years ago
and no longer remembers the
procedures applicable to such a crane,
he/she does not fall within the
experienced A/D director exception,
and must, accordingly, review the
procedures immediately prior to starting
the process.
No comments were received on these
provisions. They are promulgated as
proposed except that, in addition to a
grammatical clarification, § 1926.1404(c)
now contains a clearer knowledge
requirement to clarify the interplay
between §§ 1926.1404(b) and
1926.1404(c), as described above.
Paragraph (d) Crew Instructions
Under this provision, before
beginning assembly/disassembly
operations, the A/D director would have
to ensure that the crew members
understand their tasks and the
associated hazards, as well as any
hazardous positions/locations that they
need to avoid.
No comments were received on this
provision. It is promulgated as proposed
except that ‘‘ensure’’ replaces
‘‘determine,’’ to better represent the role
of the A/D director.
Paragraph (e) Protecting Assembly/
Disassembly Crew Members Out of
Operator View
Section 1926.1404(e) requires that
before a crew member goes to a location
that is out of view of the operator and
is either in, on, or under the equipment,
or near the equipment (or load) where
the crew member could be injured by
movement of the equipment (or load),
the crew member must inform the
operator that he/she is going to that
location. Where the operator knows that
a crew member went to a location

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
covered by paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, the operator must not move any
part of the equipment (or load) until the
operator is informed in accordance with
a pre-arranged system of
communication that the crew member is
in a safe position. An example of such
a system would be the use of a signal
person who gives an all-clear signal to
the operator once the signal person sees
that the employee has exited the hazard
area. Another example would be where
the employee in the hazard area is
equipped with a portable air horn and,
in accordance with a pre-arranged horn
signal system, sounds an appropriate
signal to the operator that the employee
has exited the hazard area. To be
effective, the pre-arranged signal system
needs to be designed so that this allclear signal could not be confused with
a horn signal from some other employee
for another purpose.
One of the hazards identified by the
Committee is an operator swinging or
moving the crane/derrick when
assembly/disassembly personnel are in
a crush/caught-in-between zone and out
of the operator’s view. The Committee
concluded that an effective and
practical means of preventing these
accidents would be through a
communication procedure that would
provide key information to, and
coordination between, the operator and
these workers.
One Committee member suggested
that instead of requiring that the crew
member directly inform the operator of
his/her location, the rule should permit
the crew member to provide this
information to the operator through a
third person. For example, the crew
member would instruct his/her foreman
to radio the information to the operator.
OSHA requested public comment on
this suggestion in the preamble of the
proposed rule (see 73 FR 59743, Oct. 9,
2008).
Several commenters stated that the
requirements should remain as
originally proposed and the Agency
should not allow notification through a
third person. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1;
–0182.1; –0187.1; –0379.1.) One
commenter believed that third party
notification could result in
miscommunication or delays. (ID–0226;
–0357.1.)
One commenter testified that
introducing a third person into the
communications link would not present
any danger so long as there was some
verbal confirmation. (ID–0344.)
OSHA agrees with C–DAC and the
majority of the commenters. Indirect
communication between the crane
operator and the employee working out
of view, through an intermediary, would

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

increase the potential for
miscommunication. Therefore, the
Agency has not changed the provisions
to allow third party notification.
Commenters raised additional issues
regarding § 1926.1404(e). Proposed
§ 1926.1404(e) provided two methods to
assure that employees would not be
injured while working outside of the
operator’s view. Under proposed
§ 1926.1404(e)(2)(i), the operator would
give a warning that is understood by the
crew member as a signal that the
equipment (or load) is about to be
moved and would allow time for the
crew member to get to a safe position.
Under proposed § 1926.1404(e)(2)(ii),
the operator was prohibited from
moving any part of the crane until
informed, in accordance with a prearranged system of communication, that
the crew member is in a safe position.
Two commenters raised concerns
regarding crew members actually
hearing warnings that were given in
accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1404(e)(2)(i). One commenter
suggested that the operator should be
required to confirm that the employee
has moved to a safe location prior to
initiating crane movement. (ID–0292.1.)
Another commenter suggested that a
prearranged communications system
should be required because audible
warnings can be drowned out by
ambient noise. (ID–0122.)
These comments identified two flaws
in proposed § 1926.1404(e)(2)(i) that
were not addressed by C–DAC. First, a
crew member may not hear a warning
signal that the equipment or load is
about to move and may not respond
appropriately. Second, the crew member
may hear the warning signal but be
unable to move from his/her position.
This would leave the crew member
exposed to struck-by and crushing
hazards. As a result, the Agency has
revised the provision by deleting the
option that was in proposed
§ 1926.1404(e)(2)(i). Proposed
§ 1926.1404(e)(2) is otherwise included
as proposed except for one grammatical
correction.
Paragraph (f) Working Under the Boom,
Jib or Other Components
Section 1926.1404(f) requires that
when pins (or similar devices) are being
removed, employees must not be under
the boom, jib, or other components,
except where the employer
demonstrates that site constraints
require employees to be so positioned.
In such instances the A/D director must
implement procedures that minimize
the risk of unintended dangerous
movement and minimize the duration
and extent of exposure under the boom.

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47939

An example of such procedures is
provided in non-mandatory Appendix
B.
Paragraph (g) Capacity Limits
This provision requires that the rated
capacity limits for loads imposed on the
equipment, each of its components
(including rigging), lifting lugs and
equipment accessories being assembled
or disassembled not be exceeded. The
provision applies ‘‘during all phases of
assembly/disassembly.’’ (See the
discussion of this provision at 73 FR
59744, Oct. 9, 2008.) Note that where an
assist crane is being used during the
assembly/disassembly of another crane/
derrick, the requirements for rated
capacity during operations must be met
under § 1926.1417(o), Compliance with
rated capacity, with respect to the assist
crane.
No comments were received on this
provision. It is promulgated as proposed
except for one grammatical correction.
Paragraph (h) Addressing Specific
Hazards
Section 1926.1404(h) requires that the
A/D director supervising the assembly/
disassembly operation address known
hazards associated with the operation
with methods to protect the employees
from them, and provides a list of
specific hazards that are likely to cause
serious injury or death. The A/D
director must consider each hazard,
determine the appropriate means of
addressing it, and oversee the
implementation of that method.
No comments were received on this
provision. It is promulgated as proposed
with a grammatical clarification and the
addition of the words ‘‘which include’’
at the end of the introductory language
to acknowledge the employer’s existing
responsibility under § 5(a)(1) of the OSH
Act (the ‘‘general duty clause’’) to
address other recognized hazards not
listed in this paragraph.
Paragraph (h)(1) Site and Ground
Bearing Conditions
This provision works in conjunction
with § 1926.1402, which addresses
ground conditions for both assembly/
disassembly and use of the equipment,
including ground condition criteria.
Section 1926.1404(h)(1) requires the A/
D director to assess the ground
conditions for conformance with those
criteria, and to assess the site for
suitability for assembly and
disassembly. (See the discussion of this
provision at 73 FR 59744, Oct. 9, 2008.)
No comments were received on this
provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47940

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraphs (h)(2) Blocking Material and
(h)(3) Proper Location of Blocking
These two provisions address the
hazards associated with inadequate
blocking. Section 1926.1404(h)(2)
requires the size, amount, condition and
method of stacking the blocking to be
sufficient to sustain the loads and
maintain stability. Section
1926.1404(h)(3) requires that when used
to support booms or components,
blocking must be appropriately placed
to protect the structural integrity of the
equipment, and prevent dangerous
movement and collapse.
‘‘Blocking’’ (also referred to as
‘‘cribbing’’) is defined in § 1926.1401 as
‘‘wood or other material used to support
equipment or a component and
distribute loads to the ground. Typically
used to support latticed boom sections
during assembly/disassembly and under
outrigger floats.’’ This definition is from
A Glossary of Common Crane and
Rigging Terms, a publication by the
Specialized Carriers & Rigging
Foundation (‘‘SC&RF Handbook’’). (ID–
0035.)
Proper blocking plays an important
role in assembly/disassembly safety by
reducing the risk of injuries from
unplanned movement or the collapse of
equipment. (See the discussion of
blocking at 73 FR 59744, Oct. 9, 2008.)
One commenter suggested including a
strength requirement for blocking. (ID–
0053.1.) OSHA determines that the
provision as proposed, which requires
that the ‘‘size, amount, condition and
method of stacking blocking must be
sufficient to sustain the loads and
maintain stability,’’ appropriately
addresses blocking strength. Therefore,
OSHA has not made a change to the
wording of the provision in this regard.
The version of paragraph (h)(3) in the
proposed rule was applicable only to
lattice booms and components. In the
proposed rule’s preamble, OSHA asked
for public comment on whether the
provision should also apply to other
types of booms and components (i.e.,
those for hydraulic cranes). (See the
discussion of this provision at 73 FR
59745, Oct. 9, 2008.)
Several commenters stated that proper
blocking is necessary for hydraulic
cranes in addition to lattice boom
cranes. (ID–0213.1; –0205.1; –0118.1.) In
addition, hearing testimony also
indicated that there is a need for this
requirement to apply to hydraulic
cranes because they are sometimes
assembled or disassembled, at least
partially, in the field. (See ID–0343.1.)
OSHA has concluded that the
requirement is necessary for both
hydraulic and lattice boom cranes and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

components. At times, portions of
hydraulic cranes are assembled and
disassembled in the field and need
proper blocking. As a result, the word
‘‘lattice’’ in the proposed provision’s
language has not been included in the
final rule so that the provision applies
to hydraulic cranes and components as
well as lattice boom cranes and
components.
Paragraph (h)(4) Verifying Assist Crane
Loads
This paragraph requires that, when
using an assist crane, the loads that will
be imposed on the assist crane at each
phase of assembly/disassembly must be
verified in accordance with
§ 1926.1417(o)(3). The purpose of this
requirement is to avoid exceeding the
assist crane’s rated capacity. ‘‘Assist
crane’’ is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a
crane used to assist in assembling or
disassembling a crane.’’ When used for
this purpose, an ‘‘assist crane’’ is subject
to all applicable provisions of this
standard, including the requirement of
§ 1926.1417(o) that it not be used in a
manner that exceeds its rated capacity.
(See the discussion of this provision at
73 FR 59745, Oct. 9, 2008.)
No comments were received on this
provision; it is promulgated as proposed
except that the purpose of the
requirement is now included above in
the preamble, rather than in the rule
text, to increase the clarity of the
requirement.
Paragraph (h)(5) Boom and Jib Pick
Points
This provision would require the A/
D director to address the hazard of using
improper boom and jib pick points.
Specifically, the points of attachment of
rigging to a boom/jib or boom/jib
section(s) must be suitable for
preventing structural damage. Such
damage could compromise structural
integrity and, in some cases, may not be
immediately noticed. If that component
were nonetheless used, the boom/
component could fail.
The points of attachment also need to
facilitate the safe handling of these
components. (See the discussion of this
provision at 73 FR 59745, Oct. 9, 2008.)
No comments were received on this
provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (h)(6) Center of Gravity
In a variety of instances the method
used for maintaining stability during
assembly/disassembly depends on
supporting or rigging a component (or
set of components) so that it remains
balanced throughout the process. In
such instances the A/D director is

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

required to identify the center of gravity
of the load. (See the discussion of this
provision at 73 FR 59745, Oct. 9, 2008.)
No comments were received on this
provision. It is promulgated as proposed
except for one grammatical change.
Paragraph (h)(7) Stability Upon Pin
Removal
This paragraph requires that each of
the following must be rigged or
supported to maintain stability upon the
removal of the pins: Boom sections,
boom suspension systems (such as
gantry A-frames and jib struts), and
components. ‘‘Boom suspension system’’
is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a system of
pendants, running ropes, sheaves, and
other hardware which supports the
boom tip and controls the boom angle.’’
This definition is the same as that for
‘‘boom suspension’’ in the SC&RF
Handbook. (See the discussion of this
provision at 73 FR 59745, Oct. 9, 2008.)
No comments were received on this
provision; it is promulgated as proposed
except that the conjunctive ‘‘and’’ is
substituted for ‘‘or’’ to make it clear that
all three of the listed items (boom
sections, boom suspension systems, and
components) must be properly rigged,
not just any one of those.
Paragraph (h)(8) Snagging
As explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule, ‘‘snagging’’ occurs when
pendant cables hung alongside the
boom are caught (‘‘snagged’’) on the
pins, bolts, or keepers as the operator
raises the boom (see 73 FR 59746, Oct.
9, 2008.) Snagging could damage the
cables or other equipment and result in
injury. This paragraph requires that
suspension ropes and pendants not be
allowed to catch on the boom or jib
connection pins or cotter pins
(including keepers and locking pins).
The definition for pendants can be
found in § 1926.1401. This definition is
similar to that in the SC&RF Handbook,
but with the addition of the reference to
‘‘bar type’’ pendants. (See the discussion
of this provision at 73 FR 59746, Oct. 9,
2008). No comments were received on
this provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (h)(9) Struck by
Counterweights
Final § 1926.1404(h)(9) requires the
A/D director to address the potential for
unintended movement from
inadequately supported counterweights
and from hoisting counterweights.
‘‘Counterweight’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as a ‘‘weight used to
supplement the weight of equipment in
providing stability for lifting loads by
counterbalancing those loads.’’ This

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

definition is taken from the SC&RF
Handbook. (See the discussion of this
provision at 73 FR 59746, Oct. 9, 2008.)
No comments were received on this
provision; it is promulgated as proposed
except that OSHA has replaced the
adjective ‘‘unexpected’’ with
‘‘unintended’’ to remain consistent
throughout this section.
Paragraph (h)(10) Boom Hoist Brake
Failure
This provision addresses a hazard that
can occur both during assembly and
disassembly, although it is more
typically a hazard during assembly. In
many older cranes the boom hoist brake
mechanism has an external or internal
mechanical brake band that operates by
pressing against the hoist drum. As the
configuration of the crane changes and,
for example, more boom is added, this
type of boom hoist brake may slip
unless it has been adjusted to hold the
extra weight. The Committee was
concerned that the inability of an
unadjusted brake to hold the increased
load will not be evident until the
additional boom section(s) has been
added and the operator attempts to rely
on the brake in a subsequent phase of
the operation. If the operator does not
first raise the boom a small amount after
the section has been added (with the
crew clear of the boom) to test the brake,
employees could be injured later in the
process when the operator manipulates
the boom and finds that he/she is
unable to brake it.
To address this hazard, the employer
is required to test the brake to determine
if it can hold the load. In many cases,
if it is insufficient, an adjustment to the
brake will correct the problem. If it
remains insufficient, the employer is
required to use a boom hoist pawl, other
locking device, back-up braking device,
or another method of preventing
dangerous boom movement (such as
blocking or using an assist crane to
support the load) from a boom hoist
brake failure.
The Agency was concerned that the
text of the proposed provision was not
sufficiently clear regarding the timing of
this brake test, so it solicited public
comment on this issue. OSHA’s
interpretation was that the test would
need to be done immediately after each
section (or group of sections) is
installed, and after all sections are in
place (see 73 FR 59746, Oct. 9, 2008).
One commenter recommended
revising the provision to specify that the
brake be tested prior to the
commencement of lifting. (ID–0214.1.)
However, two other commenters wrote
that the regulatory text should remain as
is and should not specify when to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

47941

perform the brake test. They point out
that C–DAC’s intent in § 1926.1404(h)
was to identify hazards and require that
they be addressed by the A/D director.
C–DAC designed § 1926.1404(h) so that,
for the most part, the A/D director could
determine the procedures (or how to
implement specified requirements) that
would be best suited in each situation
to protect against those hazards. They
also state that, in some cases, the
specific procedure that OSHA referred
to in the proposed rule preamble could
result in a greater hazard. (ID–0205.1;
0213.1.)
OSHA agrees that specifying an
overly-detailed procedure to address
this hazard would be inappropriate
given the myriad of circumstances in
which this issue may arise. However,
the Agency also determined that the
proposed rule’s regulatory text did not
identify the purpose of the provision
with sufficient clarity. Therefore, the
final standard does not specify that the
test has to be performed at a certain time
that is tied to the installation of any
particular section, but instead requires a
test whenever the A/D director will be
relying on the boom hoist brake to
function properly. In short, the test
needs to be performed, prior to reliance
being placed on the brake, and the test
needs to accurately account for the
loads that will be placed on the brake.
The provision in the final rule,
therefore, requires the boom hoist brake
to be tested prior to each time reliance
on the boom hoist brake is anticipated.

that the safe assembly/disassembly of
the equipment is not compromised.
The Committee considered the option
of establishing a maximum wind speed,
as well as the option of incorporating
ANSI’s provisions regarding wind
speed. However, it determined that
selecting any one particular speed as a
maximum would be arbitrary because of
the variety of factors involved. For
example: different cranes and crane
types vary with respect to the ‘‘sail’’ area
they present; an assembly process
involving use of an assist crane may
require lower wind speeds than one in
which no assist crane is used; and
assembly/disassembly operations done
‘‘in the air’’ (that is, with the boom
elevated in the air, without ground
support for the boom) may require lower
wind speeds than a boom assembled/
disassembled on the ground. The
Committee ultimately decided that a
better approach would be to have the A/
D director determine the maximum safe
wind speed under the circumstances.
Other weather conditions that can
affect the safety of assembly/
disassembly would include, for
example, ice accumulation on crane
components. Ice can both add to the
weight of the components and create
slippery, dangerous surfaces on which
employees work. The A/D director must
address weather conditions that affect
the safety of the operation. No
comments were received on this
provision; it is promulgated as proposed
with a slight rewording for clarity.

Paragraph (h)(11) Loss of Backward
Stability
The Committee identified three points
during the assembly/disassembly
process at which there is a heightened
risk of loss of backward stability. These
are: when swinging the upperworks,
during travel, and when attaching or
removing equipment components.
Therefore, under this provision, before
any of these occur, the A/D director is
required to consider whether
precautions need to be instituted to
ensure that backward stability is
maintained. No comments were
received on this provision. However,
OSHA is not including the drawing
described as Figure 1 in the proposed
rule. See the discussion of the removal
of this figure below in § 1926.1405.
Except for the removal of any reference
to figure 1, OSHA is promulgating the
provision as proposed.

Paragraph (i) [Reserved.]

Paragraph (h)(12) Wind Speed and
Weather
Section 1926.1404(h)(12) requires the
A/D director to address hazards caused
by wind speed and weather to ensure

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Paragraph (j) Cantilevered Boom
Sections
Members of the Committee
determined that a common mistake in
assembly/disassembly is cantilevering
too much boom. When too much boom
is cantilevered, structural failure can
occur in components such as the mast/
gantry, boom sections and lifting lugs.
Employees may be struck by falling
components from this type of failure. To
prevent accidents from cantilevering too
much boom during assembly/
disassembly, this provision requires
manufacturer’s limitations on
cantilevering not to be exceeded.
If the manufacturer’s limitations are
not available, the employer is required
to have a registered professional
engineer (RPE) determine the
appropriate limitations, and to abide by
those limitations. The Committee
concluded that in such cases there
would need to be a requirement that the
RPE’s determination be in writing to
ensure that the assessment has been
done.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47942

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

This provision is promulgated as
proposed with one grammatical
correction to make it clear that it is the
limitations that must not be exceeded.
Paragraph (k) Weight of Components
As with any load to be lifted by a
crane/derrick, the weight of the
components must be available to the
operator so that the operator can
determine if the lift can be performed
within the crane/derrick’s capacity. This
requirement applies irrespective of
whether the component is being hoisted
by the crane being assembled/
disassembled or by an assist crane.
No comments were received on this
provision. OSHA is promulgating this
provision largely as proposed, but has
modified the text to make it clear that
assembly/disassembly is prohibited
when the weight of each of the
components is not readily available.
Paragraph (l) [Reserved.]

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (m) Components and
Configuration
This provision deals with the
selection of components that will be
used to comprise the crane/derrick, the
configuration of the equipment, and its
inspection upon completion of
assembly. (See the discussion of this
provision at 73 FR 59747, Oct. 9, 2008.)
No comments were received on this
provision. However, to be consistent
with the requirements of § 1926.1403,
the word ‘‘prohibition’’ has been added
to § 1926.1404(m)(1)(i); otherwise, it is
promulgated as proposed with the
addition of commas to clarify that this
paragraph only applies to the selection
of components and configuration to the
extent that either one affects the
capacity or safe operation of the
equipment.
Note that another section
(§ 1926.1434) allows cranes/derricks to
be modified under certain
circumstances. To the extent a crane/
derrick is modified in accordance with
§ 1926.1434, the employer is not
required to follow the manufacturer’s
original instructions, limitations and
specifications regarding component
selection and configuration regarding
those modifications. Instead, under
§ 1926.1404(m)(1)(ii), the employer is
required to follow the component
selection and configuration
requirements approved in accordance
with § 1926.1434.
Paragraph (n)
For clarity, OSHA has reserved this
paragraph and incorporated its
substance in § 1926.1403, as explained
above in the discussion regarding

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

§ 1926.1403. (See the discussion of this
provision at 73 FR 59747, Oct. 9, 2008.)
Paragraph (o) Shipping Pins
This provision requires reusable
shipping pins, straps, links and similar
equipment to be removed. Once they are
removed they must either be stowed or
otherwise stored so that they do not
present a falling object hazard. No
comments were received for this
paragraph; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (p) Pile Driving
This provision prohibits equipment
used in pile driving operations from
having a jib attached. An attached jib
could be dislodged during pile driving
operations and cause structural damage
to the boom, potentially causing the
boom to fail or diminishing its capacity.
(See the discussion of this provision at
73 FR 59748, Oct. 9, 2008.) No
comments were received on this
provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (q) Outriggers and Stabilizers
This paragraph specifies requirements
regarding outriggers. (See the discussion
of this paragraph at 73 FR 59748, Oct.
9, 2008.)
OSHA received several comments
with regard to § 1926.1404(q)(2) in
relation to stabilizers. One commenter
stated that it is necessary to add the
term ‘‘stabilizers’’ to the regulatory text
for the provision to properly apply to
articulating cranes. (ID–0206.1.) The
commenter explains that, as opposed to
outriggers, which are designed to take
all load off of the tires, stabilizers are
designed to relieve some, but not all, of
the sprung weight for the purpose of
increasing the stability of the vehicle.
The commenter believes that the
provision as written in the proposed
rule would lead to improper use of
stabilizers in such a way that is
dangerous and against manufacturer
recommendations. A second commenter
emphasized that cranes equipped with
stabilizers (and not outriggers) do not
raise the wheels off the ground. (ID–
0292.)
OSHA agrees with the commenters
that it is necessary to address stabilizers
in § 1926.1404(q). With the exception of
§ 1926.1404(q)(2), the term ‘‘stabilizers’’
has been added so that each provision
also applies to stabilizers. Section
1926.1404(q)(2) does not apply to
stabilizers because they are not designed
to remove all weight from the vehicle’s
wheels.
One comment was received in regards
to § 1926.1404(q)(4). Under that
provision, each outrigger must be visible

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

to the operator or to a signal person
during extension and setting. The
commenter suggested that the
requirement be modified so that it
would also apply to the retraction of
outriggers. (ID–0053.1.) The commenter
indicated that employees can be subject
to crushing and pinching hazards
during outrigger retraction and this
would be less likely to occur if it the
outrigger had to be visible to the
operator or signal person during
retraction.
OSHA agrees that crushing and
pinching hazards exist during outrigger
retraction. However, § 1926.1404(q) is
designed to prevent the overturning of
the crane; it does not address the
crushing and pinching hazards posed by
operation of the equipment in struck-by
or crushed/by locations outside the
operator’s view. The final rule contains
other provisions that are designed to
address such hazards. (See, e.g.,
§ 1926.1404(e).) Therefore, the Agency
is not incorporating the commenter’s
suggestion into § 1926.1404(q) and is
promulgating the provision largely as
proposed.
Paragraph (r) Rigging
This paragraph specifies requirements
regarding rigging during the crane
assembly/disassembly process. It
includes a requirement for a qualified
rigger and sets forth specifications
regarding the use of synthetic slings.
C–DAC did not focus on the proper
use of synthetic sling rigging during the
crane assembly/disassembly process,
primarily because another standard—29
CFR 1926 Subpart H (Materials
handling, storage, use, and disposal)—
already addresses some of the hazards
associated with the use of synthetic
slings in construction.
However, after C–DAC completed its
work, a catastrophic crane collapse
resulted in a reevaluation of subparts N
and H with regard to synthetic slings
and rigging expertise. On March 15,
2008, a tower crane in New York City
collapsed, killing six construction
workers. OSHA’s investigation of that
incident focused on the use of synthetic
slings to hold a bracing collar that was
being installed.
The Agency determined that neither
subpart H (Rigging equipment for
material handling) nor subpart N
specifically address the hazard posed
when a synthetic sling is used in a
manner causing compression or
distortion of a sling, or when the sling
is in contact with a sharp edge. The
Agency asked for public comment on
whether to prohibit using synthetic
slings altogether in the assembly/
disassembly process or, alternatively, to

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
require padding or similar measures to
protect the slings from being damaged
(see 73 FR 59742, Oct. 9, 2008).
Commenters generally opposed
prohibiting the use of synthetic slings
during assembly/disassembly, as long as
appropriate precautions are taken. (See,
e.g., ID–0205.1; –0213.1; –0343.)
Specifically, commenters stated that
synthetic slings have the advantage of
helping to prevent damage to equipment
components, but need to be protected
from cuts, compression, distortion and
reduction of capacity, by the use of
‘‘softeners’’ (i.e., padding). (See, e.g.,
ID–0187.1; –0343.) One commenter
testified that it does not oppose
synthetic slings if they are listed in the
manufacturer’s procedures or if they are
not specifically prohibited by the
manufacturer. (ID–0343.) Some
commenters also emphasized the need
for such slings to be properly rated and
inspected. (See, e.g., ID–0226.) Another
commenter recommended requiring
rigging equipment for material handling
to be inspected. One commenter
advocated prohibiting synthetic slings
used in conjunction with tower crane
erection, unless the manufacturer
specifically allows their use. (ID–0156.)
Commenters also suggested adding
requirements regarding the
qualifications and training of riggers.
Specifically, several commenters
suggested requiring certification of
riggers similar to operator certification
requirements in § 1926.1427. (ID–0126;
–0132.1; –0136; –0204.1; –0311.1;
–0362.1.) One commenter opposed
certification, but supported requiring
training. Another suggested third party
certification or licensing of supervisors.
(ID–0156.1.) Another advocated
employer qualification of riggers.
(ID–0197.1.)
OSHA acknowledges that synthetic
slings have certain advantages, such as
preventing damage to equipment
components, and no commenters
advocated a prohibition in all instances.
OSHA has therefore decided not to
prohibit the use of synthetic slings in
assembly/disassembly. There must,
however, be adequate safeguards for
their use.
OSHA agrees with the comment that
stressed the importance of inspecting
slings. However, as § 1926.251(a)(1)
already requires that all rigging
equipment be inspected, no additional
requirement is needed in subpart CC
regarding the inspection and removal of
synthetic slings.
The Agency finds that it is vital that
synthetic slings be protected from
abrasive, sharp or acute edges, since any
of those conditions can damage a
synthetic sling, resulting in a failure.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Also, based on its review of the record,
the Agency concludes that such slings
must be protected from configurations
that could cause compression or
distortion of the sling, since that can
also cause failure. For example,
wrapping a synthetic sling through a
V-angled junction point of steel
members in a tower mast section can
cause the sling to compress and distort
under load, compromising its capacity.
As was demonstrated by the March
2008 collapse in New York City, such
protection is needed whenever the
object that is in contact with the sling—
whether it is a load or something else,
such as a crane component used to
anchor the sling—has such an edge or
configuration. Therefore, OSHA is
including a requirement in the final
§ 1926.1404(r)(2) to protect employees
from such synthetic slings hazards
when used in assembly/disassembly.
OSHA also learned from its
investigation of the March 2008 collapse
that it is vital that synthetic slings be
selected and used properly. In
particular, the sling manufacturer’s
recommendations must be observed
strictly as the capacity ratings set by the
manufacturer are highly dependent on
the sling being used as specified by the
manufacturer. (See ID–0336.)
Consequently, employers, even with the
assistance of a qualified rigger, will
typically not have the ability to develop
safe alternative procedures regarding
their use. Therefore, the Agency is
including a requirement in the final
§ 1926.1404(r)(3) (also noted in
§ 1926.1403(b)) that when a synthetic
sling is used during assembly/
disassembly, the sling manufacturer’s
instructions, limitations, specifications
and recommendations must be
followed.
Note that § 1926.1403 requires that
the employer ‘‘comply with all
applicable manufacturer prohibitions.’’
Therefore, if a manufacturer prohibits
the use of synthetic slings during
assembly/disassembly, OSHA prohibits
that use of such slings. Furthermore,
while § 1926.1403 requires the employer
to comply with either the
manufacturer’s or the employer’s
assembly/disassembly procedures (see
§ 1926.1403(a) and (b)), employer
procedures may be used only if the
employer meets a two-prong test. First,
the employer must not be using
synthetic slings. Second, the employer
must demonstrate that its procedures
meet the requirements in § 1926.1406.
There may be cases in which the
equipment manufacturer does not
prohibit the use of synthetic slings
during assembly/disassembly, but
identifies wire rope slings in its

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47943

procedures. In such cases, the employer
may only use synthetic slings if it
establishes and implements its own
procedures under § 1926.1403(b) and
can demonstrate that those procedures,
including the use of synthetic slings,
meet the criteria requirements in
§ 1926.1406.
As noted above, several commenters
advocated adding a requirement that
rigging be performed by qualified
riggers. One local government stated
that although rigging operations are
critical to completing crane work,
rigging operations involve a high level
of risk if not performed properly. (ID–
0362.1.) The local government’s
experience supports the proposition that
human error causes most rigging
accidents. (ID–0362.1.) The New York
crane collapse and the subsequent
OSHA investigation further highlight
the dangers associated with improper
rigging during assembly/disassembly,
and the need to address this hazard was
supported by all of the commenters who
addressed this issue. OSHA notes that
although several commenters pointed to
the need for qualified riggers early on in
the comment process, and again during
the hearing, no one expressed any
disagreement about the need to address
the hazard by requiring riggers to be
qualified. This means of addressing the
hazard is consistent with the means that
C–DAC applied when it identified a
hazard related to rigging in
§ 1926.1425(c), and the Agency relies on
C–DAC’s expertise in selecting the
appropriate method to address a rigging
hazard. OSHA is therefore requiring in
§ 1926.1404(r)(1) that all rigging for
crane assembly/disassembly be
performed by a qualified rigger.
Finally, the fact that the commenters
did not limit their suggestions on
rigging qualifications to rigging
synthetic slings leads the Agency to
conclude that all rigging done for
assembly/disassembly, irrespective of
type, is a safety-critical function. One
person testified about how he was
involved with improper rigging which
led to the death of his coworker. He
stressed the importance of having
qualified riggers, stating that in his
experience most of the accidents he has
seen and been involved with or
investigated have involved problems
with rigging. (ID–0343.)
After considering the record, OSHA is
including the qualified rigger
requirement in the final rule and it
applies to all rigging used for assembly/
disassembly.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47944

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Section 1926.1405 Disassembly—
Additional Requirements for
Disassembly of Booms and Jibs (Applies
to Both the Use of Manufacturer
Procedures and Employer Procedures)
Section 1926.1405 requires that none
of the pins in the pendants be removed
(partly or completely) when the
pendants are in tension. In addition,
none of the pins (top or bottom) on
boom sections located between the
pendant attachment points and the
crane/derrick body are to be removed,
partly or completely, when the pendants
are in tension. None of the pins (top or
bottom) on boom sections located
between the uppermost boom section
and the crane/derrick body are to be
removed, partly or completely, when
the boom is being supported by the
uppermost boom section resting on the
ground (or other support). Finally, none
of the top pins on boom sections located
on the cantilevered portion of the boom
being removed (the portion being
removed ahead of the pendant
attachment points) are to be removed
(partly or completely) until the
cantilevered section to be removed is
fully supported. (See the discussion of
these requirements at 73 FR 59748, Oct.
9, 2008.)
The Committee determined that many
of the accidents associated with cranes
occur during the removal of pendant,
boom and jib pins. The Committee
determined that accidents typically
occur because of a failure to recognize
that, in certain situations, particular
pins are ‘‘in tension.’’ If partly or fully
removed while in that state the result
can be unplanned movement of a
component or the collapse of the boom
or jib.
Consequently, the Committee
concluded that the removal of pendant,
boom section and jib pins warrants
heightened attention. This section
focuses on protecting employees from
these hazards during the dismantling of
booms and jibs, either when
disassembling the crane/derrick or
when changing the length of a boom or
jib. To make clear that ‘‘dismantling’’
includes activities such as shortening a
boom, final § 1926.1401 defines
‘‘dismantling’’ to include ‘‘partial
dismantling (such as dismantling to
shorten a boom or substitute a different
component).’’
In this section, the Committee
identified particular scenarios that, in
the experience of many of the
Committee members, pose specific
hazards in disassembly if the wrong
pins (that is, pins that are in tension) are
partly or completely removed. The
Committee concluded that the failure to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

follow the provisions would very likely
result in unintended movement and/or
collapse of the components. OSHA
agrees that these requirements will help
to prevent unintended movement or
collapse of booms or jibs as they are
being disassembled.
Several comments were received
regarding the illustrations in this section
of the proposed rule. Two commenters
noted the illustration of a tower crane in
figure 2 of the proposed rule and
suggested it be replaced with a mobile
crane. (ID–0205.1;–0213.1.) Two
commenters recommended that figures
4 and 6 be changed such that no pins
would be permitted to be removed
without blocking the entire boom. (ID–
0131.1; -0292.) Specifically, these
commenters did not believe that the
bottom boom connecting pins could be
removed due to the weight of the
cantilevered boom exerting force on
these bottom connecting pins. They
stated that if there was sufficient
clearance between the connecting lugs
to enable the pins to be removed, the
boom could move downward upon the
removal of the pins.
Based upon C–DAC’s expertise,
OSHA determines that figures 2, 4 and
6 in the proposed rule were accurate
depictions as to blocking, but the
proposed arrows may have been
confusing to the extent that commenters
incorrectly understood that the removal
of pins would be allowed where arrows
did not appear. To avoid confusion,
OSHA is not including any of the
assembly/disassembly figures from the
proposed rule in the final rule.
Section 1926.1406 Assembly/
Disassembly—Employer Procedures—
General Requirements
Section 1926.1406 sets requirements
that must be met if an employer elects
to use its own procedures for
assembling and disassembling a crane/
derrick instead of those of the
manufacturer. (See the discussion of
this provision at 73 FR 59748, Oct. 9,
2008.)
One commenter wrote that, to ensure
safe assembly and disassembly,
employer procedures must not be
allowed. In the preamble to the
proposed rule, OSHA explained its
rationale and the basis of C–DAC’s
recommendation that employer
procedures be allowed where they meet
the specified criteria in § 1926.1406.
(See full discussion at 73 FR 59742,
59748, Oct. 9, 2008). The commenter
did not challenge the rationale or
provide any evidence of why employer
procedures that comply with
§ 1926.1406 would be insufficient. The
Agency is therefore adopting

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

§ 1926.1406 as proposed for the reasons
explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule, with several minor
clarifications.
In § 1926.1406(a), the phrase
‘‘assembly/disassembly’’ replaces
‘‘assembling or disassembling’’ to make
this section consistent with other
sections of the rule. Also in
§ 1926.1406(a), OSHA has removed the
phrase ‘‘are designed to’’ to increase
clarity. In § 1926.1406(a)(1), the phrase
‘‘any part’’ replaces ‘‘all parts’’ to make it
clear the duty to prevent dangerous
movement in any part of the equipment.
This provision is otherwise promulgated
as proposed with several grammatical
corrections.
Sections 1926.1407–1926.1411
Lines

Power

Introduction
Final §§ 1926.1407 through 1926.1411
contain requirements designed to help
ensure the safety of employees while
cranes/derricks are being assembled,
disassembled, operated, or while they
travel under power lines.
Previously, subpart N, in former
§ 1926.550(a)(15), addressed power line
hazards by specifying the minimum
distance that must be maintained
between a crane and an energized power
line. For lines rated 50 kilovolts (kV) or
below, the minimum distance was 10
feet; for lines over 50 kV, the minimum
distance was generally 10 feet plus 0.4
inches for each 1 kV over 50 kV (we will
refer to this subpart N requirement in
this preamble as the ‘‘10-foot rule’’).
However, the subpart N provisions,
which instructed employers to maintain
a minimum clearance distance, did little
by way of requiring employers to
implement measures to help prevent
operators from inadvertently breaching
that distance. The only preventative
measure in subpart N was a
requirement, in former
§ 1926.550(a)(15)(iv), to use a spotter
‘‘where it is difficult for the operator to
maintain the desired clearance by visual
means.’’ In discussing how to reduce
power line fatalities, the Committee
determined that a systematic, proactive
approach to preventing power line
contact is needed (see the Agency’s
explanation for the need for these
provisions in the proposed rule
preamble at 73 FR 59748–59750, Oct. 9,
2008).
Brief Overview of Requirements
The standard requires the
implementation of a systematic,
proactive approach to dealing with the
hazard of power lines. This approach is
comprised of the following steps: (1)

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
prevent the crane from breaching a
minimum clearance distance and
protect against electrocution. The
employer is allowed to choose among
several minimum clearance distance
options.
For example, for lines up to 350kV,
the minimum clearance distance
options would be: (1) 20 feet; or (2) the
distance specified in Table A of
§ 1926.1408 for the line’s voltage (Table
A is the ‘‘10-foot rule’’; see discussion of
Table A in discussion of § 1926.1408);
or (3) a distance closer than what is
specified in Table A.
However, there are limitations to the
availability of some of these options,
and the number of mandatory
encroachment prevention (and other)
measures increases when using a
clearance distance closer than Table A.
A commenter stated that use of the
term ‘‘employer’’ was confusing when
there are multiple employers on a given
construction site, and raised the issue of
whether each employer was responsible
for employing its own dedicated spotter
and its own set of barricades and similar
safety measures. (ID–0143.1.)
In general, except where otherwise
specified in this standard, the
requirements of this standard apply to
employers whose employees are
exposed to hazards addressed by this
standard, and also to other employers in
certain situations as explained in
OSHA’s multi-employer policy (see
OSHA CPL 02–00–124, Multi-Employer
Citation Policy, Dec. 10, 1999). For
example, with respect to situations in
which barricades, a dedicated spotter, or
other measures are required under
§§ 1926.1407–1926.1411, each such
employer is responsible for ensuring
that the required measures are in place.
However, that does not mean that each
employer is required to install or
Maximum
provide duplicate sets of those
Nominal voltage range
operating
measures. In multiple employer
(kV)
voltage
(kV) 1
worksites, one employer may rely on
measures provided by another employer
46.1 to 72.5 ........................
72.5
as long as those measures meet the
72.6 to 121 .........................
121
requirements of the standard.
138 to 145 ..........................
145
Several commenters asked that OSHA
161 to 169 ..........................
169
specify in the standard that utility
230 to 242 ..........................
242
owner/operators may charge fees for the
345 to 362 ..........................
362
services they are required to perform
500 to 550 ..........................
550
765 to 800 ..........................
800
under the standard. (ID–0155.1;
–0203.1.) For example, where the
Source: 29 CFR 1910.269 Table R–6 and
employer uses § 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)’s
Appendix B to that section.
Note 1: This is the ‘‘voltage’’ of the power Option (3) for setting the clearance
line for the purposes of the final rule.
distance (i.e., the clearance distance
under Table A), under § 1926.1408(c),
Unless the power lines are
the utility owner/operator must provide
deenergized and grounded,
encroachment/electrocution prevention requested voltage information within
two working days of the request.
measures have to be implemented to
The standard does not address the
issue of fees; the Agency determined
22 For further information, see Appendix B to
§ 1910.269.
that fees will generally be addressed as

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Identify the work zone and assess it for
power lines—determine how close the
crane could get to them. The employer
has the option of doing this assessment
for the area 360 degrees around the
crane or for a more limited, demarcated
area; (2) If the assessment shows that the
crane could get closer than a trigger
distance—20 feet for lines rated up to
350 kV (50 feet for lines rated over 350
kV)—then requirements for additional
action will be triggered.
The voltages given in the final rule are
phase-to-phase system voltages on the
power lines. It should be noted that the
system voltages for power lines
generally take three forms. First, there is
the actual voltage on the line. This
voltage varies from one moment to the
next as conditions on the power line
change. Second, there is the nominal
voltage on the line that is used to
designate its voltage. The actual
operating voltage varies above and
below this voltage. (See the definition of
‘‘voltage, nominal’’ in subpart K of the
Construction Standards, § 1926.449.)
Third, there is the maximum operating
voltage on the line. This represents the
maximum voltage that can appear on a
power line and is 5 percent above the
nominal voltage on the line. (See IEEE
Std. 516–2009.) For purposes of the
final rule, the power line voltage is the
maximum operating voltage for that
line. This approach, which is consistent
with the determination of minimum
approach distances in § 1910.269,22
ensures that the minimum clearance
distance is appropriate when the voltage
on the line rises to its maximum. The
following table lists the maximum
operating voltages over 50 kV for power
line systems commonly found in the
U.S.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47945

a contractual matter between the parties
involved.23
Section 1926.1407 Power Line Safety
(Up to 350 kV)—Assembly and
Disassembly
The requirements in § 1926.1407
address the hazards of assembling and
disassembling equipment near power
lines up to 350 kV. The requirements in
§ 1926.1407 are similar in most respects
to the requirements in § 1926.1408,
which address operations of equipment
near power lines.
One commenter suggested that OSHA
amend § 1926.1407 to include cranes
used to assist the assembly and
disassembly of other cranes. (ID–0131.)
As OSHA noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule, when an assist crane is
used during the assembly or
disassembly of another crane/derrick,
the use of the assist crane, with respect
to power line safety, would be
considered ‘‘operations’’ and therefore
covered by § 1926.1408 (or, for power
lines over 350 kV, § 1926.1409). This is
because the assist crane has already
been assembled and is being used for a
crane operation. Therefore, use of the
assist crane must comply with
§ 1926.1408 during the assembly/
disassembly process rather than with
§ 1926.1407.
In contrast, a crane that is not yet
fully assembled is often used to
complete its own assembly. For
example, a crane is often used to load
its own counterweights. Similarly, it
may unload its counterweights in its
own disassembly process. Such
activities would be covered under
§ 1926.1407 since it is being assembled/
disassembled. Therefore, the provision
is promulgated in the final rule without
change.
Paragraph (a)
Under this paragraph, before
beginning assembly or disassembly, the
employer must determine if any part of
the crane, load or load line (including
rigging and lifting accessories) could
get, in the direction or area of assembly,
closer than 20 feet to a power line.
As stated in the preamble of the
proposed rule, the phrase ‘‘in the
direction or area of assembly/
disassembly’’ was included to address
the fact that, in some cases, the
assembly or disassembly of a crane takes
place not just in an ‘‘area,’’ that is, a
fixed portion of the work site, but also
in a ‘‘direction.’’ For example, when
23 Note that in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
OSHA has assumed that the cost of providing this
information would be passed on to the employer
requesting the information, not the utility owner/
operator. See section V.B of this preamble.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47946

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

disassembling a crane, the disassembly
process takes place in an area that
includes the area under and around the
boom’s path as it is lowered to the
ground (in most, but not all cases, the
boom is lowered to the ground for the
disassembly process). Under this
provision, the employer must assess the
proximity that the boom will be in to
the power line in its path of travel to
(and on) the ground.
Two commenters expressed confusion
about the meaning of the phrase ‘‘in the
direction or area of assembly/
disassembly.’’ (ID–0122; –0178.1.)
C–DAC’s intent in including this phrase
was to ensure that employers make the
initial 20-foot clearance assessment
based on not only the area which the
crane equipment occupies at the
beginning of the assembly/disassembly
process, but also with respect to other
areas radiating from the initial area,
both horizontally and vertically, that
will be occupied as the equipment
components are added, removed, raised,
and lowered during the assembly/
disassembly process. For example,
when assembling a lattice boom crane,
the ‘‘area’’ involved will expand as boom
sections are added.24 This area expands
in the ‘‘direction’’ in which the boom
sections are added. The power line
assessment has to be made for the
portion of the site that will be involved
as these boom sections are added.
As stated in the preamble to the
proposed rule, ‘‘direction’’ includes the
direction that, for example, the boom
will move as it rises into the air after the
boom has been assembled on the
ground. For example, the boom, when
fully assembled on the ground, may be
more than 20 feet from a power line.
However, when raising it from the
ground, it may get closer than 20 feet.
Accordingly, under this language, the
‘‘direction’’ that the boom will travel as
it is raised must also be evaluated for
proximity to power lines.
Another example is the assembly of a
tower crane. As tower sections are
added, the assembly process may reach
a point where components are closer to
power lines than when the process
began. That ‘‘direction’’ of assembly
upwards must also be evaluated.
If an employer determines that the 20
foot ‘‘trigger’’ determination is positive,
then the employer is required to take
additional steps. Specifically, the
employer must meet the requirements
under either Option (1), Option (2), or
Option (3) of § 1926.1407(a).25 Some
24 This also occurs with telescopic extensible
boom cranes when a ‘‘dead man section’’ is added
to the boom.
25 If no part of the crane, load or load line could
come closer than 20 feet to a power line, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

commenters were concerned that the
three compliance options in
§ 1926.1407(a) could be construed as a
prioritization of compliance
preferences, e.g., a preference for
deenergization over the other options.
(ID–0203.1; –0214.1.) In response,
OSHA wishes to clarify that the three
options are in no particular order. In the
Agency’s view they represent three
adequately protective compliance
methods. The standard offers employers
the flexibility to select the method most
suitable for each specific work situation.
Paragraph (a)(1) Option (1)
An employer choosing Option (1) of
this section will protect against
electrocution by having the power lines
deenergized and visibly grounded.
Where the employer elects this option,
it will not have to implement any of the
encroachment/electrocution prevention
measures listed in § 1926.1407(b). This
option helps to minimize the electrical
hazards posed by power lines.26
A number of commenters confirmed
the Committee’s determination that
because of the time and cost
considerations in arranging for the
utility owner/operator 27 to deenergize
and ground the line, deenergizing and
grounding has not been routinely done.
(ID–0155; –0203; see the discussion in
the proposed rule preamble of
deenergizing and grounding with regard
to proposed § 1926.1408(a)(2)(i), 73 FR
59755, Oct. 9, 2008.)
Therefore, OSHA continues to
conclude that providing other safe and
practical options in the final rule will
help to reduce unsafe practices in the
industry. Those other options (Options
(2) and (3) in § 1926.1407(a)) combined
with § 1926.1407(b) are designed to be
effective protection against the hazards
of electrocution.
employer is not required to take any further action
under this section. However, the employer may
encounter a situation where it needs to get closer
than anticipated to the power lines during the
assembly/disassembly process. In such a case the
employer is required to go back and conduct a new
20 foot ‘‘trigger assessment.’’
26 Grounding the lines helps minimize the
electrical hazard from possible reenergizing of the
lines; however, some voltage will still appear on the
line until the circuit protective devices open the
circuit. In addition, under certain conditions, the
circuit protective devices will not open the line,
and the voltage will remain.
27 OSHA notes that the phrase ‘‘utility owner/
operator’’ reflects scenarios where utilities may not
be operated by an owner but by some entity other
than the owner. Therefore wherever the phrase
‘‘utility owner/operator’’ is used in the standard or
in the preamble it is meant to apply to utility
owners or utility operators. The final rule also uses
the word ‘‘utility’’ in its broadest sense. It includes
traditional utilities as well as other entities (such as
steel or paper companies) that own or operate the
power lines.

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

One commenter requested that OSHA
provide guidance on whether written
confirmation of deenergization and
grounding from the utility owner/
operator will be required. (ID–0214.1.)
He further recommended that the
requested guidance should be set forth
in the regulatory text rather than in the
preamble if OSHA expects employers to
obtain a written confirmation. OSHA
did not determine that written
confirmation is necessary. As long as
the utility owner/operator confirms that
the line is deenergized and it is visibly
grounded, employee safety is assured.
Thus, the final rule does not require
written confirmation that the line is
deenergized.
For a discussion of comments related
to the requirement for visible grounding,
see the section later in this preamble
addressing § 1926.1408(a)(2)(i).
One commenter suggested that in
some situations deenergizing and
grounding could place the utility
owner/operator in conflict with other
Federal and State regulatory
requirements. (ID–0203.1.) The
commenter did not provide information
for OSHA to consider regarding any
specific conflicts, and OSHA has not
identified any such conflicts. Moreover,
in the event that such a conflict does
arise, the employer could choose, as an
alternative to deenergizing, Options (2)
or (3) as described below.
This paragraph is being adopted
without change from the proposal.
Paragraph (a)(2) Option (2)
Under Option (2) (§ 1926.1407(a)(2)),
the employer is required to maintain a
minimum clearance distance of 20 feet.
To help ensure that this distance is not
breached, the employer has to
implement the encroachment
prevention measures in § 1926.1407(b).
Under this option, no part of the
equipment, load or load line, including
rigging and lifting accessories, is
permitted closer than 20 feet to the
power line.
Employers using this option will have
to stay further away from the power line
than had been required under subpart
N’s 10-foot rule (employers wanting to
use the 10-foot rule would have to use
Option (3), discussed below).28
However, an advantage of this option to
many employers is that they do not have
to determine the voltage of the power
line; they only have to determine that
the line voltage is no more than 350 kV.
Under the old subpart N formula, an
employee was required at most to
28 As discussed above, the 10-foot rule requires
varying clearance distances increasing with voltage
with clearance distances that begin at 10 feet.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

maintain a 20-foot distance away from
a power line. Under the new option,
employees are required to stay at least
20 feet away from the power line, so the
Committee determined that there would
be no diminution of safety under this
new option. In fact, in the Committee’s
experience, most power lines
encountered by most employers have
voltages that, under the current subpart
N formula, require a minimum
clearance distance of 10 feet. Therefore,
use of this option will result in a higher
margin of safety. Employers who do not
need to get closer than 20 feet to
assemble/disassemble the crane could
use this option and would be saved the
step of obtaining the line voltage.
As noted above, in addition to
maintaining a minimum clearance
distance of 20 feet, employers using this
option are required to implement the
encroachment prevention and other
measures specified in § 1926.1407(b).
Paragraph (a)(3) Option (3)
Under Option (3) (§ 1926.1407(a)(3)),
the employer is required to maintain a
minimum clearance distance in
accordance with Table A of § 1926.1408.
Under Table A, depending on the
voltage of the power line, the minimum
clearance distance ranges from 10 feet to
20 feet for lines up to 350 kV. Under
this option the employer is required to
determine the line’s voltage.
As a practical matter, in the
Committee’s experience, the power lines
most typically encountered by most
employers would require a minimum
clearance distance of 10 feet under
Table A. As a result, employers can
assemble/disassemble equipment closer
to power lines under this option than
under Option (2).
Table A is based upon the same
formula that was used in subpart N (the
10-foot rule) and is similar to Table 1 in
ASME B30.5–2004. Unlike subpart N,
which had required employers to
calculate the minimum clearance
distance from a formula, Table A sets
forth specified clearance distances in a
readily understood table and requires no
calculations. In addition to maintaining
the minimum clearance distance
specified in the Table, employers using
this option are required to implement
the encroachment prevention and other
measures specified in proposed
§ 1926.1407(b).
Several commenters verified C–DAC’s
determination that obtaining voltage
information in practice can often be
difficult and time-consuming. (ID–0118;
–0143.1; –0146.1; –0155.1.) OSHA
determines that providing a mechanism
under § 1926.1407(a)(2) (‘‘Option (2)’’) to
proceed with construction operations

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

without having to obtain voltage
information from utilities provides
employers with a viable alternative to
obtaining voltage information without
compromising the safety of workers.
This section of the final rule provides a
mechanism by which employers can,
using Table A, perform work with
clearance distances of less than 20 feet.
It is promulgated as proposed.29
Paragraph (b) Preventing
Eencroachment/Electrocution
Once an employer has determined
that some part of the crane, load or load
line could come within the trigger
distance of 20 feet of a power line (see
§ 1926.1407(a)), if it chooses either
Option (2) or (3) of § 1926.1407(a) it is
required to implement encroachment
prevention measures to help ensure that
the applicable minimum clearance
distance (20 feet under Option (2) or the
Table A distance under Option (3) is not
breached.30
Most of the measures in this
paragraph are designed to help the
employer maintain the appropriate
clearance distance and thereby prevent
electrical contact while in the process of
assembling or disassembling equipment.
One of the measures is designed to
prevent electrocution in the event of
electrical contact.
Paragraph (b)(1)
Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
the employer is required to conduct a
planning meeting with the Assembly/
Disassembly Director 31 (A/D Director),
operator, assembly/disassembly crew
and other workers who will be in the
assembly/disassembly area (including
the area of the load). This planning
meeting must include reviewing the
location of the power line(s) and the
steps that will be implemented to
29 The proposed regulatory text for
§ 1926.1407(a)(3)(i) used the phrase ‘‘minimum
clearance distance’’ while that for
§ 1926.1407(a)(3)(ii) used ‘‘minimum approach
distance.’’ For consistency, OSHA has, in
§ 1926.1407(a)(3)(ii), changed the phrase ‘‘minimum
approach distance’’ to ‘‘minimum clearance
distance.’’ Provisions in § 1910.269 and proposed
subpart V of 29 CFR 1926 use the phrase ‘‘minimum
approach distance.’’ OSHA believes that employers
who are covered by those standards are familiar
with that term. In contrast, the Agency believes that
employers that do not perform electric power work
will better understand the term ‘‘minimum
clearance distances.’’ OSHA considers the terms
‘‘approach distance’’ and ‘‘clearance distance’’ to be
interchangeable; no substantive distinctions are
intended.
30 Alternatively, under Option (1), the employer
could have the lines deenergized and grounded. If
Option (1) were selected, no further action under
this section would be required.
31 As explained in the preamble accompanying
§ 1926.1404, the term ‘‘assembly/disassembly
director’’ replaces the proposed term ‘‘assembly/
disassembly supervisor.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47947

prevent encroachment and
electrocution.
In the planning meeting, the employer
is required to select a protective
measure from paragraph (b)(3) of this
section (see discussion below) and
review all the measures that will be
used to comply with this section.
The purpose of the meeting
requirement is to ensure that the
operator and other workers who will be
in the area understand these measures
and how they will be implemented.
That understanding is important to their
successful implementation. Because of
the critical nature of these measures,
and the seriousness of the consequences
to the safety of the employees if they are
not implemented correctly, the
Committee concluded that it is
necessary for there to be a structured
process by which the employer
communicates this information.
As noted below, a planning meeting
to discuss implementing encroachment
prevention measures is also required
under § 1926.1408(b)(1). Refer to the
preamble section related to that
provision for a discussion about public
comments received regarding
responsibilities for ensuring that such a
meeting takes place. That discussion is
equally relevant to this section. With the
exception of the use of the term
‘‘director’’ instead of ‘‘supervisor,’’ as
explained above, this section is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (b)(2)
Paragraph (b)(2) of this section
requires that where tag lines are used
they must be nonconductive. This
provision uses two terms that are
defined in § 1926.1401. ‘‘Tag lines’’ is
defined as ‘‘a rope (usually fiber)
attached to a lifted load for purposes of
controlling load spinning and pendular
motions or used to stabilize a bucket or
magnet during material handling
operations.’’ Thus, one end of a tag line
is attached to the load and the other end
is held by an employee who controls the
load’s motion by exerting force on the
line.
If the equipment or load were to make
electrical contact with a power line
while an employee was holding a tag
line that was able to conduct electricity,
the employee could be electrocuted. The
requirement that the tag line be
nonconductive is designed to protect
against such an event. Section
1926.1401 defines ‘‘nonconductive’’ as
meaning that, ‘‘because of the nature and
conditions of the materials used, and
the conditions of use (including
environmental conditions and condition
of the material), the object in question
has the property of not becoming

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47948

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

energized (that is, it has high dielectric
properties offering a high resistance to
the passage of current under the
conditions of use).’’
This definition recognizes that it is
not only the inherent property of the tag
line material that results in it being
nonconductive but also the conditions
of use. For example, in some cases, if an
otherwise nonconductive material were
to become wet and therefore able to
conduct electricity, it would no longer
qualify as nonconductive under this
paragraph.
One commenter requested that OSHA
specify test procedures to assist
employers in making the determination
of whether a tag line is nonconductive.
(ID–0178.1.) C–DAC considered the
utility of setting specifications for
materials required to be nonconductive
but determined that it would be
impractical. American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard
Specification for Unused Polypropylene
Rope With Special Electrical Properties,
ASTM F1701–05 contains specifications
and test methods for live-line rope used
in electric power work. These ropes are
used to insulate power line workers
from energized power lines. Tag lines
meeting this standard are acceptable
under the final rule. However, to meet
the requirement for ‘‘nonconductive’’ tag
lines, they need not meet this standard,
which requires a degree of insulation
beyond that intended by the final rule.
In addition, several other OSHA general
industry and construction standards call
for nonconductive materials, including
§ 1910.268(n)(13)(ii) (requiring
nonconductive measuring devices to
measure clearance distances from
overhead power lines),
§§ 1910.269(l)(6)(i) and 1910.333(c)(8)
(requiring metal articles worn by
employees to be rendered
nonconductive), and § 1926.955(a)(8)
(requiring nonconductive tag lines). In
general these and other standards that
call for nonconductive materials require
the use of insulating material that does
not have a voltage rating; thus, there is
no need to specify a test method. In fact,
setting test criteria for these materials
would produce a voltage rating and
render them insulating rather than
nonconductive. (Because nonconductive
materials have no voltage rating, there is
still a risk of injury from electric shock
should contact occur. However, these
materials reduce that risk substantially.)
In practice, under dry conditions
nonmetallic fiber rope typically satisfies
the definition for nonconductive.32 The
32 Wet, muddy, or high humidity conditions can
cause such rope to stop being nonconductive.
Similarly, the presence of metal or other conductive

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Agency concludes that this guidance is
sufficient to help employers determine
whether their tag lines meet the
definition and has therefore, declined to
specify test procedures in the final rule.
The provision is promulgated as
proposed, without change.
Paragraph (b)(3)
Under this paragraph the employer is
required to implement one of five listed
encroachment prevention measures
(§ 1926.1407(b)(3)(i) through (v)). The
Committee concluded that the use of
any one of these measures, in
combination with the required measures
listed elsewhere in § 1926.1407(b),
would be feasible and effective in
protecting against encroachment.
Specifically, the employer is required to
choose either: (i) The use of a dedicated
spotter; (ii) a proximity alarm; (iii) a
device that automatically warns the
operator when to stop (i.e., a range
control warning device); (iv) a device
that automatically limits the range of
movement of the equipment; or (v) an
elevated: warning line, barricade, or line
of signs, in view of the operator,
equipped with flags or similar highvisibility markings. Providing the ability
to choose among these options gives the
employer flexibility so that it can pick
one that is well suited and efficient in
the circumstances.
A definition of ‘‘dedicated spotter
(power lines)’’ is included in
§ 1926.1401, Definitions. A dedicated
spotter must meet the signal person
qualification requirements of
§ 1926.1428 and his/her sole
responsibility must be to watch the
separation between the power line and
the equipment, load line, and load, and
to ensure through communication with
the operator that the applicable
minimum distance is not breached.
When the employer uses a dedicated
spotter to prevent encroachment under
this section, that person has the critical
responsibility of ensuring, through
communication with the operator, that
the equipment maintains a specified
minimum clearance distance from a
power line. This definition makes clear
that the dedicated spotter cannot have
any other responsibilities.33 The
fibers or conductive sheaths or reinforcement
would render the tag line conductive.
33 The preamble language of the proposed rule
stated that ‘‘the dedicated spotter cannot have any
other responsibilities that detract him/her from this
task.’’ (73 FR 59752, Oct. 9, 2008.) The phrase ‘‘that
detract him/her from this task’’ incorrectly implied
that a dedicated spotter could have other tasks
provided those other tasks did not distract the
dedicated spotter from his/her task of maintaining
the required separation between the power line and
the equipment, the load, and the load line. This
implication was incorrect. As stated in the

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

dedicated spotter must have the
qualifications required of a signal
person under § 1926.1428, discussed
below. Those qualifications will ensure
that the signal person can communicate
effectively with the operator. They also
ensure that the signal person is
knowledgeable about crane dynamics
and therefore is able to recognize
situations in which the minimum
clearance distance may inadvertently be
breached if, for example, the load is
stopped quickly while it is being moved
near a power line.
One commenter requested that OSHA
include a clarification that the dedicated
spotter can also be the signal person.
(ID–0292.1.) As noted in the definition
of ‘‘dedicated spotter’’ quoted above,
although the dedicated spotter must be
a qualified signal person under the
requirements of § 1926.1428, that
definition also mandates that the sole
responsibility of the dedicated spotter
be to ensure the required separation
between the power line and the
equipment, the load line, and the load
(including loading and lifting
accessories). Thus, in situations where
the equipment operator requires the
assistance of a signal person to provide
signals related to maneuvering the
equipment or the load other than
maintaining the required power line
clearance distance, a different person
must serve as signal person.34
The devices listed in
§§ 1926.1407(b)(3)(ii) and (iii) are also
defined in § 1926.1401. A ‘‘proximity
alarm,’’ is a device that warns of
proximity to a power line and must be
listed, labeled, or accepted by a
Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory in accordance with
§ 1910.7.35 A Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory is an organization
that has been recognized by OSHA
pursuant to § 1910.7 as competent to
evaluate equipment for conformance to
appropriate test standards for that type
of equipment. Thus, approval of a
definition section, the dedicated spotter’s duty to
maintain the required separation from the power
line must be his/her ‘‘sole responsibility.’’
34 If a dedicated spotter also served as a signal
person for purposes other than maintaining the
clearance distance, the dedicated spotter would be
vulnerable to a typical cause of power line
contact—focusing on something else and forgetting
about, or being distracted from, maintaining the
clearance distance.
35 The C–DAC version of this provision defined
proximity alarm as: ‘‘a device that provides a
warning of proximity to a power line that has been
approved by a Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory.’’ OSHA has modified the provision to
conform its language to that used in § 1910.7, the
OSHA rule governing nationally recognized testing
laboratories, and to explicitly refer to § 1910.7 to
make clear that the listing, labeling, or acceptance
of a device under this rule must be accord with
§ 1910.7.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
proximity alarm by a nationally
recognized testing laboratory provides
assurance that the device will work as
intended. (For a discussion of public
comments submitted relating to
proximity alarms, see discussion of
§ 1926.1408(b)(4).) A ‘‘range control
warning device,’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 and is a device that can be
set by an equipment operator to warn
that the boom or jib tip is at a plane or
multiple planes.
OSHA realized that some of the
devices listed in § 1926.1407(b)(3)
would not be operational or effective
against electrocution during certain
phases of the assembly or disassembly
process of certain types of cranes. For
example, for lattice boom cranes,
proximity alarm devices may not be able
to be used when the boom is not yet
fully assembled; at that point the
proximity alarm typically cannot be
connected and functioning. Therefore,
during certain phases of assembly/
disassembly, one of the other options
would need to be used (such as a
dedicated spotter) to provide the needed
protection.
However, the proposed regulatory text
would have permitted an employer to
select an option under paragraph (b)(3)
of this section irrespective of whether it
would be effective under the
circumstances. To address this concern,
OSHA requested public comment on
whether to modify proposed
§ 1926.1407(b)(3) to preclude the
employer from selecting an option that,
in the employer’s situation, would be
ineffective, such as by revising the
provision to read:

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

(3) At least one of the additional measures
listed in this paragraph must be in place. The
measure selected from this list must be
effective in preventing encroachment. The
additional measures are: * * *.

Two of four commenters on this issue
supported amending the language of
this provision as described above. (ID–
0067; –0118.) The two commenters who
disagreed with requiring that the chosen
method be effective in preventing
encroachment thought that this
provision would prove problematic for
employers; they favored the original
wording from the Committee that did
not specifically require efficacy. (ID–
0205.1; –0213.1.) These latter two
commenters did not present any
evidence to counter OSHA’s concern
that some of the listed encroachment
prevention measures may not be fully
effective under all circumstances. OSHA
concludes that prudence dictates
amending this provision to require that
the selected measure be effective in
preventing encroachment; the final rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

therefore reflects the change described
above.
In situations where an employer
chooses the option of using a dedicated
spotter to prevent encroachment under
§ 1926.1407(b)(3), the employer is
required to meet the requirements for
spotters in § 1926.1407(b)(3)(i). As
specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this
section, the spotter must be equipped
with a visual aid to assist in identifying
the minimum clearance distance. The
Committee concluded that a visual aid
is needed for the spotter because of the
difficulty in visualizing the minimum
clearance distance boundary in the air.
Under paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(B)–(D) of
this section, the spotter must be
positioned so that he/she can effectively
gauge the clearance distance from the
power line; the spotter, where
necessary, must use equipment that
enables him/her to communicate
directly with the equipment operator;
and the spotter must give timely
information to the operator so that the
required clearance distance can be
maintained. C–DAC determined that
each criterion is needed for the spotter
to be able to be effective.
One commenter on this provision
asked whether an airhorn is appropriate
communication equipment for purposes
of paragraph (C). (ID–0120.) OSHA
determines that an airhorn would not
enable the dedicated spotter to
communicate with the operator as
effectively as a radio, telephone, or
other electronic communication device,
and, in any event, might not be an
effective means of communication on a
noisy construction site; therefore, OSHA
does not consider use of an airhorn to
constitute compliance with paragraph
(C).36
Paragraph (c) Assembly/Disassembly
Below Power Lines Prohibited
This paragraph precludes employers
from assembling or disassembling
cranes/derricks beneath energized
power lines. The Agency agreed with
the Committee’s conclusion that
assembly/disassembly below energized
power lines presents an extreme risk
and needs to be prohibited. The
assembly/disassembly process
necessarily involves moving and
hoisting parts of the equipment into
place. If some of this work takes place
beneath a power line, the risk that a
part, load, load line, or other equipment
36 The cross-reference to § 1926.1420 originally
included in this provision as proposed was deleted
in the final rule for consistency with the parallel
provisions for dedicated spotters in
§§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(C) and 1926.1410(d)(2)(iii).
This is a ministerial change not intended to have
any substantive enforcement implications.

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47949

would make electrical contact is very
high. Also, in both assembly and
disassembly, maneuvering an assembled
crane out from under the power lines,
or maneuvering a crane that is about to
be disassembled under them, itself
poses a high risk of such contact.
C–DAC’s agreement on this provision
indicates a determination by the
Committee that, in almost all cases, the
employer can plan the assembly/
disassembly so that there will be no
need to be beneath power lines. The
Committee and OSHA also concluded
that, in the very few instances where
this is not possible, in light of the
extreme risk involved, it is essential that
the lines be deenergized and visibly
grounded. No comments were received
on this provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (d) Assembly/Disassembly
Closer Than Table A Clearance
Prohibited
Assembly and disassembly of cranes/
derricks closer than the minimum
clearance distance in proposed Table A
of § 1926.1408 to an energized power
line is prohibited under this paragraph.
If assembly or disassembly needs to take
place closer than that distance, the
employer is required to have the line
deenergized and visibly grounded. The
rationale for this provision is similar to
that discussed above for assembly/
disassembly beneath power lines (that
rationale is set forth in the discussion in
the proposed rule preamble of proposed
§ 1926.1407(c), 73 FR 59753, Oct. 9,
2008). Engaging in assembly/
disassembly activity closer to an
energized power line than the Table A
distance was considered by the
Committee to be too hazardous to be
permitted under any circumstances.
This reflects certain inherent
characteristics of the assembly/
disassembly process that preclude the
employer from being able to reliably
maintain clearance distances closer than
Table A of § 1926.1408. For example,
when disassembling a lattice boom, pins
that hold boom sections together are
removed. Even when done properly,
this can release stored kinetic energy
and cause the boom section being
removed, as well as the remaining
sections, to move. It is too difficult to
estimate the amount of such potential
movement with the precision that
would be necessary when working
closer than the Table A distances.
Another example is when assembling
a boom, an error in the assembly process
may similarly cause unanticipated
movement. Using clearances closer than
those in Table A would not allow
sufficient room in light of the difficulty

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47950

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

of predicting the amount of such
movement.37
This paragraph is being adopted as
proposed.
Paragraph (e) Voltage Information
This section operates in conjunction
with § 1926.1407(a)(3). Under
§ 1926.1407(a)(3), employers who elect
to use Option (3) of § 1926.1407(a) must
determine the line’s voltage. Under
§ 1926.1407(e), where the employer asks
the utility owner/operator for that
voltage information, the utility owner/
operator of the line is required to
provide the voltage information within
two working days of the request.38
This reflects a conclusion of the
Committee that, in the absence of such
a time limitation on the utility owner/
operator, in many instances Option (3)
§ 1926.1407(b) would not be useful
because the employer would not be able
to get the voltage information in
sufficient time to be able to use it. Many
employers will rely on the utility
owner/operator to get this information.
The Committee was concerned that an
extended delay in getting it would result
in employers, to some extent, doing the
work anyway without the information.
Therefore, for Option (3) § 1926.1407(b)
to be viable, the Committee concluded
that a reasonable time limitation for the
utility owner/operator to respond was
needed.39
Some utility owner/operators asserted
that OSHA cannot require them to
provide voltage information because
OSHA does not have authority to
impose such requirements on an electric
utility that does not have employees at
the construction site in question.
(ID–0166.1; –0203.1; –0226.1.)
OSHA’s authority to require that
electric utilities disclose voltage
information derives from secs. 6(b) and
8(g)(2) of the Act. While sec. 6(b)
generally authorizes the Secretary to
promulgate and enforce occupational
safety and health standards, sec. 6(b)(7)
specifically permits the Secretary to

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

37 In

this respect this provision differs from
§ 1926.1410. As discussed below, § 1926.1410
allows use of minimum clearance distances closer
than Table A in some circumstances for crane
‘‘operations.’’ In contrast, § 1926.1407(d) reflects a
determination by the Committee that there are no
circumstances for ‘‘assembly/disassembly’’ when it
would be safe for any part of the crane, load or load
line (including rigging and lifting accessories) to get
closer than the Table A minimum clearance
distance.
38 One commenter suggested that utility owners/
operators be required to label all power lines with
voltage information. (ID–0143.1.) OSHA rejected
this suggestion because it believes the cost of
labeling every overhead power line in the country
would be prohibitive.
39 As noted in the introduction, C–DAC included
two members from the electric utility industry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

‘‘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 * * * and proper
conditions and precautions of safe use
or exposure.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7). Thus,
OSHA may include informationgathering requirements among the
provisions of a standard. Section
1926.1407(e) falls within the scope of
sec. 6(b)(7), because voltage information
is necessary to the determination of safe
clearance distances for employees who
work near power lines.
The Agency previously exercised its
authority under sec. 6(b)(7) of the Act to
promulgate the Hazard Communication
Standard, which requires that chemical
manufacturers and importers provide
information for the benefit of
downstream employees (see
§ 1910.1200). As a rationale for these
provisions, OSHA explained that
chemical manufacturers and importers
are in the best position to develop,
disseminate, or obtain information
about their products (see 48 FR 53280,
53322, Nov. 25, 1983). Similarly, in an
early case discussing sec. 6(b)(7), the
Fifth Circuit found that ‘‘[t]he ability of
downstream employers to protect their
own employees is also an appropriate
consideration in determining where the
duty to warn should lie.’’ American
Petroleum Institute v. OSHA, 581 F.2d
493, 509 (5th Cir. 1978).
Section 8(g)(2) of the Act affords the
Secretary additional authority for
§ 1926.1407(e). According to this
section, the Secretary may ‘‘prescribe
such rules and regulations as he may
deem necessary to carry out
responsibilities under the Act.’’ The
enumerated purposes of the Act indicate
that the Secretary’s responsibilities
include:
— Setting mandatory occupational
safety and health standards applicable
to businesses affecting interstate
commerce (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3));
—Developing innovative methods,
techniques, and approaches for dealing
with occupational safety and health
problems (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(5)); and
—Providing for appropriate reporting
procedures with respect to occupational
safety and health which procedures will
help achieve the objectives of this Act
and accurately describe the nature of the
occupational safety and health problem
(29 U.S.C. 651(b)(12)).
An electric utility representative
asserted that, because employees of
electric utilities are not likely to perform
work under the circumstances that the
standard contemplates, sec. 4(a)
prevents OSHA from including

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

requirements that target electric
utilities. OSHA disagrees. Section 4(a)
broadly provides that the OSH Act
applies ‘‘with respect to employment
performed in a workplace,’’ 29 U.S.C.
653(a), and does not bar the statute’s
application to any class of employers.
Section 4(a) contains no language to
suggest that the Act’s application
depends on the relationship between
the employees at risk and the employer
with the power to reduce their risk.
Additionally, the commenter stated
that § 1910.12(a) precludes OSHA from
regulating electric utilities, because
employees of electric utilities will not
be present at construction worksites and
therefore will not be ‘‘engaged in
construction.’’ 40 The commenter cites
Reich v. Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger,
Inc., 3 F.3d 1, 4–5 (1st Cir. 1993), in
which the First Circuit relied on the
second sentence of § 1910.12(a) as a
basis for vacating citations that OSHA
had issued to an engineering firm under
the multi-employer worksite doctrine.
Simpson, Gumpertz is inapposite; the
multi-employer worksite doctrine has
no bearing on the validity of
§ 1926.1407(e), which explicitly holds
electric utilities responsible for the
distribution of voltage information. A
more relevant case is Sec’y of Labor v.
Trinity Indus., Inc., 504 F.3d 397 (3d
Cir. 2007), in which the Third Circuit
upheld information disclosure
requirements that are analogous to those
in § 1926.1407(e). In Trinity, the Third
Circuit affirmed OSHA’s authority for
provisions in the Asbestos Standard for
the Construction Industry that require
building owners to communicate the
presence of asbestos or presumed
asbestos-containing materials to certain
prospective employers. Id. at 402. The
court distinguished OSHA’s authority to
require that specific employers disclose
information from the Agency’s authority
under the multi-employer doctrine to
cite a general contractor for violations
committed by a subcontractor:
Unlike the regulations at issue in Summit
Contractors, Inc., the regulation at issue here
specifically applies to building owners
* * *. We are not convinced that the
Secretary is powerless to regulate in this
field, especially given the findings she has
made regarding the importance of building
owners in the discovery and communication
of asbestos hazards.

Id. As Trinity confirms, the multiemployer worksite doctrine does not
govern the validity of regulatory
provisions that require specific
employers to provide information. As a
40 It should be noted that utility employees will
be at these worksites from time to time to perform
work on the power lines.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
result, the interpretation that the multiemployer case law has given to
§ 1910.12(a) is not controlling in
relation to § 1926.1407(e). Moreover, the
requirement that electric utilities
provide voltage information is not in
conflict with the plain language of
§ 1910.12(a), which states:

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

The standards prescribed in part 1926 of
this chapter are adopted as occupational
safety and health standards under section 6
of the Act and shall apply, according to the
provisions thereof, to every employment and
place of employment of every employee
engaged in construction work. Each employer
shall protect the employment and places of
employment of each of his employees
engaged in construction work by complying
with the appropriate standards prescribed in
this paragraph.

As the Agency noted in the proposal,
the first sentence in § 1910.12(a) makes
the construction standards applicable to
every employment and to every ‘‘place
of employment’’ of every construction
employee. The second sentence of
§ 1910.12(a), by providing that each
employer must protect the employment
and the places of employment of each
of his employees, does not negate the
broad reach of the first sentence. The
Secretary did not include language to
indicate that an employer has
obligations only toward his employees
and the worksites of his employees.
Furthermore, the history of
§ 1910.12(a) reveals that the Secretary
did not intend for it to limit her
authority. Indeed, § 1910.12(a) is located
within a subpart entitled ‘‘Adoption and
Extension of Federal Standards,’’ which
the Secretary created to extend her
jurisdiction through the adoption of the
Construction Safety Act’s standards.
§ 1910.11(a), subpart B. The opening
paragraph of subpart B states that the
subpart’s provisions ‘‘adopt and extend
the applicability of established Federal
standards * * * with respect to every
employer, employee, and employment
covered by the Act.’’ § 1910.11(a). Thus,
neither the language nor the context of
§ 1910.12(a) suggest a conflict with the
requirement that electric utilities
provide voltage information when
employers request it.
The commenter also cites United
States v. MYR Group, Inc., in which the
Seventh Circuit held that OSHA could
not cite a parent corporation for the
failure of a subsidiary to train its
employees. 361 F.3d 364 (7th Cir. 2004).
Yet the court distinguished the facts of
that case from circumstances where
‘‘[e]ach employer at the worksite
controls a part of the dangerous
activities occurring at the site and is the
logical person to be made responsible
for protecting everyone at the site from

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

47951

the dangers that are within his power to
control.’’ Id. at 367. Consistent with the
Seventh Circuit’s reasoning, OSHA has
placed on utilities the responsibility to
inform construction workers about
power line voltage, as electric utilities
are in the best position to disseminate
voltage information.
In summary, OSHA has firmlyestablished precedent, under part 1926
and beyond, for requiring that an
employer with special knowledge of
occupational hazards provide
information to protect workers. Like the
provisions of the Hazard
Communication Standard and the
Asbestos Standard for the Construction
Industry, § 1926.1407(e) imposes
requirements on employers who possess
essential information and are in the best
position to distribute it.
The Committee determined that two
business days would be a reasonable
amount of time to allow the utility
owners/operator to respond and be
sufficiently short to be useful to the
employer requesting the information.
Most of the utility owner/operators who
submitted comments or testimony on
this issue did not indicate that a twoday requirement was unworkable so
long as weekends and holidays were
excluded from the two-day
calculation.41 (ID–0203.1; –0205.1;
–0213.1.) Similarly, although one
contractor indicated a desire to be able
to obtain power line voltage information
immediately at all times through
Internet services provided by the utility
owner/operator (ID–0118.1), other
contractors indicated that a two working
day time frame was manageable from a
construction planning standpoint (ID–
0205.1; –0213.1). In light of these
comments, OSHA concludes that the
proposed two-day requirement to fulfill
voltage information requests was a
reasonable time frame for both
contractors and utility owners/
operators.
In the proposed rule preamble, the
Agency noted that the C–DAC provision
read:

1903.22(c). Since the term is already
defined in an OSHA regulation, the
Agency stated that it would apply the
same definition here unless this rule
were to specify a different definition
and solicited comments on whether the
phrase ‘‘working days’’ should be
defined differently for purposes of this
rule than it is in § 1903.22(c). All
comments received on this issue
indicated that the § 1903.22(c)
definition was appropriate in this
context. (ID–0203.1; –0205.1; –0213.1.)
Although OSHA is not specifically
incorporating the § 1903.22 definition
by reference, the Agency intends to rely
on that definition for purposes of
enforcing § 1926.1407(e). One
commenter sought clarification that the
two working day time period would
start to run on the first full business day
after the request for information is
received. (ID–0215.1.) This is, in fact, an
accurate representation of how this
provision will be enforced. If, for
example, the utility receives a request
for voltage information on Monday, it
will have until the end of the business
day on Wednesday to provide the
necessary information.
Another commenter asked OSHA to
provide guidance on whether the
voltage information needed to be
provided in written form. (ID–0214.1.)
Given the inherent difficulties of
obtaining written information
expeditiously in many construction
sites, OSHA concurs with C–DAC’s
recommendation not to require that
voltage information be provided in
writing.

Voltage information. Where Option (3) is
used, owner/operators of power lines must
provide the requested voltage information
within two working days of the employer’s
request.

Paragraph (g) Posting of Electrocution
Warnings
This paragraph requires the posting of
electrocution warnings as follows: one
inside the cab in view of the operator
and (except for overhead gantry and
tower cranes) at least two on the outside
of the equipment. The Committee
concluded and OSHA agrees that these
electrocution warnings are necessary to
protect the operator as well as any
employees working in the area around
the crane by increasing their awareness
of the hazard. This provision is similar
to sec. 5–3.4.5.2(d) of ASME B30.5–

In a different context—determining the
timeliness of notices of contest to OSHA
citations—OSHA defines ‘‘working
days’’ to mean ‘‘Mondays through
Fridays but shall not include Saturdays,
Sundays, or Federal holidays.’’ 29 CFR
41 One electric utility representative at the public
hearing did request, however, that the time period
for responding to a request be changed to four
business days. (ID–0342.)

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Paragraph (f) Power Lines Presumed
Energized
This paragraph requires that
employers always assume that all power
lines are energized unless the utility
owner/operator confirms that the power
line has been and continues to be
deenergized and visibly grounded at the
worksite. No adverse comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47952

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

to warn that the boom or jib tip is at a
plane or multiple planes.’’
OSHA noted in the proposed rule that
the term ‘‘range limit device’’ was used
Section 1926.1408 Power Line Safety
in proposed § 1926.1408(a)(1)(i) but that
(Up to 350 kV)—Operations
no definition of this term was provided
in proposed § 1926.1401. OSHA stated
As discussed with respect to power
line safety in assembly/disassembly, the that it determined that C–DAC
standard requires the implementation of understood a range limit device to be a
device that physically limits how far a
a systematic approach to power line
safety for crane/derrick operations. This crane can boom out and the angle
within which the boom can swing.
approach consists of two basic steps.
OSHA requested public comment on
First, the employer must identify the
work zone, assess it for power lines, and whether a definition of ‘‘range limit
determine how close the crane could get device’’ should be added to § 1926.1401
to them. The employer has the option of and, if so, whether the definition
described in the proposed rule preamble
doing this assessment for the area 360
is appropriate (73 FR 59759, Oct. 9,
degrees around the crane or for a more
limited, demarcated area. Second, if the 2008).
Three commenters responded,
assessment shows that the crane could
endorsing the need for a definition and
get closer than a trigger distance—20
suggesting language along the lines
feet for lines rated up to 350 kV—then
discussed in the proposed rule. (ID–
requirements for additional action are
0118; –0205.1; –0213.1.) OSHA has
triggered.
added a definition for a ‘‘range control
Specifically, unless the power lines
limit device’’ that defines it as ‘‘a device
are deenergized and grounded,
that can be set by an equipment operator
encroachment prevention measures
to limit movement of the boom or jib tip
have to be implemented to prevent the
to a plane or multiple planes.’’
crane from breaching a minimum
Employers are not permitted to use
clearance distance. The employer is
existing landmarks to demarcate work
allowed to choose among three
zone boundaries unless they are
minimum clearance distance options.
marked. For example, a line of trees
For example, for lines up to 350 kV, the would be insufficient. Without anything
minimum clearance distance options are more the trees would not signal a
20 feet, or the distance specified in
reminder to the operator of there being
Table A of this section for the line’s
a boundary that must be maintained.
voltage (Table A is the ‘‘10-foot rule’’; see However, adding flags to those trees
discussion of Table A below), or a
would be sufficient because the flags
distance closer than what is specified in would serve as a reminder that the trees
Table A. However, there are limitations
are located along a boundary that the
to the availability of some of these
operator must not breach.
options, and the number of mandatory
The boundaries must mark the limits
encroachment prevention (and other)
of all crane movement. For example, a
measures increases when using a
work zone could be defined by
clearance distance closer than Table A.
demarcating boundaries: (1) To the left
and right of the operator, to limit the
Paragraph (a) Hazard Assessments and
lateral movement of the boom, and (2)
Precautions Inside the Work Zone
in front of the operator, in a line
Before beginning crane/derrick
connecting the side boundaries, limiting
operations, the employer is required to
the boom’s radius.
determine if power lines would pose a
In identifying the work zone, the
hazard. The first step in this process is
employer must consider the entire area
to identify the work zone for which this in which the crane will need to operate.
hazard assessment will be made
If the crane will need to be positioned
(§ 1926.1408(a)(1)). The employer has
in more than one spot to accomplish its
two options for defining the work zone.
work, or to travel with a load, the
Under the first option
employer must consider the total area in
(§ 1926.1408(a)(1)(i)), the employer is
which it will need to operate and set the
required to define the work zone by
boundaries accordingly.
The second option for identifying the
marking boundaries and prohibiting the
work zone (§ 1926.1408(a)(1)(ii)) is to
operator from operating the equipment
past those boundaries. Examples of how define the work zone as the area 360
degrees around the crane, up to the
to demarcate the boundaries include
crane’s maximum working radius. In
using flags or devices such as a range
other words, under this option, the work
limit device or range control warning
zone is the area within a circle, with the
device. ‘‘Range control warning device’’
crane at the center, and the radius
is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a device
that can be set by an equipment operator defined by the maximum working

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

2004. No adverse comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

radius of the crane. No boundaries
would have to be marked under this
option since the crane would be
permitted to operate in the entire area
that it could reach.
Paragraph (a)(2)
Once the employer has identified the
work zone according to
§ 1926.1408(a)(1), it is then required to
make the power line hazard assessment.
Specifically, it must determine if any
part of the crane, load or load line
(including rigging and lifting
accessories) could come within a
‘‘trigger’’ distance—20 feet of a power
line. This determination must be made
based upon the assumption that the
crane would be operated up to its
maximum working radius (or, if a
demarcated boundary is used, the
assessment must be made with the
assumption that the crane would be
operated up to that boundary).
Three commenters expressed concern
over OSHA’s use of the term ‘‘maximum
working radius’’ in describing the
methodology for defining the work
zone. (ID–0146.1; –0206.1; –0209.1.)
Their concern is that using ‘‘maximum
working radius’’ would trigger the
encroachment-prevention requirements
of § 1926.1408(b) on construction sites
where the equipment operator has no
intention of using the equipment up to
the equipment’s maximum working
distance. Another commenter
questioned whether the phrase ‘‘any part
of the equipment’’ would include the
boom if the boom ‘‘could be lowered
within 20 feet of a power line even
though the working radius will not
require encroachment into the 20-foot
zone.’’ (ID–0178.1.)
OSHA notes that these concerns are
already addressed through a mechanism
in the provision as proposed: the
employer’s ability, under
§ 1926.1408(a)(1)(i), to define the work
zone boundaries and then prohibit
operation of the equipment beyond
those boundaries. In other words,
employers may define the boundary of
a work zone at the outer boundary of the
intended working radius of any part of
the equipment, including the boom.
To illustrate, if an employer is using
a crane with a maximum working radius
of 100 feet, but intends to extend the
crane boom out only 75 feet beyond the
center point of the crane, that employer
can demarcate the outer boundary of the
work zone using such measures as a line
of flags, and then prohibit crane
operations beyond that 75-foot work
zone boundary. Therefore, in the one
commenter’s example of where the
boom could come within 20 feet of a
power line but the work does not

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
require it, the employer need not take
encroachment-prevention measures if it
prohibits working beyond a radius that
would bring the boom within 20 feet of
the line. OSHA concludes, therefore,
that no change to the proposed
regulatory language is needed to address
these concerns and is promulgating this
paragraph as proposed.
If, after defining a work zone, an
employer determines that the 20 foot
‘‘trigger’’ determination is positive, then
the employer is required to take
additional steps. Specifically, the
employer must meet the requirements
under either, Option (1), Option (2), or
Option (3) of § 1926.1408(a)(2).42 See
above discussion of § 1926.1407(a) for
additional information about how
OSHA intends to enforce these
compliance options.
Section 1926.1408(a)(2) is adopted
without change from the proposal.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i) Option (1)
An employer choosing Option (1) of
this section will protect against
electrocution by having the power lines
deenergized and visibly grounded at the
worksite. This option minimizes the
probability that equipment that contacts
the power line will become energized.
The power line must be ‘‘visibly
grounded at the worksite.’’
One commenter believed that the
requirement for visible grounding was
‘‘impractical and overly burdensome.’’
(ID–0146.1.) A second commenter
believed that this requirement was
needed to permit the employer to
visually verify that the power line has
been deenergized. (ID–0190.0.)
After reviewing these comments,
OSHA continues to conclude, as C–DAC
did, that visible grounding of the
deenergized line is necessary to protect
workers. First, it minimizes the voltage
that can appear on the power line from
a number of causes, including induced
current and capacitive coupling,
lightning, other energized lines falling
onto the power line (for example, where
there is a traffic accident involving a
motor vehicle striking a utility pole
supporting the power line), and
accidental reenergizing of the lines. It
also facilitates the operation of circuit

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

42 If

no part of the crane, load or load line could
come closer than 20 feet to a power line, the
employer is not required to take any further action
under this section. However, the employer may
encounter a situation where it unexpectedly needs
to increase the size of the work zone. This may
occur, for example, as a result of an unanticipated
need to change the crane’s position or to have the
crane operate beyond the original work zone
boundaries. In such a case the employer is required
to go back to the first step under § 1926.1408(a)(1),
re-identify a work zone and conduct a new 20 foot
‘‘trigger’’ assessment.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

protective devices to deenergize the line
after it is reenergized from the last two
causes. It also serves as a visual
confirmation that the power line has
been deenergized. (See discussion of
§ 1926.1407(a)(1) where OSHA declines
to amend the proposal to require written
confirmation that the power line has
been deenergized.)
Where the employer elects to
deenergize the power line, it will not
have to implement any of the
encroachment/electrocution prevention
measures listed in § 1926.1408(b).
However, some amount of time is
needed to arrange for the utility owner/
operator to deenergize and ground the
line. Also, in some instances, especially
where the construction project is small,
the cost of deenergizing and grounding
may be a substantial portion of the cost
of the project. Because of these factors,
deenergizing and grounding, which was
also a permissible option under former
§ 1926.550(a)(15), has not been routinely
done. Accordingly, the rule provides
other safe and practical options to
reduce unsafe practices in the industry.
Those other options (Options (2) and (3)
in § 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) and (iii),
discussed below) combined with
§ 1926.1408(b) are designed to afford
effective protection against the hazard of
electrocution.
Section 1926.1408(a)(2)(i) is adopted
as proposed.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) Option (2)
Under Option (2)
(§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)), the employer is
required to maintain a minimum
clearance distance of 20 feet. To help
ensure that this distance is not breached
and that employees are protected from
electrocution, the employer is required
to implement the encroachment/
electrocution prevention measures in
§ 1926.1408(b).
Employers using this option will have
to stay further away from the power line
than had been required under subpart
N’s 10-foot rule (employers wanting to
use the 10-foot rule will have to use
Option (3) of this section, discussed
below).43 However, an advantage of this
option to many employers is that they
do not have to determine the voltage of
the power line; they only have to
determine that the line voltage is not
more than 350 kV.
Several commenters verified the
Committee’s conclusion that obtaining
voltage information from utilities can
often be difficult and time-consuming.
(ID–0118.1; –0143.1; –0146.1; –0155.1.)
43 As discussed above, the 10-foot rule requires
varying clearance distances increase with voltage
with clearance distances that begin at 10 feet.

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47953

OSHA determines that by providing a
mechanism under § 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)
for employers to proceed with
construction operations without having
to obtain voltage information, employers
will have more flexibility without
compromising the safety of workers.
One commenter believed that the
maximum clearance distance for this
option should be 15 feet instead of the
proposed 20 feet because it believed
such a distance would be safe for what
it described as ‘‘relatively small cranes.’’
(ID–0184.1.) However, OSHA does not
agree that a distinction based on crane
size is justified. When smaller cranes
operate near power lines, they present
the same hazard as larger cranes and
need to take similar precautions. OSHA
further notes that smaller cranes, i.e.,
cranes with shorter booms, will have a
smaller work zone than larger cranes
and therefore should be better able to
avoid coming within the permitted 20foot clearance and, as a result, may be
less likely to trigger the protective steps
required under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section in any event. Moreover, if OSHA
were to adopt a 15-foot minimum
clearance distance for this option as
advocated by the commenter, it would
have to make a corresponding reduction
in the maximum voltage covered by
§§ 1926.1407 and 1926.1408 and a
corresponding increase in the minimum
voltage covered by § 1926.1409 to retain
the protection afforded by the 10-foot
rule previously contained in subpart N.
Therefore, OSHA has concluded that it
would be inappropriate to decrease the
proposed 20 foot minimum clearance
distance under § 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii); this
paragraph is therefore promulgated as
proposed.
As noted above, in addition to
maintaining a minimum clearance
distance of 20 feet, employers using this
option are required to implement the
encroachment prevention and other
measures specified in § 1926.1408(b).
Paragraph (a)(2)(iii) Option (3)
Under Option (3)
(§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)), the employer is
required to maintain a minimum
clearance distance 44 in accordance with
44 The proposed regulatory text for this section
used the phrase ‘‘minimum approach distance’’
instead of ‘‘minimum clearance distance.’’ As
pointed out by two commenters the latter phrase is
what was used in the proposed § 1926.1407(a)(3)(i)
regulatory text. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1.) For
consistency, OSHA has, in this section, changed the
phrase ‘‘minimum approach distance’’ to ‘‘minimum
clearance distance.’’ Provisions in § 1910.269 and
proposed subpart V of 29 CFR 1926 use the phrase
‘‘minimum approach distance.’’ OSHA believes that
employers who are covered by those standards are
familiar with that term. In contrast, the Agency

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

Continued

09AUR2

47954

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Table A of this section.45 Under Table
A, depending on the voltage of the
power line, the minimum clearance
distance ranges from 10 feet to 20 feet.46
Under this option the employer is
required to determine the line’s voltage.
In addition to maintaining the
minimum clearance distance specified
in the Table, employers using this
option are required to implement the
encroachment prevention and other
measures specified in § 1926.1408(b).
A labor representative urged OSHA to
require a minimum clearance distance
of 20 feet rather than the lower
clearance distances allowed under Table
A, in essence eliminating Option (3).
(ID–0201.1.) The 20-foot clearance is
needed because, in the commenter’s
view, under the options in the proposal,
crane operations can easily encroach on
an absolute safe distance from power
lines. OSHA does not agree. The
clearance distances permitted under
Table A are ‘‘safe’’ distances, as
indicated by their inclusion in ASME
B30.5–2004 as well as the consensus
reached by C–DAC. As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule, the 10foot rule was not effective under prior
subpart N because subpart N provided
little guidance as to how to maintain the
required clearance. In the proposed rule,
OSHA discussed how the provisions of
this rule addressed two major problems
employers faced in complying with the
minimum clearance requirements of
former subpart N: (1) The lack of a
means to enable operators to judge
when the crane was breaching the
minimum required clearance distance;
and (2) the problem of temporary
operator inattention to a power line as
he/she concentrated on tasks related to
moving the load. (73 FR 59749, Oct. 9,
2008.) The provisions of paragraph (b)
of this section, discussed below, are
designed to overcome these two
problems and ensure compliance with
the minimum clearance distances in this
rule. Even where Table A permits the
clearance distance to be the same as the
10-foot rule of former subpart N, this
final rule provides far greater protection
against equipment violating the allowed
believes that employers that do not perform electric
power work will better understand the term
‘‘minimum clearance distances.’’ OSHA considers
the terms ‘‘approach distance’’ and ‘‘clearance
distance’’ to be interchangeable; no substantive
distinctions are intended.
45 The information in Table A of the final rule is
similar to information in Table 1 of ASME B30.5–
2004. A table with specified clearance distances is
more easily applied than the formula set out in
former § 1926.550(a)(15). Table A is intended to be
a clear way of conveying the minimum clearance
distances.
46 The range referred to here is the range in the
part of the table that is applicable up to 350 kV.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

clearance. It does not allow a crane ‘‘to
very easily encroach’’ on a safe clearance
distance, as IBEW suggests.
The labor representative also
proposed more stringent requirements
than those currently contained in
§ 1926.1410 when it is infeasible to
maintain the Table A clearances. OSHA
addresses this issue below in the
discussion of § 1926.1410. Accordingly,
paragraph (a)(2)(iii) is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (b) Preventing Encroachment/
Electrocution
Once the employer has determined
that some part of the crane, load or load
line could come within the work zone
assessment trigger distance of 20 feet of
a power line (see § 1926.1408(a)), if it
chooses either Option (2) or (3) (of
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) and (iii)), it must
implement encroachment prevention
measures to help ensure that the
applicable minimum clearance distance
(20 feet under Option (2) or the Table A
distance) under Option (3) is not
breached.47 Most of the measures in this
paragraph are designed to help the
employer maintain the appropriate
distance and thereby prevent electrical
contact while operating the equipment.
One of the measures is designed to
prevent electrocution in the event of
electrical contact.
Paragraph (b)(1)
Under 1926.1408(b)(1) the employer
is required to conduct a planning
meeting with the operator and other
workers who will be in the area of the
crane or load. This planning meeting
must include reviewing the location of
the power line(s) and the steps that will
be implemented to prevent
encroachment and electrocution.
One commenter raised the issue of
who is responsible for ensuring that the
planning meeting takes place. (ID–
0218.1.) Where encroachment
precautions are required under Option
(2) or Option (3) (see
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) and
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)), the employers of
the operator and other workers who will
be in the area of the equipment or load
must ensure that the required planning
meeting under § 1926.1408(b)(1) takes
place. Other employers at the work site
may also be responsible for such
compliance in certain situations; see
OSHA CPL 02–00–124, Multi-Employer
Citation Policy, Dec. 10, 1999 for further
information.
47 Alternatively, under Option (1) of
§ 1926.1408(a)(i), the employer could have the lines
deenergized and grounded. If Option (1) were
selected, no further action under this section would
be required.

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

As discussed below, under this
paragraph, certain encroachment/
electrocution prevention measures are
required (they are listed in
§ 1926.1408(b)(1) through (3)). In
addition, the employer is required to
select at least one additional measure
from the list in § 1926.1408(b)(4). In the
planning meeting, the employer must
make that selection and review all the
measures that will be used to comply
with this section. The purpose of this
requirement is to ensure that the
operator and other workers who will be
in the area understand these measures
and how they will be implemented.
That understanding is important to their
successful implementation. Paragraph
(b)(1) is adopted as proposed.
Paragraph (b)(2)
Section 1926.1408(b)(2) requires that
where tag lines are used they must be
nonconductive. This provision provides
additional protection to those
employees who would be exposed to
electrical hazards in the event that the
equipment, load line, tag line or load
contacts a power line and the tag line
they are holding becomes energized.
Note the discussion above related to
§ 1926.1407(b)(2). This provision is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (b)(3)
Section 1926.1408(b)(3) requires
elevated warning lines, barricades or a
line of signs, in view of the crane
operator, equipped with flags or similar
high-visibility markings, at 20 feet from
the power line (if using Option (2) of
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)) or at the minimum
clearance distance under Table A (if
using Option (3) of
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)). The steps
required by this provision are designed
to remind the operator that there are
power lines with associated minimum
clearance distances that must be met.
Warning lines, barricades or a line of
signs in the operator’s view equipped
with high-visibility markings also
indicate to the operator where the
minimum clearance distance boundary
is located. This serves as one of two
layers of protection (the second layer
consists of an additional means selected
by the employer under
§ 1926.1408(b)(4), discussed below).
A commenter urged OSHA to
reconsider this requirement because
there is nothing outside of the traveled
roadway to which a warning line,
barricade, or line of signs could be
affixed. (ID–0114.) OSHA recognizes
that this requirement will often require
the employer to install a series of poles
or other supports to install an elevated
warning line. However, temporary

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
supports are routinely installed on
construction sites, and installing them
for the purpose of enabling the operator
to maintain a safe distance from a power
line serves an important safety purpose
without being overly difficult or timeconsuming.
A visual line on the ground to mark
the minimum clearance distance is not
permitted under § 1926.1408(b)(3)
because an operator would generally not
notice or see a line on the ground and
because, from where the operator sits, it
would be particularly difficult for the
operator to extrapolate from that line the
location of the boundary in the air. By
contrast, visual reminders that are
sufficiently elevated from the ground
level enable the operator to more
accurately judge the distance between
the load, load line (including rigging
and lifting accessories) or crane and the
boundary marked by the elevated
warning line.
In reviewing the C–DAC draft of this
provision, OSHA realized that there
may be situations where the employer
would not be able to place such a line
so that it would be visible to the
operator. In such a case, to have two
layers of protection, it would be
necessary to require that a dedicated
spotter be used in addition to one of the
other (non-spotter) methods described
below in § 1926.1408(b)(4). Therefore, in
the proposed rule, OSHA stated that it
was planning to modify the proposed
provision by adding the following after
the last sentence in § 1926.1408(b)(3):

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

If the operator is unable to see the elevated
warning line, a dedicated spotter must be
used as described in § 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii) in
addition to implementing one of the
measures described in § 1926.1408(b)(4)(i),
(iii), (iv) and (v).

The Agency requested public
comment on this issue. Two
commenters agreed with the substance
of the proposed addition to this
provision (ID–0205.1; –0213.1); a third
commenter agreed with the proposed
addition but recommended that OSHA
go a step further and require a dedicated
spotter at all times (ID–0113). For the
reasons explained in the discussion of
§ 1926.1408(b)(4) below, OSHA has
decided not to accept this latter
recommendation for a dedicated spotter
in all cases. The Agency has, however,
included the additional regulatory text
delineated above in the final rule.
Paragraph (b)(4)
This section sets out a list of five
prevention measures, from which the
employer must select at least one, when
the employer elects to use either Option
(2) or Option (3) under
§ 1926.1408(a)(2). The first four

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

measures are methods for encroachment
prevention. The fifth measure is a
method of electrocution prevention in
the event of electrical contact with a
power line. Specifically, the employer is
required to choose one of the following:
(i) A proximity alarm; (ii) the use of a
dedicated spotter; (iii) a device that
automatically warns the operator when
to stop (i.e., a range control warning
device); (iv) a device that automatically
limits the range of movement of the
equipment; or (once they are available)
(v) an insulating link/device, as defined
in § 1926.1401.48
Proximity alarm performance was the
subject of a study conducted by the
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) published in
January 2009, and submitted as an
exhibit to this rulemaking. (ID–0141.2.)
This study tested the efficacy of two
proximity alarm models under various
simulated construction conditions. The
study indicated that the accuracy of the
proximity alarms could be adversely
affected by such factors as: (1) Operating
the equipment with a boom angle and
length significantly different than that
used for the device’s last sensitivity
adjustment; and (2) operating the
equipment on sites with multiple
overhead power lines, especially where
those power lines had differing voltages
or involved intersecting installations.
Two other commenters also questioned
the efficacy of proximity alarms. (ID–
0118.1; –0206.1.)
OSHA shares the concerns expressed
by NIOSH and other commenters over
the accuracy of currently available
proximity alarms.49 However, such
concerns are addressed by the definition
of ‘‘proximity alarm’’ in § 1926.1401,
which states that the term refers to a
device ‘‘that has been listed, labeled, or
accepted by a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory in accordance with
§ 1910.7.’’ To be so listed, labeled, or
accepted, the Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL) must
determine that the device works
properly by concluding that it conforms
to an appropriate test standard.
Accordingly, no proximity alarm can be
listed, labeled, or accepted by a
Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory (NRTL) in accordance with
§ 1910.7 until the problems identified
by the commenters have been rectified.
OSHA concludes that retaining this
option in the final rule will provide an
incentive for proximity alarm
48 See discussion later in this section for an
explanation of the delay in the effective date for this
provision.
49 Neither of the proximity alarm models tested in
the NIOSH study had obtained NRTL listing,
labeling, or acceptance.

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47955

manufacturers to improve these devices
to the point where they will meet the
definition’s criteria.
In situations where an employer
chooses the option of using a dedicated
spotter, the employer is required to meet
the requirements for spotters in
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii). As specified in
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(A), the spotter has
to be equipped with a visual aid to
assist in identifying the minimum
clearance distance.
Under § 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(B)–(D), the
spotter has to be positioned so that he/
she can effectively gauge the clearance
distance from the power line; the
spotter, where necessary, must use
equipment that enables him/her to
communicate directly with the
equipment operator; and the spotter
must give timely information to the
operator so that the required clearance
distance can be maintained.
Some commenters recommended that
dedicated spotters be required at all
times. (ID–0112; –0113.) OSHA declines
to impose such a requirement. The
Agency determines that allowing the
employer to choose from a variety of
options for this second layer of
protection allows the employer to select
a method that it believes would be
suitable, increases the likelihood of
employer compliance, and will be an
effective approach to reducing power
line related injuries and fatalities.
One commenter also advocated
adding a provision requiring dedicated
spotters to pass a visual acuity exam.
(ID–0071.) OSHA determines that it is
unnecessary to require a specific level of
visual acuity. Wherever this standard
requires an employer to have an
individual perform a particular task,
that duty is met only where the
individual has the ability to perform the
task. If an employer assigns an
individual to serve as a spotter, but his/
her vision is insufficient to perform the
task of a spotter, the employer will not
have met the spotter requirement. For
additional discussion of spotter
requirements see the discussion of
§ 1926.1407(b)(3)(i) earlier in this
preamble.
Section 1926.1408(b)(4)(iii) gives the
employer the option of using a device
that automatically warns the operator
when to stop movement, such as a range
control warning device. Such a device
must be set to give the operator
sufficient warning to prevent
encroachment. ‘‘Range control warning
device’’ is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a
device that can be set by an equipment
operator to warn that the boom or jib tip
is at a plane or multiple planes.’’
For example: An employer has chosen
the option of maintaining a 20-foot

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47956

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

distance from the power line. Under
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(iii), it has chosen to
use a range control warning device to
help maintain that distance. The device
would have to be set to alert the
operator in time to prevent the boom,
load line or load (whichever is closest
to the power line) from breaching that
20-foot distance. As a practical matter,
the device would have to be set to
sound the warning more than 20 feet
from the line, since the operator will
need some time to react and to account
for the momentum of the equipment,
load line and load.50
Section 1926.1408(b)(4)(iv) gives the
employer the option of using a device
that automatically limits the
equipment’s range of motion and is set
to prevent encroachment. Such a device
can be particularly suitable for tower
cranes, for which the swing angle can be
programmed so that the operator cannot
move the boom or jib past a certain
range. While it may be more technically
difficult to apply swing limitation
devices for use in mobile cranes, the
technology may develop so that they
could be used in such cranes as well.
The insulating link option that is
available under § 1926.1408(b)(4)(v)
would not protect against encroachment
but would provide protection to
employees handling the load against
electrocution in the event encroachment
did occur. Such a device must be
installed between the end of the load
line and the load. When so installed, it
prevents the load from becoming
energized in the event the load line or
other part of the equipment makes
electrical contact with a power line.
Preventing the load from becoming
energized helps protect riggers, who
often guide crane loads manually and
who are therefore at high risk of being
electrocuted if a load becomes
energized.
Some commenters expressed concern
about the effectiveness of insulating
links. (ID–0206.1; –0378.1.) As stated in
§ 1926.1401, ‘‘Insulating link/device’’ is
defined as ‘‘an insulating device that has
been listed, labeled, or accepted by a
Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory in accordance with
§ 1910.7.’’ This definition addresses this
concern, since an insulating link used
under this provision must have been
found by a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (‘‘NRTL’’) to conform
to an appropriate test standard as
required in § 1910.7.
50 One commenter questioned whether range
control warning devices exist. (ID–0151.1.) OSHA
has confirmed that some cranes are equipped with
such a device.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Because insulating links previously
have not been required by any OSHA
standard, OSHA has not yet recognized
any testing laboratory as a NRTL for
purposes of insulating link listing,
labeling, or acceptance. A period of time
will be needed to review laboratory
requests for such recognition. Once
there are NRTLs for testing insulating
links, some time will also be needed for
the NRTLs to conduct the tests. As a
result, where § 1926.1408(b) applies,
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(v) will be unavailable
as an additional measure in the list
contained in § 1926.1408(b)(4) until
employers acquire NRTL-approved
insulating links. Therefore, during that
period, in addition to implementing the
requirements in § 1926.1408(b)(1)–(3),
the employer must implement at least
one of the measures listed in
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(i)–(iv).
A commenter suggested that
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(v) be deleted because
it involves a live line procedure covered
under § 1910.269, which, it says,
requires an operator to be a qualified
worker to get this close to an insulating
link. (ID–0161.1.) This commenter
misunderstands the provision.
Paragraph (b)(4)(v) allows employers to
use an insulating link between the load
line and load as an alternative to other
protective measures. It has nothing to do
with live line procedures under
§ 1910.269, which is a general industry
standard that applies to operation and
maintenance of power lines and which
has no provision regulating the
proximity of an operator or a qualified
person to an insulating link.
One commenter pointed out that
insulating links do not provide
protection for those employees, such as
equipment operators, who are in contact
with the equipment ‘‘upstream’’ of the
insulating link. (ID–0053.1.) That is
incorrect. Insulating links serve a dual
purpose. They protect a rigger who is
handling the load if the equipment
upstream of the link makes electrical
contact with a power line. And they
protect employees who are upstream of
the insulating link if the load makes
electrical contact with a power line. The
workers who are at the greatest risk of
electrocution—the riggers who handle
the load, are also protected by the
requirement for nonconductive tag
lines. But the best protection for all
workers, and the primary focus of
paragraph (b), is to employ effective
encroachment prevention measures to
prevent electrical contact of any part of
the equipment and/or load with a power
line. For additional discussion of
insulating links, see later in this
preamble where OSHA addresses
§ 1926.1410(d)(4).

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Paragraph (b)(5)
Employers engaged in construction of
electric transmission and distribution
lines, which is addressed by 29 CFR
part 1926 subpart V (§§ 1926.950–
1926.960), also have to meet the
requirements in § 1926.1408, with
several exceptions.51 The first exception
is found in § 1926.1408(b)(5). The other
exceptions are discussed elsewhere in
this preamble. In accordance with
§ 1926.1408(b)(5), employers engaged in
work involving cranes/derricks that is
covered by subpart V are not required to
comply with the requirements in
§ 1926.1408(b)(4). Subpart V applies to
the construction of electric transmission
and distribution lines and equipment,
which includes the alteration,
conversion, and improvement of
existing lines and equipment. Thus,
when employees are engaged in subpart
V work near energized lines, by the
nature of the job, their full attention is
on the power lines. Non-subpart V
workers, by contrast, do not work
directly with the lines, and their
attention is primarily directed
elsewhere.
Subpart V contains additional
requirements to protect those employees
against making electrical contact with
the lines. These include requirements in
§ 1926.950(c) for guarding the line or
using insulation (such as insulating
gloves) to prevent electrical contact.
This paragraph is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (c)

Voltage Information

This section operates in conjunction
with § 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii) (Option (3)—
Table A clearance). Where an employer
elects to use Option (3)
(§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)), the employer
must, under § 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)(A),
determine the voltage of the power
lines. Under § 1926.1408(c), utility
owner/operators of these lines must
provide the requested voltage
information within two working days of
the request (see the discussion above of
§ 1926.1407(e) for a description of the
public comments received on this
requirement and OSHA’s resolution of
the issues raised by those comments).
As discussed above with respect to
§ 1926.1407(e), ‘‘working days’’ means
Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. This provision is
promulgated as proposed.
51 As discussed in § 1926.1400, Scope,
construction of electric transmission and
distribution lines is covered under this subpart.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Paragraph (d) Operations Below Power
Lines
When a crane operates below a power
line, the likelihood of breaching the
minimum clearance distance is
enhanced by several factors, including
the greater difficulty of judging the
distance to the power line when it is
above the equipment and the fact that in
most such situations the operator has to
purposely look up to see the line (and
therefore is more likely to forget its
location or that it is there).
This section addresses this problem
by prohibiting any part of a crane, load
or load line (including rigging and
lifting accessories) from being below a
power line unless the employer has
confirmed with the utility owner/
operator that the power line is
deenergized and visibly grounded at the
worksite or unless the employer can
demonstrate that it meets one of the four
exceptions in § 1926.1408(d)(2).
The first exception,
§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(i), is for work covered
by 29 CFR part 1926 subpart V. Subpart
V work involves work on the power line
itself and commonly requires equipment
to operate below a power line. As
explained above with respect to
§ 1926.1408(b)(5), subpart V work does
not require all of the precautions
required of other work because the full
attention of the workers is directed at
the power line.
The second exception,
§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(ii), is for equipment
with non-extensible booms and the
third exception, § 1926.1408(d)(2)(iii), is
for equipment with articulating or
extensible booms. These exceptions
apply when the uppermost part of the
boom (for non-extensible booms) or
with the boom at its fullest extension
(for extensible booms), will be more
than 20 feet below the plane of the
power line or more than the Table A
minimum clearance distance below the
plane of the power line at the boom’s
most vertical point.52 Where this
criterion is met, it is not possible for the
minimum clearance distance to be
breached.
The last exception,
§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(iv), is for situations in
which the employer can demonstrate
that it is infeasible to comply with
§ 1926.1408(d)(1), which prohibits any
part of a crane, load or load line from
being below a power line unless the line
is deenergized and visibly grounded.
Under this exception, the employer
must not only show that compliance
with § 1926.1408(d)(1) is infeasible, it
52 The plane of the power line is the horizontal
plane that touches the lowest point on the lowest
power line.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

must also comply with the requirements
in § 1926.1410. Section 1926.1410
governs equipment operations closer
than the Table A minimum clearance
distances.
Two commenters requested that
OSHA define the term ‘‘infeasible.’’ (ID–
0203.1; –0214.1.) Infeasibility
determinations are fact-dependent, and
OSHA generally considers compliance
with a measure to be infeasible when it
is impossible or would prevent
performance of the work in question.
See OSHA CPL 02–00–148, ch. 5, sec.
VI.B.2, Field Operations Manual, Nov.
10, 1999. OSHA notes that this is not
the first standard to incorporate
feasibility considerations; the Agency
has incorporated feasibility language
into many other standards. See, e.g., Fall
Protection (§ 1926.502(k)); PermitRequired Confined Spaces
(§ 1910.146(d)(5)(i)); Bloodborne
Pathogens (§ 1910.1030(f)(3)(ii)); and
Electrical Work Practices
(§ 1910.333(a)(1)). In letters of
interpretation and guidance documents
explaining these and other standards,
OSHA has elaborated on the meaning of
infeasibility in numerous factual
contexts. Because infeasibility is a
concept of broad applicability in the
OSHA context, and its meaning depends
on the particular facts present in a given
worksite situation, a single definition
would not provide useful guidance to
employers. Accordingly, the Agency
declines to adopt a definition of that
term specific to subpart CC. Paragraph
(d) is adopted as proposed.
Paragraph (e) Power Lines Presumed
Energized
This provision requires employers to
assume that all power lines are
energized unless the utility owner/
operator confirms that the power line
has been and continues to be
deenergized and visibly grounded at the
worksite. This fundamental precaution
is essentially the same as it was in
subpart N at former
§ 1926.550(a)(15)(vi). The one
commenter on this proposed provision
supported it (ID–0161.1); this provision
is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (f)
Paragraph (f) of this section addresses
the danger that employees could receive
an electric shock from equipment that is
operating near a transmitter or
communication tower. During such
operation, the equipment can act as an
antenna and become energized by the
electromagnetic signal emitted from the
tower. As proposed, § 1926.1408(f)
stated that when the equipment is close
enough for an electrical charge to be

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47957

induced in the equipment or load, the
transmitter must be deenergized or the
following precautions taken: The
equipment must be grounded, and nonconductive rigging or an insulating link/
device must be used.
Previously, subpart N, at former
§ 1926.550(a)(15)(vii), required that
when equipment is close enough to a
transmitter tower for an electrical charge
to be induced, the equipment had to be
grounded and a ground jumper cable
used to connect the load to the
equipment. In addition, nonconductive
poles having large alligator clips or
other similar protection had to be used
to connect the ground jumper cable to
the load. Connecting the load to the
grounded equipment dissipated any
electrical charge induced in the load.
The Committee determined that subpart
CC’s proposed requirement for
nonconductive rigging or an insulating
link instead of grounding the load better
reflected current industry practice and
better protected employees.
The requirement for nonconductive
rigging or an insulating link in proposed
§ 1926.1408(f) was a fundamentally
different approach than requiring a
ground jumper cable to be connected to
the load as was specified in former
§ 1926.550(a)(15)(vii). The latter
connects the load to a ground, while
proposed § 1926.1408(f) would have
insulated the load from the equipment
or employees handling the load.
The Agency requested public
comment on whether the proposed
requirement was preferable to that in
former § 1926.550(a)(15)(vii). Some
commenters agreed that the proposed
requirements would provide better
protection of workers and argued that
they were more feasible than the
requirements of former
§ 1926.550(a)(15)(vii). (ID–0205.1;
–0213.1.) One commenter believed that
§ 1926.1408(f) as proposed was inferior
to former § 1926.550(a)(15)(vii) because
‘‘insulating links are generally rated for
distribution voltages and would not
properly protect employees working
near power lines.’’ 53 (ID–0209.1.)
Another commenter recommended that
the proposed § 1926.1408(f)
requirements be supplemented with a
requirement that any insulating link
used be rated for the applicable
53 Another commenter opposed the proposed
language because it believed that grounding the
equipment under the provisions of former
§ 1926.550(a)(15)(vii) would better protect
employees, the crane, and the power line because
it would result in a very quick trip of the line. (ID–
0144.1.) This comment is not relevant because
grounding the crane would not cause the
transmitter or communication towers to trip.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47958

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

transmission tower frequencies, and that
nonconductive tag lines be used.
The problem addressed by these
comments involves how to protect a
worker, such as a rigger, who may come
into electrical contact with the load.
Under the proposed rule, the load
would be insulated from the grounded
crane to isolate the load from circulating
current that could cause it to be
energized. However, it may be possible
that the load itself could become
energized by absorbing energy from the
transmitter or communication tower.
The former rule addresses this
possibility by requiring an electrical
connection between the load and the
(grounded) equipment. However, in the
event there is either a poor electrical
connection or a ground that is not fully
effective, this method might not provide
complete protection. Therefore, OSHA
has decided not to require either
precaution, but instead to require that
any tag line used be nonconductive.
This precaution is required in other
provisions, discussed above, to protect
the rigger from the possibility that the
equipment may come into electrical
contact with a power line. It will be
equally appropriate here. Section
1926.1408(f) is modified accordingly.
OSHA notes that former
§ 1926.550(a)(15)(vii) of subpart N
required employers to provide crews
‘‘with nonconductive poles having large
alligator clips or other similar protection
to attach the ground cable to the load.’’
This requirement protected employees
from the electric shock hazard that
exists when employees apply grounds.
Due to what the Agency determined was
an inadvertent oversight on the part of
the Committee, the proposed rule did
not contain provisions addressing these
hazards. Although no commenters
raised this issue, OSHA is aware that
employees are exposed to serious
electric shock hazards when they are
attaching grounds in accordance with
§ 1926.1408(f). For example, when
attaching the rigging to the load or the
ground to the crane, the crane and load
will be energized. OSHA views this
condition as a recognized hazard and
expects employers to ensure that
employees are adequately protected
when they are attaching grounds.
Employers who fail to properly protect
their employees in this regard will, in
appropriate circumstances, be subject to
citation under the General Duty Clause
(sec. 5(a)(1)) of the OSH Act.
It should also be noted that work
covered by §§ 1926.1407 and 1926.1410
that is performed near transmitter or
communication towers can pose electric
shock hazards similar to those
addressed by § 1926.1408(f). Due to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

another oversight by the Committee,
however, neither § 1926.1407 nor
§ 1926.1410 contains provisions
addressing these hazards. OSHA
considers these to be recognized hazards
and will use its enforcement authority
under the General Duty Clause, as
appropriate, to ensure that employers
are taking measures, such as those
required in §§ 1926.600(a)(6)(vii) or
1926.1408(f), to protect employees from
electric shock and fires while
performing work covered by
§§ 1926.1407 and 1926.1410 near
transmitter or communication towers.
OSHA will consider addressing both of
these oversights through future
rulemaking.
A commenter suggested adding a
provision to paragraph (f) whereby the
owner of a transmitter communication
tower would be required to evaluate
whether power level density levels were
high enough to endanger employees
working near the tower and, if so,
implement precautions to prevent them.
(ID–0130.1.) The issue raised by this
comment is beyond the scope of this
rule, which addresses hazards related to
the use of equipment and not employee
exposure to possible radiation hazards.
Such hazards are covered by § 1926.54,
Nonionizing radiation.
Paragraph (g) Training
Paragraph (g) of this section sets forth
training requirements for crane
operators and other crew members
assigned to work with the equipment.
The training topics listed are designed
to ensure that both the operator and the
other crew members have the
information they need to help protect
themselves from power line hazards.
One commenter suggested that, in
addition to the topics listed in the
proposed rule, employees working on
equipment operating closer than Table
A clearance distances also be trained on
induction, step and touch potentials,
and proper equipment grounding
procedures. (ID–0161.1.) Other
commenters also recommended training
in grounding procedures and in the
limitations of the protection that
grounding provides. (ID–0131.1;
–0155.1.) OSHA concludes that training
on induction, step, and touch potentials
would get into issues that are highly
technical and would not help workers
understand what they must do to
protect themselves and others. OSHA
does, however, agree with the
suggestion that workers be trained in
proper grounding procedures and in the
limitations of the protection that
grounding provides. As discussed under
§ 1926.1410, equipment grounding is
one of the additional precautions

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

required when it is infeasible to
maintain the Table A clearances, and
training in proper grounding procedures
will help ensure the effectiveness of this
provision. In addition, employees must
understand that grounding may not
afford complete protection.
Accordingly, OSHA is adding a new
§ 1926.1408(g)(1)(v) that requires
training in the procedures to be
followed to properly ground equipment
and the limitations of grounding.
In addition, proposed
§ 1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(E) stated that
training was required in the need to
avoid approaching or touching ‘‘the
equipment.’’ In the proposed rule’s
preamble, OSHA stated that it
determined that C–DAC inadvertently
failed to add the phrase ‘‘and the load’’
to that provision, since whenever the
equipment is in electrical contact with
a power line, the load may also be
energized. OSHA requested public
comment on whether that provision
should be modified to correct this
omission. Commenters agreed that
adding the phrase ‘‘and the load’’ was
appropriate. (ID–0051.0; –0205.1;
–0213.1.) Therefore, OSHA has made
this addition in the final rule.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
noted that proposed § 1926.1408(g) did
not address the timing and frequency of
this training. OSHA requested public
comment on whether and, if so, how the
standard should address training timing
and frequency.
The one commenter on this issue
advocated not dictating the timing or
frequency of training in this provision.
For the final rule, OSHA has decided to
cross reference the testing
administration requirements of
§ 1926.1430. That training section
requires that employees be evaluated to
confirm that they understand the
information provided in the training,
and that refresher training be provided
when, based on employee conduct,
there is an indication that retraining is
necessary. Section 1926.1408(g) is
modified accordingly.
Paragraph (h)
In the proposed rule, this provision
required that where devices originally
designed by the manufacturer for use as
safety devices, operational aids, or a
means to prevent power line contact or
electrocution are used to comply with
§ 1926.1408, they must meet the
manufacturer’s procedures for use and
conditions of use. The Committee
concluded that this provision is
necessary to ensure that the devices
work as intended. No comments were
received on this provision, and it is
promulgated without change. (See

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
§ 1926.1417 for a discussion of OSHA’s
authority to require compliance with
manufacturer procedures.)
Section 1926.1409
(Over 350 kV)

Power Line Safety

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

As proposed, the requirements in
§§ 1926.1407 and 1926.1408 would
apply to power lines rated over 350 kV
in all respects except one: Wherever the
regulatory text states ‘‘20 feet,’’ ‘‘50 feet’’
would be substituted. Therefore, the
‘‘trigger’’ distance that would be used
when assessing an assembly/
disassembly area or work zone would be
50 feet. In addition, an employer
engaged in assembly/disassembly that is
using Option (2) of proposed
§ 1926.1407(a)(2), or an employer
engaged in crane operations that is
using Option (2) of proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii), would be required
to maintain a minimum clearance
distance of 50 feet. This would apply to
all power lines rated over 350 kV,
including power lines over 1,000 kV.
For power lines over 1,000
kilovolts,54 employers electing to use
Table A of § 1926.1408 in either
assembly/disassembly (Option (3) in
§ 1926.1407(a)(3)) or crane operations
(Option (3) in § 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)) are
required, pursuant to instructions in the
Table, to maintain a minimum clearance
distance determined by the utility
owner/operator or a registered
professional engineer who is a qualified
person with respect to electrical power
transmission and distribution.
In reviewing this regulatory language,
OSHA recognized that a minimum
clearance distance of 50 feet may be
inadequate for the open-ended category
of ‘‘over 1,000 kV.’’ In fact, at some point
in that range, a utility owner/operator or
a registered professional engineer may
well specify a minimum clearance
distance of more than 50 feet. However,
as drafted in the proposed rule,
employers using Option (2) (in both
proposed §§ 1926.1407(a)(2) and
1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)) would only have to
maintain a minimum clearance distance
of 50 feet. OSHA requested public
comment on whether proposed Option
(2) is insufficiently protective for power
lines rated over 1,000 kV. The one
commenter on this issue agreed that the
proposed provision was insufficiently
protective for power lines carrying
54 OSHA does not believe that there are any
electric power transmission lines in the United
States that operate at more than 800 kV. However,
there may be some power lines associated with
research laboratories or other similar facilities that
operate at more than 1,000 kV. In addition, it is
possible that utilities may install new power lines
operating at more than this voltage or may upgrade
existing lines to operate at higher voltages.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

voltages greater than 1,000 kV. OSHA
agrees and has modified § 1926.1409 in
the final rule to conform to the
requirement of Table A that the
minimum clearance distance for lines
over 1,000 kV be determined by the
utility owner/operator or a registered
professional engineer who is a qualified
person with respect to electrical power
and distribution. OSHA notes that the
minimum distance under Option (2) for
voltages between 351 and 1,000 kV is 50
feet. The Agency expects that the
distances set by utilities and registered
professional engineers in accordance
with § 1926.1409(b) will be at least 50
feet.
Section 1926.1410 Power Line Safety
(All Voltages)—Crane Operations Closer
Than the Table A Zone
Subpart N did not permit work closer
than the 10-foot rule 55 unless the lines
were deenergized and visibly grounded
or where insulating barriers, separate
from the equipment, were erected.
However, the Committee recognized
that many employers, without meeting
the exceptions, nonetheless worked
closer than the 10-foot rule. The
Committee determined that most
employers do not use the option to
deenergize and ground because of the
time, expense and difficulty in making
those arrangements.56 In addition, the
Committee concluded that an
‘‘insulating barrier’’ of the type that is
currently available does not, by itself,
adequately protect employees because
these barriers are only effective for
‘‘brush’’ contact. If there is more than
brush contact, they will not protect
employees from electrocution because
the equipment will damage the device.
To address the insufficient
protections provided to employees who
work closer than the 10-foot rule, the
Committee developed, and OSHA
proposed, a new approach, which is
contained in § 1926.1410. It consists of
prerequisites and criteria that apply
when work must be conducted closer
than the minimum clearance distance
specified in Table A of § 1926.1408.
In this case, the Committee’s rationale
misrepresented existing OSHA
enforcement policy under subpart N
55 As described earlier, the ‘‘10-foot rule’’ is
shorthand for the formula in former
§ 1926.550(a)(15) for minimum clearance distances.
Under the 10-foot rule, for lines rated 50 kV or less,
work was not permitted closer than 10 feet to an
energized power line. For lines rated more than 50
kV, a clearance of 10 feet plus .4 inch for each 1
kV over 50 kV was generally required.
56 If power lines are deenergized and grounded,
power is shut off to the utility owner/operator’s
customers. As a result, utility owner/operators are
understandably reluctant to implement such
measures.

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47959

regarding insulating barriers in two
respects. First, current policy recognizes
other types of insulating barriers besides
the type to which the Committee
referred.57 OSHA also recognizes goalpost-type barriers and, in certain limited
circumstances the insulation on
insulated power lines operating at 480
volts or less. See, e.g., letters of
interpretation dated February 8, 1994, to
Mr. Ivan Blood (http://www.osha.gov)
and August 9, 2004, to Mr. Mathew
McFarland (http://www.osha.gov).
Second, the Agency does accept barriers
that protect against brush contact under
limited circumstances. See, e.g., letter of
interpretation dated February 8, 1994, to
Mr. Ivan Blood (http://www.osha.gov).
However, as these letters of
interpretation recognize, these barriers
have their limitations. Because of this,
OSHA has concluded that, although the
Committee’s rationale with respect to
§ 1926.1410 was slightly flawed by a
misunderstanding of subpart N
requirements, their reasoning that the
provisions of this section are more
protective than the former standard still
holds.
This section starts out by explicitly
prohibiting equipment from operating
closer than the distances specified in
Table A of § 1926.1408 to an energized
power line except where the employer
demonstrates compliance with the
requirements in § 1926.1410.
Note that, in the discussion below of
§ 1926.1410, references to a ‘‘registered
professional engineer’’ are, in
accordance with § 1926.1410(c)(1),
references to a registered professional
engineer who is a qualified person with
respect to electrical power transmission
and distribution.
One commenter on the proposed rule
asked for clarification regarding who
determines whether a professional
engineer is such a ‘‘qualified person.’’
(ID–0155.1.) Under § 1926.1401, a
qualified person is a ‘‘person who, by
possession of a recognized degree,
certificate, or professional standing, or
who by extensive knowledge, training
and experience, successfully
demonstrated the ability to solve/
resolve problems relating to the subject
matter, the work, or the project.’’ At a
given construction site, the employer
who is conducting crane operations and
who uses the services of the engineer to
carry out that employer’s
responsibilities under this section is
responsible for determining whether the
registered professional engineer is a
57 The barriers are known as electrically
insulating plastic guard equipment. See ASTM
F712–06 Standard Test Methods and Specifications
for Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard Equipment
for Protection of Workers.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47960

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

qualified person with respect to
electrical power transmission and
distribution.
Paragraphs (a) and (b)
These paragraphs set forth
prerequisites that must be met for the
employer to be permitted to operate
equipment closer to a power line than
the applicable Table A of § 1926.1408
distance. Section 1926.1410(a) requires
the employer to determine that it is
infeasible to do the work without
breaching the minimum clearance
distance under Table A. If the employer
determines it is infeasible to maintain
the Table A distance, under
§ 1926.1410(b) it also has to determine,
after consulting with the utility owner/
operator, that deenergizing and
grounding the power line, as well as
relocating the line, are infeasible. See
discussion of infeasibility
determinations in § 1926.1408(d).
Two commenters argued that the
requirement to demonstrate infeasibility
was unnecessary for electric utility work
regulated under subpart V. (ID–0203.1;
–0209.1.) After careful review of these
comments, OSHA has concluded that it
is appropriate for subpart V work to be
excluded from the need to show
infeasibility under § 1926.1410.
Subpart V applies to the erection of
new electric transmission and
distribution lines and equipment and
the alteration, conversion, and
improvement of existing transmission
and distribution lines and equipment
(§ 1926.950(a)(1)). Construction of new
lines generally takes place some
distance from existing lines, and the
lines themselves are not energized until
construction is complete. Hence,
clearance distances are usually not an
issue for new construction. However,
alteration, conversion, and
improvement of existing lines
necessarily takes place on or near the
lines themselves. To enable such work
to be done safely, subpart V contains
clearance requirements that permit
equipment to operate much closer to the
lines than either former § 1926.550 or
§§ 1926.1408–1926.1409 of this final
rule, as well as supplementary
protective requirements that must be
followed when the subpart V clearance
requirements cannot be observed.
Subpart V’s clearance requirements
are found in Table V–1 of § 1926.950.
Subpart V does not require a showing of
infeasibility before allowing subpart V
work to comply with these shorter
clearance distances, and OSHA
concludes that the record does not
support requiring such a showing under
the final rule either. The very nature of
work that alters, converts, or improves

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

existing power lines must necessarily be
carried out close to those lines, and it
would almost always be infeasible for
the clearances in §§ 1926.1408–
1926.1409 to be maintained. As a result,
requiring such a finding would be a
formality that would not add to worker
safety.
It is similarly inappropriate to require
a showing that it is infeasible to
deenergize and ground the lines or
relocate the lines under paragraph (b) of
this section for subpart V work. Subpart
V provides for deenergizing and
grounding as an alternative to live line
precautions, but it also recognizes that
subpart V work may take place on live
lines to avoid power disruptions to the
utility’s customers and includes
precautions for such live line work.
Thus, subpart V leaves to the utility
employer the discretion to decide
whether to deenergize and ground
without the need for an infeasibility
determination, and OSHA concludes
they should continue to have this same
discretion under this final rule. OSHA
also notes that paragraph (b) of this
section requires the employer to consult
with the utility owner/operator before
deciding that it infeasible to deenergize
and ground the lines or relocate them,
and it would be anomalous to apply this
provision where the utility owner/
operator is itself the employer.
For these reasons, OSHA has
modified § 1926.1410(c)(2) of the final
rule to clarify that paragraphs (a),(b),
and (c)(1) of § 1926.1410 do not apply
to work covered by subpart V of 29 CFR
1926. Instead, the § 1926.950 Table V–
1 minimum clearances apply. Section
1926.1410(c)(2) also explains that
employers engaged in subpart V work
may work closer than the § 1926.950
Table V–1 distances where both the
requirements of § 1926.1410 and
§ 1926.952(c)(3)(i) or (ii) are met.58
See discussion later in this section
regarding other provisions in
§ 1926.1410 that deal specifically with
subpart V work.
Paragraph (c) Minimum Clearance
Distance
After the employer makes the
infeasibility determinations required by
§ 1926.1410(a) and (b), a minimum
clearance distance must be established.
Under § 1926.1410(c)(1), the employer
can establish this distance by either
having the utility owner/operator
determine the minimum clearance
distance that must be maintained or by
58 OSHA is in the process of updating subpart V
requirements. If the Agency makes changes to those
provisions that necessitate updating the crossreferences in § 1926.1410(c)(2), those changes will
be made as part of that rulemaking.

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

having a registered professional
engineer who is a qualified person with
respect to electrical transmission and
distribution determine the minimum
clearance distance that must be
maintained. The Committee believed
that either of these sources of this
information has sufficient expertise to
accurately apply the factors discussed
below in setting an appropriate
minimum clearance distance.
Commenters objected to requiring the
utility owner/operator to be involved in
setting the minimum clearance distance.
(ID–0161.1; –0162.1.) However,
paragraph (c) of this section does not
require the utility owner/operator to
establish the minimum clearance
distance. It gives the employer the
option of engaging the utility owner/
operator for this purpose but, if the
utility owner/operator declines, the
employer must engage a registered
professional engineer who is a qualified
person with respect to electrical
transmission and distribution. In no
case is the utility owner/operator
required to establish the minimum
clearance distance.
Under § 1926.1410(c)(1), regardless of
whether it is the utility owner/operator
or a registered professional engineer that
makes this determination, several
factors must be considered when
establishing the minimum clearance
distance. These factors include, but are
not limited to: conditions affecting
atmospheric conductivity; time
necessary to bring the equipment, load
and load line (including rigging and
lifting accessories) to a complete stop;
wind conditions; degree of sway in the
power line; lighting conditions, and
other conditions affecting the ability to
prevent electrical contact.
A commenter objected to allowing
cranes to operate closer to power lines
than the ‘‘appropriate minimum
approach distance to an energized line.’’
(ID–0226.) He further noted that, under
the proposed rule, an operator could
take equipment closer to power lines
than a qualified electrical worker. C–
DAC concluded, and OSHA agrees, that
workers will be better protected if
employers are required to adhere to
additional safety precautions when it is
infeasible to maintain the Table A
clearances. Accordingly, to the extent
the commenter recommended that the
standard not permit equipment to come
within the Table A distances, OSHA
rejects this commenter’s suggestion.
The same commenter objected to
allowing equipment operated by
nonelectrical workers to approach closer
to power lines than a qualified electrical
worker. The rule does not, however,
allow this. This section requires the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
employer to determine a minimum
clearance distance that will prevent the
equipment from making electrical
contact with the line. Although existing
subpart V permits employees to take
equipment closer to power lines than
Table V–1 of § 1926.950, the
corresponding general industry standard
at § 1910.269(p)(4)(i) prohibits the
operation of equipment closer than the
distances in Tables R–6 through R–10 of
§ 1910.269. In the proposed revision of
subpart V, the proposed rule contains
the same prohibition as the general
industry standard. As a general matter,
OSHA determines that it is not
appropriate or safe for nonelectrical
workers to bring equipment closer to
power lines than is permitted under
§ 1910.269(p)(4)(i) for qualified workers.
Therefore, the Agency does not expect
that distances shorter than those in
Tables R–6 through R–10 of § 1910.269
will be adequate ‘‘to prevent electrical
contact’’ for purposes of
§ 1926.1410(c)(1).
Several commenters suggested that
when equipment operations closer than
the Table A of § 1926.1408 zone are
performed, (1) ‘‘qualified employees’’ (as
defined under § 1910.269) should be
used (ID–0161.1; –0199.1); (2) the
equipment should be considered
energized (ID–0075.0; –0161.1); and/or
(3) the power line should be
deenergized (ID–0161.1; –0226.0).
Regarding the ‘‘qualified employees’’
suggestion, OSHA determines that the
training required under § 1926.1410(m),
discussed below, is more appropriate for
construction workers working with
cranes and other hoisting equipment
than the training required under
§ 1910.269(a)(2)(ii) for electrical
workers. The training required under
paragraph (m) focuses on the actions
that employees can take to protect
themselves when working near
potentially energized equipment, while
the training under § 1910.269(a)(2)(ii)
focuses on safe practices for working on
energized lines.
The second suggestion is valid
because prudence dictates treating the
equipment as energized when it is
closer than the Table A distance to an
energized power line. However, some
provisions of the rule already treat the
equipment as energized. These include
paragraph (d)(8), which requires
barricades around the equipment to
prevent unauthorized personnel from
entering the work area, and paragraph
(d)(9), which prohibits employees from
touching the equipment. OSHA
determines that no additional benefit
would be gained by a statement to treat
the equipment as energized and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

therefore declines to add such a
statement.
The third suggestion misconstrues the
standard, which prohibits work within
the Table A clearance distances unless
the employer can show, among other
things, that deenergizing and grounding
the line is infeasible. Therefore, except
as noted above, § 1926.1410(c) is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)
Once a minimum clearance distance
has been established under
§ 1926.1410(c), the employer may not
proceed without first having a planning
meeting with either the owner/operator
of the power line or the registered
professional engineer to determine what
procedures will be implemented to
prevent electrical contact and
electrocution. In accordance with
§ 1926.1410(e), these procedures have to
be documented and immediately
available on-site. In addition, in
accordance with § 1926.1410(f) and (g),
these procedures have to be reviewed
with the operator and other workers
who will be in the area of the equipment
and the procedures must be
implemented (§ 1926.1410(e)–(g) are
discussed below).
Section 1926.1410(d) sets out the
minimum protective measures that must
be included in the procedures set by the
employer and utility owner/operator (or
registered professional engineer). These
procedures need to include more
stringent protective measures than those
set out in § 1926.1408, because
equipment will be in closer proximity to
power lines and there is otherwise a
greater risk of contacting a power line
and causing electrocution. Therefore,
these procedures have to include, at a
minimum, those set out in the
remainder of this section.
Commenters objected to having the
utility owner/operator involved in the
planning meeting required by paragraph
(d) of this section. (ID–0161.1; –0162.1.)
As with paragraph (c) of this section,
discussed above, the utility owner/
operator is not required to become
involved with the decisions that must
be made under this section. If the utility
owner/operator declines to participate
in the planning meeting, the employer
must engage a registered professional
engineer to help determine the
procedures needed to prevent electrical
contact. OSHA notes, however, that
equipment making electrical contact
with a power line can disrupt electrical
service as well as create a hazard to
employees on the worksite. Therefore, at
least in some cases, the utility owner/
operator may wish to help develop

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47961

precautions to prevent such electrical
contact.
Paragraph (d)(1)
Under paragraph (d)(1) of this section,
for power lines that are equipped with
a device that automatically reenergizes
the circuit in the event of a power line
contact, the automatic reclosing feature
of the circuit interrupting device must
be made inoperative prior to beginning
work. This will help ensure that, in the
event of a power line contact and
activation of the automatic reclosing
feature, the line would not be
automatically re-energized. One
commenter stated that many circuit
interrupting devices currently in use are
incapable of having their automatic
reclosing mechanisms disabled.
(ID–0155.1.) OSHA verified that fact and
has amended § 1926.1410(d)(1) to clarify
that the automatic reclosing feature
must be made inoperative only if the
design of the device permits.59
Paragraph (d)(2)
Under paragraph (d)(2) of this section,
a dedicated spotter who is in
continuous contact with the operator
must be used. In addition, the dedicated
spotter must be equipped with a visual
aid to assist in identifying the minimum
clearance distance, must be positioned
to effectively gauge the clearance
distance, where necessary must use
equipment that enables him or her to
communicate directly with the operator,
and must give timely information to the
operator so the required clearance
distance can be maintained. For a more
in-depth analysis of the dedicated
spotter requirement and the public
comments received, consult the
discussion of §§ 1926.1407(b)(3)(i) and
1926.1408(b)(4)(ii) above. This
provision is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(3)
Under paragraph (d)(3) of this section,
an elevated warning line, or barricade
that is not attached to the equipment,
positioned to prevent electrical contact,
must be used. This warning line or
barricade must be in view of the
operator either directly or by use of
video equipment and must be equipped
with flags or similar high-visibility
markings. The need for an elevated
warning line or barricade is explained
above in the discussion of
§ 1926.1408(b)(3). This provision does
not apply to subpart V work.
As discussed above in relation to
§ 1926.1408(b)(3), there may be
situations where the operator is not able
59 This revised language is also consistent with
the provisions of § 1910.269(q)(3)(iv).

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47962

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

to see an elevated warning line or
barricade. To address such situations,
under §§ 1926.1408 and 1926.1409,
OSHA changed the regulatory text so
that the employer is required to use both
a dedicated spotter and one of the other
(non-spotter) measures listed in
§ 1926.1408(b)(4). Because the clearance
distances are likely to be significantly
smaller than the Table A distances, the
Agency determines that more precise
means of estimating the clearance
distance are necessary. When the
operator is not able to see an elevated
warning line or barricade when working
closer than the Table A clearance
distance, it is necessary to provide an
additional layer of protection by
requiring the use of video equipment to
enable the operator to see the warning
line or barricade. Therefore, in all cases
when working closer than the Table A
clearance distance, the operator will
have ‘‘two sets of eyes’’ (in addition to
other protection required under this
section) to ensure that the equipment
maintains the minimum clearance
distance established under
§ 1926.1410(c). This paragraph is
adopted as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(4) Insulating Link/
Device
Under paragraph (d)(4) of this section,
an insulating link/device must be
installed at a point between the end of
the load line (or below) and the load. As
described in the discussion of
§ 1926.1408, an insulating link is a
barrier to the passage of electrical
current. When used on a crane, it
prevents the load from becoming
energized if the boom or the load line
makes electrical contact with a power
line and prevents the equipment from
becoming energized if the load contacts
a power line.
As explained in the discussion of
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(v), OSHA anticipates
that NRTL approval of these devices,
which is necessary from them to meet
the definition of ‘‘insulating link’’ under
§ 1926.1401, will not be available for up
to one year after the effective date of this
rule. OSHA is providing two phase-in
periods to allow time for the NRTL
recognition process, and to phase in the
requirement in a manner that will
reduce the economic burden on
employers with existing inventories of
devices that would qualify as
‘‘insulating links/devices,’’ as defined in
§ 1926.1401, except that they have not
been subject to NRTL approval (‘‘nonapproved links’’). First, OSHA is
providing for an alternative measure
that will be available to all employers
for one year after the effective date of
the standard. § 1926.1410(d)(4)(iv).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Second, OSHA is allowing employers
who have existing inventory of nonapproved links to continue to use these
links for an additional two years (up to
a total of three years after the effective
date of the final rule), so long as the
same protections required for the
alternative measures available during
the one-year interim period remain in
place. § 1926.1410(d)(4)(v). However,
the use of links manufactured after the
one-year interim period is prohibited
unless they are NRTL-approved as
required by the definition of ‘‘insulating
link/device’’ in § 1926.1401.
The absence of an insulating link can
result in the load becoming energized if
the equipment makes electrical contact
with a power line or the equipment
becoming energized if the load makes
electrical contact with a power line.
When working inside the clearances
permitted under Table A, the danger of
such electrical contact is increased. As
an interim precaution until insulating
links (as defined in § 1926.1401) become
available, OSHA is requiring that all
employees who may come in contact
with the equipment, the load line, or the
load, excluding equipment operators
located on the equipment, must be
insulated or guarded from the
equipment, the load line, and the load.
Insulating gloves rated for the voltage
involved are adequate insulation for the
purposes of this alternative. This
interim precaution will provide some
degree of protection to employees
working near the equipment or load by
providing a layer of insulation should
the equipment or the load become
energized. During the one-year interim
period following the effective date of
subpart CC, OSHA is encouraging, but
not requiring, the use of non-approved
links as an extra form of protection
(although they cannot be used to satisfy
the standard).
OSHA is also providing a separate
alternative measure that would apply
for an additional two-year transition
period (following the first-year interim
period, for a total of three years) to
address employers who already own or
purchase non-approved links. See
§ 1926.1410(d)(4)(v). Under this
alternative, employers with nonapproved links would be required to use
them in addition to other alternative
measures required under
§ 1926.1410(d)(4)(iv) during the initial
one-year interim period. To be eligible
for this alternative measure, employers
must use and maintain these nonapproved links in compliance with
manufacturer requirements and
recommendations. While OSHA
anticipates that NRTL-approved
insulating links will be available for

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

purchase within a year after the
effective date of subpart CC, the Agency
recognizes that some employers will
have existing inventories of nonapproved links. OSHA is, therefore,
allowing employers the additional two
years to phase out the use of the nonapproved links to reduce the economic
burden of replacing the existing
inventory of non-approved links.
As noted above, OSHA encourages
employers to use non-approved links
during the initial one-year interim
period as an extra measure of
protection, but is not requiring
employers to use them during this
interim period. The Agency recognizes
that some employers might not already
own these devices because OSHA did
not mandate their use under subpart N.
If OSHA required the use of nonapproved links during the initial oneyear interim period, these employers
would be forced to incur additional
costs for devices that could only be used
for a fixed period of one to three years.60
However, once the NRTL-approved
links are available for purchase, the cost
of purchasing the NRTL-approved links
would be a capital investment that
could be amortized over the normal life
of the insulating link.
Several commenters noted the
limitations of insulating links/devices
and advocated for the ability to employ
alternative measures when necessary.
For example, commenters stated that no
insulating links/devices were readily
available for loads above 60 tons or
voltages above 33 kV. (ID–0132.1;
–0155.1; –0197.1.) In addition,
commenters noted that the added length
of rigging that results when insulating
links are used can create problems in
locations where there is limited
overhead clearance. (ID–0132.1;
–0155.1; –0197.1.)
Another commenter who
manufactures insulating links stated
that insulating links are available with
lifting capacities of up to 120 tons and
voltage capacities of up to 125 kV.61
(ID–0216.1.) Therefore, OSHA
concludes that no changes are necessary
to address the objections to the
proposed insulating link requirement
based on load or voltage capacities.
However, OSHA has concluded that
some accommodation may be necessary
to address conditions associated with
electric utility operations in work areas
60 While the record indicates that these devices
are available for rental, it is not clear from the
record that all employers would have access to the
businesses renting these devices.
61 Refer to the discussion of § 1926.1408(b)(4)(v)
for a description of other comments received
concerning insulating links in the context of that
provision.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
with low overhead clearance from
power lines.62 Accordingly, OSHA has
added an alternative to this provision
for subpart V operations where use of an
insulating link is infeasible. However,
this provision should rarely, if ever, be
available to employers, as there are
several alternatives to using a crane or
derrick in this operation including use
of an aerial lift with a material handler
or a manual hoist. The alternative
requires use of alternate electrical safety
precautions; specifically, the alternate
precautions are those required under the
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution regulations applicable
to general industry under
§ 1910.269(p)(4)(iii)(B) or (C). Those
precautions require either that the
hoisting equipment be insulated for the
voltage involved, or that each employee
be protected from hazards that might
arise from equipment contact with
energized lines.63

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (d)(5)
Under paragraph (d)(5) of this section,
if the rigging may be closer than the
Table A of § 1926.1408 distance during
the operation, it must be of the
nonconductive type. This provides
protection to those employees who
would be exposed to electrical hazards
in the event that the rigging contacts a
power line, which otherwise could
energize the rigging and the load.
One commenter stated that he was
unaware of any sling manufacturers
who market their slings as being
nonconductive, and that there are no
test standards for testing the dielectric
properties of slings. (ID–0155.1.) As
noted in the discussion of tag lines of
§ 1926.1407(b)(2), C–DAC considered
the utility of setting specifications for
material required to be nonconductive
but determined that it would be
impractical, and OSHA has additionally
concluded that there is no need to
specify test criteria for these materials.
The guidance provided for determining
whether a tag line is nonconductive
applies equally here. Slings made from
nonmetallic fibers will meet the
standard provided they are not wet,
dirty, or have substances on or in them
62 The example provided by the commenter was
replacement/repair of utility pole transformers. (ID–
0155.1.) Such operations frequently involve
hoisting transformers onto and off of utility poles
immediately beneath power lines. The commenter
stated that frequently in those operations there is
barely sufficient room for the boom head itself;
when an insulating link is added to the load line,
the extra 2–3 feet of rigging prevents the hoisting
of the transformer to the required elevation. The
commenter did not explain why an aerial lift or
manual hoist could not be used.
63 See discussion of this paragraph below under
subpart V-work.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

that will conduct electricity. Therefore,
OSHA has concluded that the
requirement that rigging that may be
closer than the Table A distance be
nonconductive is appropriate, and the
provision is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(6)
Under paragraph (d)(6) of this section,
if the crane is equipped with a device
that automatically limits range of
movement, it must be used and set to
prevent any part of the crane, load or
load line (including rigging and lifting
accessories) from breaching the
minimum clearance distance
established under § 1926.1410(c). This
paragraph is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(7)
Under paragraph (d)(7) of this section,
if a tag line is used it must be
nonconductive. This requirement
provides additional protection to those
employees who would be exposed to
electrical hazards in the event that the
equipment contacts a power line and
the tag line they are holding becomes
energized, or in the event that the tag
line itself makes contact with the power
line.
Refer to the discussion of
§ 1926.1407(b)(2) for further explanation
of tag line non-conductivity and public
comments received on this subject. This
provision is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(8)
Under paragraph (d)(8) of this section,
barricades must be used to form a
perimeter at least 10 feet away from the
equipment to prevent unauthorized
personnel from entering the work area.
In areas where obstacles prevent the
barricade from being at least 10 feet
away, the barricade is required to be as
far from the equipment as feasible. This
provision, along with §§ 1926.1410(d)(9)
and 1926.1410(d)(10), minimizes the
likelihood that any more employees
than are absolutely necessary to the
operation will be near the equipment in
the event the equipment, load or load
line makes electrical contact with the
power line. No comments were
submitted on this provision; therefore, it
is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(9)
Under paragraph (d)(9) of this section,
employees other than the operator are
prohibited from touching the load line
above the insulating link/device and
equipment. The reason C–DAC did not
extend this prohibition to the operator
is that the operator, by being in the cab,
is going to be in electrical contact with
both the equipment and load line.
However, this assumes that the operator

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47963

is in fact standing or sitting on the
equipment. There may be some
situations where this is not the case. For
example, some equipment may be
operated by pendant control or wireless
control; in such cases the operator need
not be on the equipment to control it.
OSHA requested public comment on
this issue.
Commenters agreed that equipment
operators operating from the ground via
remote controls need to be protected
from potential shocks by either (1) using
wireless controls that physically isolate
the operator from the equipment; or (2)
using insulating mats that insulate the
operator from the ground. (ID–0062.1;
–0162.1.) OSHA agrees with these
comments. Although rubber insulating
matting is designed for use as a floor
covering, the Agency determines that
such mats can provide an additional
measure of protection for workers
operating the equipment from the
ground.64 OSHA has amended
paragraph (d)(9) accordingly.
Paragraph (d)(10)
Under paragraph (d)(10) of this
section, only personnel essential to the
operation are permitted to be in the area
of the equipment and the load. In
conjunction with §§ 1926.1410(d)(8) and
1926.1410(d)(9), this minimizes the
likelihood that any more employees
than are absolutely necessary to the
operation would be in a position to
make electrical contact with the
equipment in the event the equipment,
load or load line makes electrical
contact with the power line. No
comments were submitted on this
provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (d)(11)
Under paragraph (d)(11) of this
section, the equipment must be properly
grounded. As described in the summary
and explanation of final
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(i) Option (1), in the
event the equipment inadvertently
makes electrical contact with the power
line, proper grounding will protect
employees in two ways. First, if the line
is equipped with a circuit interrupting
device, the grounding facilitates the
operation of the device to deenergize the
line. However, under some conditions,
for example, if there is arcing contact or
if the contact is near the end of a power
64 The proposed revision of subpart V also
proposed a new construction standard for electrical
protective equipment, which would cover rubber
insulating matting. Until the subpart V revision is
finalized, rubber insulating matting meeting ASTM
D178–01(2005) Standard Specification for Rubber
Insulating Matting, meets the requirement in final
§ 1926.1410(d)(9) for insulating mats.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47964

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

line, the fault current may not be high
enough to open the circuit for the power
line. Second, in the event an employee
on the ground is touching the
equipment when it contacts the power
line or if the circuit protective device
does not operate to deenergize the
power line, proper grounding will
reduce the danger to the employee by
providing an additional, low resistance
path to ground for the electric current,
substantially lowering the voltage on the
equipment while the power line
remains energized.65
Commenters on this provision
stressed the need for worker training on
proper equipment grounding procedures
and the limitations of the protection that
grounding provides. (ID–0131.1;
–0155.1; –0161.1.) OSHA agrees. As
discussed under § 1926.1408(g), OSHA
is requiring that the training under that
paragraph include training in proper
grounding procedures and the
limitations of the protection grounding
provides. To make clear that the training
required under § 1926.1408(g) is also
required under this section, OSHA is
adding § 1926.1410(m), discussed
below, to require that operators and
crew assigned to equipment under this
section be trained in accordance with
§ 1926.1408(g). Section 1926.1410(d)(11)
is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(12)

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Under paragraph (d)(12) of this
section, insulating line hose or cover-up
must be installed by the utility owner/
operator except where such devices are
unavailable for the line voltages
involved. The Committee noted that
prior subpart N, at former
§ 1926.550(a)(15), allowed such
insulating barriers to be used as a
complete alternative to deenergizing
and grounding or to maintaining the
applicable minimum clearance distance
from the power line. However, the
Committee determined that such
insulating devices do not provide
complete protection because they can be
pierced if the equipment makes more
than brushing contact with the device.
However, the Committee concluded that
these insulating devices do provide
protection if there is brushing contact
and that such devices are useful to
supplement the other protective
65 It should be noted that hazardous potential
differences can be created in the ground when a
contact occurs, and employees standing close to,
but not touching, anything in contact with the
power line can still be injured or killed. The
requirements in § 1926.1425, Keeping clear of the
load, which are designed to protect employees from
being struck or crushed by hazards, will also protect
employees from these electrical hazards.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

measures provided by the requirements
of this § 1926.1410(d).
One commenter on this provision
believed that when work is being
performed under § 1926.1410 around
voltages above which insulating line
hose or cover-up are available, OSHA
should require that the power line be
deenergized and visibly grounded. (ID–
0161.1.) Another commenter stated that
the Committee correctly limited the use
of line hoses and similar rubber coverups as complete protection since it can
be pierced, but stated that it was
unfortunate that the Committee
prohibited the use of other rigid plastic
barriers that are effective insulation and
are not easily pierced. (ID–0144.1.)
Regarding the former comment, OSHA
notes that the rule applies only when
the employer demonstrates that it is
infeasible to deenergize and ground the
power line. Also, the provision does not
require that line hose or cover-up be
made of rubber; if rigid plastic barriers
provide effective insulation for the
voltage involved, they are permitted by
this paragraph. OSHA also notes that
rigid plastic barriers (that is, electrically
insulating plastic guard equipment) is
also intended for brush contact only.
(See ASTM F712—06 Standard Test
Methods and Specifications for
Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard
Equipment for Protection of Workers.)
Although this equipment may be able to
withstand higher forces, it is easier to
displace than rubber insulating line
hose. This provision is promulgated as
proposed.

with the utility owner/operator or
registered professional engineer who
developed the procedures.
OSHA notes that proposed
§ 1926.1410(f) referred only to the utility
owner/operator. However, under
§ 1926.1410(d), the procedures are
determined in a planning meeting with
either the utility owner operator or a
registered professional engineer, and
whichever entity helped develop those
procedures must also participate in the
meeting required under paragraph (f).
Therefore, OSHA has modified this
paragraph by adding a reference to the
registered professional engineer as an
alternative to the utility owner/operator.
Several electric utility representatives
questioned OSHA’s authority to impose
these and other requirements upon
power line owners and operators. (ID–
0162.1; –0166.1; –0203.1; –0226.1.) As
stated above in response to similar
arguments, this paragraph does not
require the utility owner/operator to
take any action. Another commenter
asked who was responsible for bearing
the costs of deenergizing power lines
and other safety precautions, and what
would happen if a utility owner/
operator was unable to meet the
equipment user at the requested time.
(ID–0155.1) As stated above with
respect to compliance costs, OSHA
determines that issues of compliance
costs and specific obligations are best
handled as contractual matters among
the parties involved, and/or as
prescribed by local and regional utility
regulatory authorities.

Paragraph (e)
Under paragraph (e) of this section,
the procedures that are developed to
comply with § 1926.1410(d) must be
documented and immediately available
on-site. This ensures that these
procedures are available to be used as a
reference while the work is in progress.
No comments on this provision were
submitted, and it is promulgated as
proposed.

Paragraphs (g) and (h)
Under paragraph (g) of this section,
the employer must implement the
procedures developed in accordance
with § 1926.1410(d). And under
paragraph (h) of this section, the utility
owner/operator (or registered
professional engineer) and all employers
of the employees involved in the work
must identify one person who will
direct the implementation of the
procedures. This person must direct the
implementation of the procedures and
have the authority to stop work at any
time to ensure safety. As with paragraph
(f) of this section, OSHA is adding a
reference to the registered professional
engineer to paragraph (h) to ensure that
the entity that helped develop the
procedures participate in the decision
required under paragraph (h).
The Committee concluded that, in
view of the fact that more than one
employer is typically involved in these
situations, coordination among the
employers of these employees is needed
for the protective measures to be
effectively implemented. Once the

Paragraph (f)
Under paragraph (f) of this section,
the equipment user and utility owner/
operator (or registered professional
engineer) must meet with the equipment
operator and the other employees who
will be in the area of the equipment or
load to review the procedures that are
developed under § 1926.1410(d) to
prevent a breach of the minimum
clearance distance established under
§ 1926.1410(c). It is important that this
review take place so that the operator
and other employees understand this
critical information and have the
opportunity to discuss the procedures

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
operation is underway, safety-related
orders typically need to be given and
followed without delay. Since an
employee of one employer typically
would not immediately follow an
instruction from another employer, it is
necessary that, before these operations
begin, all employees understand that the
one designated person will have this
authority. For these reasons, the
Committee determined that there needs
to be one person who all involved in the
operation recognize as having this role
and authority.
A commenter objected to having the
utility owner/operator involved in
determining which individual should
direct implementation of the
procedures, saying that the decision
should be made by the contractors. (ID–
0155.1.) OSHA notes that this provision
is closely tied to paragraphs (d) and (f)
of this section, under which the utility
owner/operator or registered
professional engineer is involved in
developing the procedures and in
reviewing the procedures with the
appropriate employees. At this point,
the utility or registered professional
engineer is well situated to help identify
an individual who is able to direct the
implementation of the procedures. As
with the other provisions of this section
that require the involvement of the
utility or a registered professional
engineer, the utility has the discretion
not to participate, in which case the
employer operating the equipment must
use a registered professional engineer.
Paragraph (i)

[Reserved]

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (j)
This provision requires the employer
to safely stop operations if a problem
occurs with implementing the
procedures in paragraph (d) of this
section or if there is an indication that
those procedures are inadequate to
prevent electrocution. In addition, this
provision requires that the employer
either develop new procedures which
comply with paragraph (d) or contact
the utility owner/operator and have
them deenergize and visibly ground or
relocate the power line(s) before
resuming operations.
Two commenters suggested that the
utility might not be able to deenergize
the lines for medical or security reasons
and asked what would happen in such
a case. (ID–0155.1; –0162.1.) OSHA
recognizes that utilities may not be
willing or able to discontinue power to
their customers, and § 1926.1410(j)
permits relocating the line as an
alternative to deenergizing.
An electric utility representative
requested that OSHA clarify which

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

employer has the responsibility to
comply with this provision, stating it
should be the equipment operator and
not the utility owner/operator. (ID–
0161.1.) OSHA notes that this
paragraph’s requirement for the
employer to ‘‘safely stop operations’’
applies to the employer(s) who are
conducting the operation, and the
requirement for that employer to contact
the utility owner/operator after stopping
operations makes clear that a utility
owner/operator who is not conducting
equipment operations near the power
line is not the ‘‘employer’’ under this
paragraph. OSHA concludes these
points are sufficiently clear, and the
provision is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (k)
Proposed paragraph (k) required that,
where a device originally designed by
the manufacturer for use as a safety
device, operational aid, or a means to
prevent power line contact or
electrocution is used to comply with
§ 1926.1410, it must meet the
manufacturer’s procedures for use and
conditions of use. (See § 1926.1417 for
a discussion of OSHA’s authority to
require compliance with manufacturer
procedures.) No comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
General Comment
A commenter suggested that OSHA
consider requiring a written permit as a
precondition to any work being done
closer than 20 feet to a power line.66
(ID–0201.1.) The permit, according to
this commenter, should document many
of the requirements of this section,
including the basis for the employer’s
infeasibility determinations, the utility
owner/operator’s or registered
professional engineer’s determination of
a minimum clearance distance, the
specific procedures to be followed in
performing the work, verification that
the employees have received the
required training, and other information
relevant to the work. The commenter
did not explain why it believed such a
permit system would result in greater
safety, but OSHA infers that the
commenter believes that the need to
document certain information, such as
the basis for the employer’s infeasibility
findings, will lead to more careful
consideration of the factors that enter
into the decision that it is necessary to
work closer to a power line than is
normally permitted and more carefully
66 This commenter recommended that 20 feet
should be the minimum clearance distance for all
work and that Table A of § 1926.1408 should be
deleted. OSHA explained in § 1926.1408 why it was
rejecting this suggestion.

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47965

thought out procedures when such work
is done. OSHA is not convinced that a
permit system is needed to ensure that
employers act carefully under this
section. OSHA expects that the stringent
precautions required when employers
work closer than the § 1926.1408 and
§ 1926.1409 clearance distances will
ensure that an employer will only
determine that it is infeasible to work
within those distances if there is really
no other viable option. Similarly, the
requirement that a minimum clearance
distance must be determined by a utility
owner/operator or registered
professional engineer ensures that
sound expert judgment will enter into
that determination without the need for
additional documentation.
Subpart V Work
In the proposed rule, OSHA discussed
in detail the compliance duties the rule
would impose on employers engaged in
subpart V work (see 73 FR 59762–
59764, Oct. 9, 2008). Industry
representatives objected to some of the
changes from the requirements of
subpart V. Among other things, they
pointed to another ongoing rulemaking
in which OSHA proposed to amend
subpart V in ways that differ from the
changes proposed by C–DAC (70 FR
34821, Jun. 15, 2005).67
OSHA proposed requirements in
addition to those in subpart V because
it had already concluded that the
measures required by subpart V for the
operation of equipment near power
lines are insufficiently protective. (See
the discussion of § 1910.269(p)(4) in the
preamble to the final rule promulgating
the general industry standard on the
operation and maintenance of electric
power generation, transmission, and
distribution installations (59 FR 4320,
4400–4404, Jan. 31, 1994)). Although
proposed subpart V would require
measures that are sufficiently protective,
OSHA has not yet adopted it as a final
rule. Consequently, the Agency is taking
action today to increase the protection
currently afforded by subpart V. In
doing so, OSHA has also addressed the
concerns raised by utility industry
representatives.
First, as discussed above, OSHA has
made several changes to the final rule in
response to comments from the electric
utility industry. These include: (1) An
expanded exclusion for digger derricks
used in utility pole work; (2) deleting
the requirement that employers engaged
in subpart V work show the infeasibility
of complying with the required
clearance distances in §§ 1926.1408
67 The subpart V proposed rule was published
after C–DAC completed its work.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47966

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

through 1926.1409; and (3) an
alternative to the requirement for
insulating links under § 1926.1410(d)(4).
In addition, employers engaged in
subpart V activities are not required to
implement certain other protective
measures required by this standard
when working near power lines. As
discussed above, subpart V work would
not be subject to the requirement for an
additional protective measure from the
list in § 1926.1408(b)(4). Also, subpart V
work would not be subject to the
prohibition in § 1926.1408(d)(1) against
equipment operating under power lines
(see discussion above of
§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(i)). And
§ 1926.1410(d)(3) provides that an
employer engaged in subpart V work
closer than the Table A of § 1926.1408
distance is not required to use an
elevated warning line or barricade.
In recognition of the fact that much
subpart V work necessarily takes place
on or near energized power lines,
employers engaged in such work may
comply with shorter minimum
clearance distances than those specified
in §§ 1926.1408 and 1926.1409: they
must generally adhere to the clearance
distances in Table V–1 of § 1926.950.
However, § 1926.952(c)(2) (redesignated
as § 1926.952(c)(3) as a result of this
rulemaking) permits clearances less
than those in Table V–1 and includes
requirements that must be met when
equipment is operating closer to power
lines that those distances. To make this
clear, § 1926.1410(c)(2) provides:
‘‘Employers engaged in subpart V work
are permitted to work closer than the
distances in § 1926.950 Table V–1
where both the requirements of this
section and § 1926.950(c)(3)(i) or (ii) are
met.’’ 68 OSHA is also making
conforming amendments to
§ 1926.952(c)(3), which was formerly
designated § 1926.952(c)(2).
Under this section, the precautions
previously specified in
§§ 1926.952(c)(2)(i) and (ii) are required
under § 1926.1410(d) when equipment
used in subpart V work is operated
closer than the Table V–1 clearances.
Since these precautions are now
required by § 1926.1410(d), OSHA is
deleting them from subpart V as
redundant. Therefore, OSHA is
including the non-redundant provisions
from the proposed rule in the final rule,
with proposed § 1926.952(c)(2)
redesignated as § 1926.952(c)(3).69
68 The

proposed rule referred to
‘‘§ 1926.950(c)(2)(iii) or (iv).’’ The final rule reflects
the changes in numbering to § 1926.950(c)(2) that
are made elsewhere in this final rule.
69 In subpart V, when equipment is considered
energized, a number of subpart V requirements are
triggered. See, e.g., § 1926.951(c)(1) (restricting use

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

One commenter opposed deleting
former §§ 1926.952(c)(2)(i) and (ii)
because the commenter believed that it
would not be confusing to duplicate
requirements now found in subpart CC
in subpart V. OSHA disagrees. As
amended by this rule, § 1926.952(c)(3)
states that its requirements are ‘‘in
addition to’’ the requirements in
§ 1926.1410. Restating requirements in
§ 1926.952(c)(3) that are also found in
§ 1926.1410 can lead to uncertainty over
whether the duplicate requirements are
in fact redundant or are separate
requirements.70
OSHA notes that in this zone, one of
the options that an employer engaged in
subpart V has under prior
§ 1926.952(c)(3)(i) is to insulate the
equipment. Under § 1926.1410(d)(11),
that employer also must ground the
equipment. An employer can comply
with both requirements by using
equipment with an insulating boom and
grounding the uninsulated portion of
the equipment (that is, the portion
below the insulated section of the
boom).
It should also be noted that, in the
subpart V rulemaking, OSHA has
proposed to prohibit equipment (other
than insulated aerial lifts, which are not
covered by this final rule) from being
operated closer than the minimum
approach distances from power lines. If
this prohibition is carried into the final
subpart V rule, then the requirements in
this final rule relating to work inside the
distance in Table V–1 will have no
effect.
Finally, § 1926.1400(g) includes a new
compliance alternative for subpart V
work that has been added to the final
rule.
Paragraph (l)

[Reserved]

Paragraph (m)
As noted above, the training
requirements contained in
§ 1926.1408(g) are being added to this
section as well to assure that employees
engaged in activities under this section
receive adequate training.
Section 1926.1411 Power Line
Safety—While Traveling Under Power
Lines With No Load
Paragraph (a)
Proposed paragraph (a) provided that
this section is designed to protect
of metal or conductive ladders near energized
equipment); § 1926.951(f)(3) (hydraulic tools used
on or around energized equipment shall use
nonconducting hoses); § 1926.953(c) (materials or
equipment shall not be stored near energized
equipment if it is practical to store them elsewhere).
70 Amendments to § 1926.950(c)(1) are discussed
in § 1926.1400, Scope.

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

against electrical hazards while
equipment is traveling with no load
under power lines on a construction
site. It did not address the potential
hazards associated with equipment
traveling without a load near power
lines. OSHA requested public comment
on whether it is necessary to expand the
applicability of this section to include
equipment traveling on a construction
site without a load near power lines.
Two commenters favored broadening
the applicability of § 1926.1411 to
include equipment traveling near power
lines, with ‘‘near’’ being defined as the
distances listed in Table T. (ID–0205.1;
–0213.1.) One commenter responded
that adding an additional set of power
line clearance distances to trigger the
requirements of § 1926.1411 would be
confusing. (ID–0144.1.) A fourth
commenter thought that the
requirements of § 1926.1411 should
extend to cover equipment traveling
‘‘along side of’’ power lines, but did not
suggest a definition for the term ‘‘along
side of.’’ (ID–0155.1.)
After considering these public
comments, OSHA concludes that this
section should address the hazard of
equipment traveling near, as well as
under, power lines with no load. If
equipment comes into electrical contact
with a power line while traveling
without a load, the same electrocution
hazard is present as when it is operating
with a load. The precautions in this
section will protect workers against that
hazard.
OSHA agrees with the two
commenters who suggested that Table T
of this section contains appropriate
clearances for equipment traveling near,
as well as under, power lines. Applying
Table T to equipment traveling near
power lines will provide a uniform rule
for this section and will ensure adequate
worker protection. Although the Table T
clearance distances are less than those
required under Table A of § 1926.1408
during crane operations, additional
protection is provided under this
section by the requirement in paragraph
(b)(1), discussed below, that the boom/
mast and boom/mast support system be
lowered sufficiently to meet the
requirements of this paragraph. With the
boom/mast lowered, the highest point of
the equipment will generally be below
the plane of the power line, reducing
the risk of accidental contact. Moreover,
as also noted below, the dedicated
spotter requirement of § 1926.1411(b)(4)
will be triggered whenever the
equipment while traveling will get
closer than 20 feet to a power line,
thereby providing additional protection
against accidental contact.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Accordingly, in the final rule,
paragraph (a) applies to ‘‘equipment
traveling under or near a power line on
a construction site with no load.’’ In
addition, in the proposed rule, the
heading of § 1926.1411 read: ‘‘Power
line safety—while traveling.’’ In the final
rule, OSHA has added the words ‘‘under
or near power lines with no load’’ so
that the heading more clearly describes
the activity to which the section applies.
These requirements apply only to
cranes/derricks while traveling on a
construction site under or near power
lines; they do not apply to equipment
while traveling on roads (or in areas)
that are not part of a construction site.
In addition, this section does not apply
to equipment traveling on a
construction site with a load. That
situation is governed by §§ 1926.1408,
1926.1409, and 1926.1410. To make this
clear, OSHA is adding the language to
paragraph (a) specifying that
§§ 1926.1408, 1926.1409, and
1926.1410, whichever is appropriate,
govern equipment traveling on a
construction site with a load.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (b)
Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
the boom/mast and boom/mast support
system must be lowered sufficiently to
meet the requirements of this paragraph.
Paragraph (b)(2) specifies that the
clearances specified in Table T of this
section must be maintained. The values
in Table T, which provides the
minimum clearance distances while
traveling with no load and a lowered
boom, are substantially similar to the
values used in sec. 5–3.4.5.5 of ASME
B30.5–2004.
In the proposed rule, the heading of
Table T read: ‘‘MINIMUM CLEARANCE
DISTANCES WITH NO LOAD AND
BOOM/MAST LOWERED.’’ In addition,
each clearance distance in the table was
followed by the following parenthetical:
‘‘(while traveling, boom lowered).’’
OSHA determines that the references to
the boom in the heading and
parentheticals could be confusing. The
intent of the table is to establish
minimum clearance distances while the
crane is traveling, not clearance
distances with the boom lowered. As
noted in the discussion of
§ 1926.1411(b)(1), the boom and/or mast
must be lowered sufficiently to comply
with Table T; it is not a prerequisite to
the applicability of Table T.
Accordingly, in the final rule, the words
‘‘AND BOOM/MAST LOWERED’’ are
deleted from the heading of Table T,
and the parentheticals are also removed
from the clearance distances in the
table.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Section 1926.1411(b)(3) requires the
employer to ensure that the effects of
speed and terrain are considered so that
those effects do not cause the minimum
clearance distances specified in Table T
to be breached. Sections
1926.1411(b)(1)–(3) are promulgated as
proposed.
Section 1926.1411(b)(4) requires the
employer to use a dedicated spotter if
any part of the equipment while
traveling will get closer than 20 feet to
a power line. This provision also
requires that the dedicated spotter be in
continuous contact with the crane
operator; be positioned to effectively
gauge the clearance distance; where
necessary, use equipment that enables
the spotter to communicate directly
with the crane operator; and give timely
information to the crane operator so that
the required clearance distance can be
maintained. See the earlier discussion of
spotters in §§ 1926.1407 and 1926.1408.
In reviewing proposed
§ 1926.1411(b)(4), OSHA noted that the
language ‘‘crane operator’’ was used
rather than ‘‘driver.’’ Because
§ 1926.1411 deals with power line safety
while equipment is traveling without a
load, OSHA recognized that the
language ‘‘crane operator’’ may not be
appropriate in all situations. In some
cases a crane operator may not be the
driver of such equipment on the
construction site. Therefore, OSHA
solicited comments on whether the
language ‘‘crane operator’’ used in
proposed § 1926.1411(b)(4) should be
changed to ‘‘driver’’ or ‘‘driver/operator.’’
The two commenters who addressed
this issue supported changing the
language to ‘‘driver/operator.’’ (ID–
0205.1; –0213.1.) Therefore, this change
to the regulatory text has been made in
the final rule.
Section 1926.1411(b)(5) requires the
employer to ensure that, when traveling
at night or in conditions of poor
visibility, the power lines must either be
illuminated or another means of
identifying them are used and a safe
path of travel is identified. No public
comments concerning this provision
were received; therefore, it is
promulgated as proposed.
Section 1926.1412

Inspections

This section seeks to prevent injuries
and fatalities caused by equipment
failures by establishing an inspection
process that identifies and addresses
safety concerns. The reasoning
underlying the proposed requirements
is discussed at 73 FR 59766–59776, Oct.
9, 2008. The following addresses public
comments and differences between the
proposed and final rules.

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47967

Paragraphs (a) through (j) of this
section provide inspection requirements
for equipment covered by subpart CC.
Those requirements are supplemented
by other sections of this standard for
specific types of equipment. This
section is structured so that certain
activities (e.g., equipment modification,
repair/adjustment, assembly, severe
service, or equipment not in regular use)
and the passage of time (e.g., shift,
monthly, and annual/comprehensive)
trigger the inspection requirements.
The proposed rule specified that the
various inspections were to be
conducted by either a ‘‘competent
person’’ or a ‘‘qualified person’’
depending on the type of inspection.
Both terms are defined in § 1926.01.
OSHA solicited public comment on
whether a protocol similar to that for
signal person qualifications in § 1926.28
is needed to ensure that the person who
performs these inspections has the
requisite level of expertise (73 FR
59766, Oct. 9, 2008). Section 1926.28
establishes qualification requirements
for signal persons and requires those
individuals to have their qualifications
evaluated by a qualified evaluator to act
as signal persons under this subpart.
Several commenters responded that
there should be a verified testing system
to ensure ‘‘qualified inspectors’’ have the
requisite knowledge to inspect
effectively or that the standard require
inspectors to demonstrate that ability.
(ID–0182.1; –0187.1; –0226.)
Regarding paragraph (f) of this section
(annual/comprehensive inspections of
equipment) and § 1926.1413(c) (annual
wire rope inspections), a local
government further recommended that
OSHA require that a government agency
or a third party crane inspector licensed
or certified by the local government
perform the annual inspection.
(ID–0156.1.) The commenter also
believed that the individual who
inspects an equipment modification in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section must possess a certification from
the manufacturer or an independent
third party and have the requisite
training to inspect modified, repaired,
or altered crane components.
In contrast, a utility company and two
trade associations did not support
revising the final rule to include a more
stringent inspector qualification
requirement. (ID–0226; –0205.1; –0213.)
The two trade associations expressed
concerns that the Committee never
discussed the required level of
knowledge of inspection workers,
which, in the commenter’s view, means
that consensus was not reached on the
issue and that the issue should not be
included in the final rule.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47968

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

In response to these comments, OSHA
is retaining the qualification
requirements for inspectors as specified
in the proposed rule but is not
mandating that the inspector be
assessed by a qualified evaluator,
certified, or licensed because there is
not sufficient evidence in the record to
warrant these additional requirements.
A number of current OSHA construction
standards, as did former § 1926.550,
require inspections to be conducted by
competent persons or qualified persons.
For example, § 1926.651(k) requires that
a competent person conduct a daily
inspection of excavations for possible
cave-in hazards. OSHA is not aware of
evidence in the record indicating that
accidents would be prevented if OSHA
required inspectors to have additional
qualifications or credentials. OSHA
disagrees, and concludes that accidents
do not occur due to the inability of
competent or qualified persons to
conduct adequate inspections of cranes
under the former standard. Accordingly,
OSHA is retaining the requirement in
§ 1926.1412 that the various required
inspections be conducted either by
competent persons or qualified persons.
The local government’s request that
OSHA not preempt local laws and allow
local governments to continue to play a
role in crane inspections is within the
scope of the local government’s broader
preemption concerns addressed in the
discussion of federalism in section V.D
of this preamble. However, OSHA notes
that § 1926.1412 would not preclude
local government inspectors or others
who are not employees of the employer
responsible for the inspections, from
serving as inspectors in compliance
with the requirements of this standard.
The inspector need only meet the
definition of a competent or qualified
person in § 1926.1401 (note that a
‘‘competent person’’ must have the
authority to take corrective action.)
Paragraph (a) Modified Equipment

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (a) of this section requires
an inspection (that includes functional
testing of the equipment) to be
performed by a qualified person for
equipment that has been modified or
has additions that affect the safe
operation of the equipment prior to
initial use after that modification/
addition.71 As proposed, this paragraph
71 The phrase ‘‘modifications or additions’’ and
the term ‘‘modifications/additions,’’ as used in this
section, have the same meaning (an addition is a
type of modification). C–DAC wanted to emphasize
that additions are subject to the same approval
procedures as other types of modifications.
Wherever a form of the word ‘‘modification’’ is used
in this preamble, it is a reference to all
modifications, including additions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

did not contain a documentation
requirement. An industrial contractor
stated that the standard should require
documentation of this inspection (as
well as the inspections required under
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
discussed below) but offered no reasons
to support its suggestion. (ID–0120.)
Absent a basis in the record to add such
a requirement, OSHA declines to
require documentation of the
inspections under paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c).
Proposed § 1926.1412(a)(1)(ii) stated
that ‘‘[t]he inspection shall include
functional testing.’’ OSHA requested
public comment on whether it should
modify the provision to limit the
functional testing requirement to
components that the modification
affects or may affect (73 FR 59766–
59767, Oct. 9, 2008). Several
commenters asserted that functional
testing is only necessary to test
modifications of the equipment and
other affected components. (ID–0205;
–0213.) In contrast, a local government
asserted that the functional testing
should be of the entire crane. (ID–
0156.1.)
OSHA is concerned that there may be
instances where a modification has an
unanticipated effect on the equipment
that would not become apparent if the
test were limited. Therefore, the Agency
has decided to require a functional test
of the equipment as a whole. To make
this clear, the words ‘‘of the equipment’’
have been added at the end of the
sentence of the provision in the final
rule.
During the SBREFA process, a Small
Entity Representative (SER) suggested
adding an exception to § 1926.1412(a)
for ‘‘transportation systems,’’ by which
the SER meant any system dispersing
the weight of the crane for movement on
a highway. As recommended by the
Panel, OSHA solicited public comment
on whether to include such an
exception and possible language for it
(73 FR 59767, Oct. 9, 2008). No
comments were submitted on this point.
OSHA notes that § 1926.1412 specifies
the items that must be inspected, and
these items do not include any items
dealing with the movement of
equipment on a highway.
Paragraph (b) Repaired/Adjusted
Equipment
Paragraph (b) of this section provides
that equipment that has had a repair or
adjustment that affects the safe
operation of the equipment must be
inspected by a qualified person prior to
initial use after the repair/adjustment. In
summary, the qualified person is
required to determine if such repairs

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

and adjustments were performed in
accordance with manufacturer
equipment criteria.
Proposed § 1926.1412(b)(1)(iii) stated
that ‘‘[t]he inspection shall include
functional testing.’’ As in the case of
proposed § 1926.1412(a)(1)(ii) discussed
above regarding modified equipment,
OSHA requested public comment on
whether the functional testing required
for repaired/adjusted equipment should
be limited to testing only those
components that are or may be affected
by the repair or adjustment (73 FR
59767, Oct. 9, 2008).
Several commenters asserted that
functional testing is only necessary to
test the repairs or adjustments and other
affected components and systems of the
equipment. (ID–0205; –0213.) In
contrast, one commenter indicated that
the functional testing should be of the
entire crane. (ID–0156.)
The standard requires that repairs or
adjustments of equipment must be done
in accordance with the manufacturer’s
or qualified person’s recommendations.
Repairs or adjustments are meant to
restore equipment to original design
specifications and safety factors.
Otherwise, OSHA considers the
maintenance activity performed a
modification of the equipment. In
essence, repair or adjustment of a
system or component must be consistent
with the engineering in the original
equipment design. OSHA believes that a
functional test that is limited to only
those components that are or may be
affected by the repair or adjustment, in
conjunction with the inspection
required under § 1926.1412(d). Each
shift (discussed below), will sufficiently
identify a deficient repair or adjustment.
OSHA has therefore modified the
language of § 1926.1412(b)(1)(iii) in the
final rule accordingly.
A commenter stated that
§ 1926.1412(b) should be structured
similarly to § 1926.1434, Modifications,
in that the employer should be required
to consult with the manufacturer before
employers perform repairs or
adjustments of equipment that relate to
safe operation. (ID–0292.) In that case,
the commenter stated, no third party
would be able to overrule a
manufacturer statement that a repair
cannot be made. The commenter
believed that an employer should only
be able to go to paragraph (b)(1)(ii) if the
manufacturer is unavailable.
OSHA does not agree with the
suggested change. Implicit in the
comment is the suggestion that there are
instances where a repair cannot be made
without compromising the integrity of
the equipment. That concern is already
addressed by the standard. If the repair

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
cannot meet the criteria in accordance
with § 1926.1412(b)(1)(i) (or, if
applicable, § 1926.1412(b)(1)(i)), then
the requirements in subpart CC for
modifications would have to be met.
Therefore, OSHA declines to adopt the
suggested change.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (c) Post-Assembly
Paragraph (c) of this section requires
a post-assembly inspection of
equipment by a qualified person prior to
its use. In sum, the provision requires
the qualified person to assure that the
equipment is configured in accordance
with the manufacturer’s equipment
criteria. If manufacturer equipment
criteria are unavailable, the qualified
person must determine whether a
registered professional engineer (RPE) is
needed to develop criteria for the
equipment configuration. If an RPE is
not needed, the employer must ensure
that a qualified person develops them.
If an RPE is needed, the employer must
ensure that an RPE develops them.
Equipment must not be used until an
inspection under this paragraph
demonstrates that the equipment is
configured in accordance with the
applicable criteria. OSHA received no
comments on the proposed paragraph;
therefore, it is published as proposed.
Paragraph (d) Each Shift
Paragraph (d) of this section requires
a shift inspection, the first of three
regularly scheduled equipment
inspections that are required.
Specifically, paragraph (d)(1) sets forth
the frequency of this inspection, the
degree of scrutiny required and the level
of expertise required of the person
performing this inspection. The
paragraph lists the items that are
required to be included in this
inspection and specifies the corrective
action that is required. The purpose of
this provision is to identify and address
safety hazards before they cause
accidents.
A utility company recommended that
OSHA revise § 1926.1412(d) to read
‘‘each shift the equipment is used * * *
.’’ to clarify that the equipment does not
have to be inspected when it will not be
used on a shift. (ID–0226.) This
suggested change is consistent with the
intent of the proposed rule, and OSHA
is adding similar language to final rule
§ 1926.1412(d)(1) to clarify that intent.
One commenter asserted that OSHA
should prohibit operation of the
equipment until the shift inspection is
complete rather than permitting the
inspection to be completed during the
shift. (ID–0156.1.) A different
commenter disagreed. (ID–0143.) OSHA
does not agree with this suggestion.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

While some of the items that must be
inspected can readily be inspected
before each shift, e.g., cab windows for
deficiencies that would hinder the
operator’s view, others can best be
checked while the equipment is
operating. For example, one item that
must be inspected is control
mechanisms for maladjustments that
interfere with proper operation. During
the shift, such maladjustments may be
easier to detect than a check conducted
before the equipment is operating. Still
others may change during the shift and
require additional inspection. For
example, if the crane is moved to a new
location during the shift, it would be
necessary to inspect the ground
conditions in that location.
Regarding the frequency of this
inspection, an energy utility
representative commented that the pershift crane inspection fails to take into
account the frequency or severity of use.
(ID–0203.1.) The commenter points out
that if a crane is used once during the
first shift, and once during the second
shift, even if only to lift a minor load,
the inspection would have to be
conducted twice. The commenter agrees
that the per shift inspection may be
valuable and necessary on constructions
sites where cranes are used
continuously for heavy use, but states
that the level of inspection should be
adjusted to reflect the infrequent use of
mobile cranes for construction activities
at operating generating plants. The
commenter suggests that the final
standard should permit employers to
use the inspection protocol in ASME
B30.5, sec. 5–2.
OSHA does not agree that minimal
use during one shift negates the need for
a shift inspection during the next shift.
Since the completion of the last shift
inspection, the equipment could have
developed a deficiency or been damaged
even if it was used to hoist one load. For
example, fluids may expand or freeze,
seals may leak due to a change in
temperature, structural materials may
crack, or electrical components may fail.
A deficiency that might not have been
apparent earlier might become more
readily observable.
Moreover, while some equipment may
be used infrequently for construction
work, the commenter did not disagree
that it may be used heavily for other
purposes. When a crack, leak, or other
hazard appears, and the equipment is to
be used in construction, the source of
that hazard is immaterial; the fact that
the problem may have developed during
non-construction uses does nothing to
reduce the safety hazard that would be
posed by the use of that equipment in
construction. Instead, the multiple uses

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47969

of some of this equipment, potentially
by different employees using it for
different purposes, makes it all the more
likely that important information might
not be shared in a timely manner, and
therefore more important to ensure that
the equipment is inspected during each
shift of construction work. An employer
cannot assume that the condition of the
equipment has not changed since the
completion of the last shift inspection,
even if the employer did not use the
equipment extensively during that shift.
OSHA is convinced that it is reasonable,
and not overly burdensome, to require
a competent person to complete this
inspection of the equipment before or
during each shift to ensure it is safe for
use.
A competent person is required to
perform the shift inspection. A labor
management association commented
that OSHA should replace ‘‘competent
person’’ with ‘‘operator’’ for the purposes
of who should perform the visual
inspection required by § 1926.1412(d).
(ID–0172.) As explained in the preamble
to the proposed rule, OSHA anticipates
that the employer will often use the
equipment operator as the competent
person who conducts the shift
inspection. The operator, in most cases,
by virtue of his or her qualification or
certification under §§ 1926.1427 and
1926.1430, experience, and familiarity
with the equipment, is a competent
person. However, the employer has the
flexibility to use someone else to
conduct the shift inspection as long as
that person is a competent person.
When the operator does not qualify as
a competent person, the employer is
required to choose a different person.
For these reasons, in the final rule,
OSHA is retaining the requirement that
a competent person conduct the shift
inspection.
A local government requested that the
standard require the employer to
document the completion and results of
the shift inspection. (ID–0156.1.) In
addition, it asked that the standard
require employers to submit daily logs
to the equipment owner at the end of
each job that include a list of
maintenance and repairs made to the
equipment by the user at the jobsite. It
also requested that the owner maintain
these documents for the life of the
equipment and transfer them from
owner to owner when sold.
OSHA determines the documentation
described by the commenter would be
burdensome for the user and owner of
the equipment, with no added, industryrecognized, benefit to safe hoisting
operations. There is no significant,
safety-related evidence in the record to
substantiate the documentation

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47970

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

requirements the commenter
recommended. Therefore, OSHA is not
requiring documentation of the shift
inspection.
The SBREFA Panel recommended
that OSHA solicit public comment on
whether, and under what
circumstances, booming down should
be specifically excluded as a part of the
shift inspection, and whether the
removal of non-hinged inspection plates
should be required during the shift
inspection. Section 1926.1413(a)(1),
discussed below, explicitly states that
booming down is not required as part of
the shift inspection for wire rope. C–
DAC did not include a similar provision
in the general shift inspection provision
in § 1926.1412(d) because booming
down is not required to observe a
deficiency in any of the items requiring
inspection under that paragraph.
Similarly, OSHA determines that
inspection for a deficiency in any of
those items does not require the removal
of non-hinged inspection plates.
Several commenters submitted
comments that indicated a need for
OSHA to clarify that it is not usually
necessary to boom down to complete a
visual inspection of the items listed in
§ 1926.1412(d). (ID–0143.1; –0205;
–0213.) In response to the apparent
ambiguity suggested indicated by these
comments, OSHA is revising
§ 1926.1412(d)(1), to clarify that
booming down is not required routinely.
The term ‘‘disassembly’’ was replaced
with ‘‘taking apart equipment
component’’ in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section to avoid any confusion as to
whether the provision was addressing
disassembly as defined for the
application of §§ 1926.1403 through
1926.1406.
Paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (xiv) set
forth the list of items that, at a
minimum, a competent person must
inspect each shift. Paragraph (d)(1)(x) of
the proposed rule listed ‘‘[g]round
conditions around the equipment for
proper support, including ground
settling under and around outriggers
and supporting foundations, ground
water accumulation, or similar
conditions.’’
A railroad association objected to the
application of this provision to
railroads. (ID–0170.1.) The association
commented that the § 1926.1412(d)(1)(x)
requirement that an inspector verify the
ground conditions around the
equipment before each shift makes no
sense for a crane moving down the
track. OSHA notes that this provision
does not require a railroad to inspect the
ground conditions along the track if a
railroad crane is simply traveling down
the track. Section 1926.1402, which

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

contains requirements for ground
conditions, makes clear that the
conditions being addressed are those
where the equipment is operating. To
the extent that a railroad crane may
move down the track during a
construction operation, OSHA
determines it is appropriate to require
the ground conditions along the track to
be inspected to ensure that no
hazardous conditions, such as the
erosion or other physical degradations
of the support for railways, have
developed that will adversely affect the
support needed for equipment to
perform safely during hoisting
operations. However, OSHA is adding
language to exempt railroad tracks and
their underlying support from
inspection when those rails are
regulated by the FRA. OSHA concludes
that the exemption is appropriate
because the FRA already regulates the
ground conditions for railroad tracks,
including specific regulations
addressing the inspection of those rails
and their support. See, e.g., 49 CFR
213.233 (track inspections) and 213.237
(inspection of rail). For consistency and
clarity, OSHA is adding similar
language exempting rails regulated by
the FRA to paragraph (d)(1)(xiii).
A crane rental company objected to
the requirement to inspect ground
conditions, stating that there is no
similar provision for inspecting ground
conditions in the elements of
inspections required by ASME B30.5
sec. 5–2.1.2. (ID–0143.1.) It also believes
listing this requirement in the elements
for shift inspections is confusing and
suggests that this requirement should
either be removed or included in
§ 1926.1402, Ground Conditions. As
stated in the explanation of the
proposed rule, this item was included
because ground conditions can change
from shift to shift, and sufficient ground
support is of critical importance for
safety. OSHA is retaining it in this
section because it is more appropriately
included in the list of items to be
inspected than as a stand-alone
inspection item in § 1926.1402.
In paragraph (d)(1)(x) in the final rule,
OSHA is replacing the word ‘‘outriggers’’
with ‘‘outriggers/stabilizers.’’ The term
‘‘stabilizers’’ was added because some
pieces of equipment, like articulating
cranes, are designed to use stabilizers
instead of outriggers to add stability at
their bases. A full discussion of the
comments that prompted this regulatory
text change is provided in the
explanation of the rule for
§ 1926.1404(q).
Proposed § 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi)
included among the items to be
inspected ‘‘the equipment for level

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

position, both shift and after each move
and setup.’’ The SBREFA Panel
recommended that OSHA solicit public
comment about whether it is necessary
to clarify the requirement of proposed
§ 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) that the equipment
be inspected for ‘‘level position’’ by
clarifying the amount of tolerance that
would be allowed for the equipment to
be considered ‘‘level.’’ OSHA requested
public comment on this issue and
several commenters asked OSHA not to
specify tolerance limits. (ID–0143.1;
–0170; –0205; –0213; –0226.) OSHA
notes that § 1926.1402(b), which
pertains to ground conditions, requires
the equipment, during use, to be level
to the degree specified by the equipment
manufacturer. For clarity, OSHA is
adding language to § 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi)
to state that the equipment must be
inspected for level position ‘‘within the
tolerances specified by the equipment
manufacturer’s recommendations.’’
OSHA is also adding the words ‘‘before
each’’ before shift to clarify the
provisions intent.
Paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) require
the employer to take corrective action
where the competent person identifies a
deficiency during inspection. Once the
inspector identifies any deficiency in
the areas in (d)(1)(i) through (xiii),72 or
pursuant to other equipment-specific
inspections (e.g., § 1926.1436(p)
(inspection of derricks)), the inspector
must immediately determine whether
that deficiency constitutes a safety
hazard. If so, then equipment operations
must cease and the employer must take
the equipment out of service, following
the tag-out procedure in § 1926.1417(f),
and may not use it again until the
deficiency has been corrected. This
approach reflects C–DAC’s
determination that not all deficiencies
constitute safety hazards. However,
regardless of whether the inspector
determines that there is a safety hazard,
if any deficiency affects a safety device
or operational aid, then the employer
must take the steps required under
§§ 1926.1415, Safety Devices, or
1926.1416, Operational aids.
OSHA is requiring the procedures in
paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) to ensure
that the employer stops using unsafe
equipment as soon as the safety hazard
is identified. The correction procedure
72 Proposed § 1926.1412(d)(2) inadvertently
referred to deficiencies in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)
through (xiv), but the preamble to the proposed rule
explained correctly that it only applied to
deficiencies in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (xiii)
(not (xiv)) (73 FR 59770, Oct. 9, 2008). The text of
paragraph (xiv) addresses operational aides and
safety devices, which are specifically addressed in
paragraph (d)(3). Therefore, in the final paragraph
(d)(2), OSHA refer to deficiencies in ‘‘paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) through (xiii).’’

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

set forth in paragraph (d)(2) is similar to
that in ANSI B30.5–1968 and ASME
B30.5–2004 for their Frequent
Inspections. OSHA is requiring a
competent person to make the
determination to ensure that his or her
findings are implemented; i.e., the
competent person would have the
authority to order the equipment out of
service if the deficiency constituted a
hazard. In the final rule, OSHA has
replaced the phrase ‘‘removed from
service’’ with ‘‘taken out of service,’’
which is the phrase used in
§ 1926.1417(f), to avoid any ambiguity
about the employer’s duty to tag out the
unsafe equipment.
Paragraph (e) Monthly
Paragraph (e) of this section requires
a monthly inspection of the equipment,
the second of the three regularly
scheduled general inspections that are
required by this standard. The monthly
inspection is identical in coverage and
manner to the shift inspection required
by § 1926.1412(d), with one addition
discussed below. Thus, the monthly
inspection is a visual inspection of the
items listed in the shift inspection for
apparent deficiencies, conducted by a
competent person. However, unlike a
shift inspection, the employer must
document the inspection and retain the
documentation for a minimum of three
months.
In addition, under the annual/
comprehensive inspection in
§ 1926.1412(f)(4), the employer is
required to identify developing
deficiencies that, while not yet safety
hazards, need to be monitored. In such
cases the employer, under
§§ 1926.1412(f)(4) and (f)(6), is required
to monitor them in the monthly
inspections.
One commenter suggested adding text
to the final rule to clarify how the
monitoring information would be
transferred from annual inspector to
monthly inspector, if different. (ID–
0226.) The Agency is not modifying the
text of the rule as requested, but notes
that under paragraph (f)(7)(i) of this
section the inspector must document all
‘‘items checked and the results of the
inspection.’’ Therefore, if the inspector
determines that further monitoring is
required, that information would be a
‘‘result of the inspection’’ included in
the annual report. The inspector would
then be responsible for checking the
annual report prior to monthly
inspections (see § 1926.1412(f)(6).)
An industrial contractor commented
that OSHA should require employers to
keep monthly inspection documentation
for a minimum of three months or the
duration of the project, whichever is

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

longer. (ID–0120.) This commenter did
not, however, describe how expanding
the retention requirement would
produce any significant benefit, and
OSHA determines there would be no
benefit. The documentation requirement
enables the individuals who use the
equipment and conduct shift and
monthly inspections to assess the
results of earlier monthly inspections.
Once more than three months have
passed since a monthly inspection, the
information in the documentation for
that inspection will not reflect the
current condition of the equipment.
The SBREFA Panel recommended
that OSHA solicit public comment on
whether the provision for monthly
inspections should, like that for annual
inspections, specify who must keep the
documentation associated with monthly
inspections. (The provision for annual
inspections states that the
documentation must be ‘‘maintained by
the employer who conducts the
inspection.’’) OSHA requested public
comment on the issue raised by the
Panel’s recommendation. Several
commenters believed that OSHA should
require the employer who conducts the
monthly inspection to maintain the
documentation. (ID–0205; –0213; –0214;
–0226.)
OSHA agrees that the employer who
conducts the monthly inspection should
maintain the documentation. This
revision clarifies the intent of C–DAC
and is consistent with other provisions
in this section.
A utility company commented that if
the operating employer is not the
inspecting employer, the operating
employer should be provided with a
copy of the inspection if requested.
(ID–0226.) This comment suggests that
some employers who operate rented
equipment are concerned that the
required documentation may not be
available to them from other parties
unless explicitly required in the
regulatory text of this final rule. In some
cases, one employer owns and operates
the equipment used to perform
construction activities. It is reasonable
to require these employers to maintain
the equipment inspection records.
However, during the analysis of public
comments and testimony, OSHA
recognized that there would be
situations where an employer rents or
uses equipment owned by another party
or where multiple employers use the
same piece of equipment. The standard
allows any employer to conduct the
monthly inspection. The employer who
conducts the inspection must document
the items checked and the results of the
inspection and must retain it for a
minimum of three months. If employers

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47971

whose employees use the equipment
rely on another employer to conduct,
document, and maintain the record of
the monthly inspection, it is the
responsibility of each employer engaged
in construction activities to assure
compliance with the standard.
OSHA determines that it is in the
interest of all employers who conduct
monthly inspections, whether they use
or own equipment, to share the
inspection results with each employer
who uses the equipment. However,
employers engaged in construction
activities are responsible for assuring
compliance with the standard.
Therefore, if an employer engaged in
construction activities is unable to
assure that another employer has
conducted the monthly inspection, then
the employer engaged in construction
activities must conduct a monthly
inspection prior to using the equipment.
The monthly inspection is similar to a
shift inspection (with the addition of the
monitoring of deficiencies that a
qualified person deemed not to be a
safety hazard in the annual inspection),
but, unlike a shift inspection, the
monthly inspection must be
documented and maintained. Requiring
an employer who uses the equipment to
conduct a monthly inspection when that
employer is unable to determine
whether another employer conducted a
monthly inspection is an insignificant
burden compared to the safety benefit of
ensuring this inspection is completed.
The SBREFA Panel also
recommended that OSHA restate the
corrective action provisions from the
shift inspection (§ 1926.1412(d)(2) and
(3)) in paragraph (e) of this section.
Under § 1926.1412(e)(1), the monthly
inspection must be conducted in
accordance with § 1926.1412(d) on shift
inspections, meaning that the corrective
action provisions in § 1926.1412(d)(2)
and (3) must also be followed in the
monthly inspections. OSHA requested
comment on whether the language in
§ 1926.1412(d)(2) and (3) should be
repeated under § 1926.1412(e). Two
trade associations believed that clarity
would be improved if paragraph (e) of
this subpart repeated the corrective
actions provisions from the shift
inspection paragraph. (ID–0205; –0213.)
OSHA disagrees because
§ 1926.1412(e)(1) explicitly requires this
inspection to be done in accordance
with § 1926.1412(d). Paragraph (d)
immediately precedes paragraph (e),
and OSHA concludes that repeating the
provisions will create, rather than
alleviate, confusion by requiring
employers to read two lists that contain
identical information.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47972

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Paragraph (f)

Annual/Comprehensive

Paragraph (f) of this section requires
an annual (i.e., once every twelve
months), general inspection of the
equipment, the third of the three
regularly scheduled general inspections
that are required by this standard. It
promotes safety by ensuring that a
thorough, comprehensive inspection of
the equipment is performed to detect
and address deficiencies that might not
be detected in the shift and monthly
inspections.
Under paragraph (f)(1), a qualified
person must inspect the equipment. The
Committee specified a qualified person
because the items required in the shift
inspection must be examined more
thoroughly than during the shift or
monthly inspections. The Committee,
determined, and OSHA agrees, that the
higher level of expertise of a qualified
person would help to ensure that the
inspector was able to identify
deficiencies necessitating a greater
degree of scrutiny than what would be
required in the shift inspection; for
example, a deficiency that is not
apparent in a visual inspection but is
detectable through taking apart
equipment components. The
Committee’s decision to require a
qualified person is consistent with
COE–EM 385–1–1 (3 Nov 03) and ASME
B30.5–2004, both of which call for a
qualified person to perform those
standards’ ‘‘periodic’’ inspections.
OSHA notes that § 1926.1412(f) does
not specify the level of scrutiny for the
annual/comprehensive inspection. In
drafting the proposed rule, OHSA
determined that C–DAC intended for
this inspection to be more thorough
than the visual inspection for apparent
deficiencies required of the shift and
monthly inspections. OSHA therefore
solicited comments from the public as
to whether language specifying a higher
level of scrutiny (for example,
‘‘thorough, including disassembly when
necessary’’) should be added.
A railroad equipment supplier
commented that this section does not
additionally burden employers if it
requires them to open covers to inspect
for safety defects that could cause an
incident or death. (ID–0124.) Therefore,
they were in support of adding stronger
language to paragraph (f) of this section
to emphasize some disassembly is
necessary to complete a thorough
inspection of the equipment. In contrast,
two trade associations believed that no
additional language was need in the
regulatory text to specify that a higher
level of scrutiny is needed during an
annual inspection. (ID–0205.1; –0213.)

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

OSHA determines that some
disassembly of the equipment will be
needed for the qualified person to
complete the inspection. Therefore,
OSHA has revised § 1926.1412(f)(2)
accordingly.
The proposed rule did not require the
individual who conducts the annual
inspection to review any documentation
related to the crane prior to or during
the inspection. A labor representative
suggested two types of documentation
they believe the qualified person should
review when conducting an annual
inspection. (ID–0182.1.) First, the
commenter wanted OSHA to include a
requirement in paragraph (f) of this
section that the inspector contact the
manufacturer for any relevant
information the manufacturer may have
about the equipment. The commenter
explains that the manufacturer may
have information about recently
discovered defects or deficiencies in the
equipment or have recommended
modification, which inspectors should
take into account when performing the
annual inspection.
Second, the commenter recommended
that OSHA require the inspector to
review all available information
regarding the history of the piece of
equipment. This information would
include annual or periodic inspection
reports, which would describe
previously discovered defects or
previously made modifications, to
which the inspector should pay
particular attention while conducting a
comprehensive inspection. OSHA
declines to impose the requirements
suggested by the commenter because the
Agency does not agree they would lead
to better inspections. The annual
inspection requirements are designed to
ensure that the inspector thoroughly
scrutinizes and evaluates the current
condition of critical components of the
equipment. Reviewing the maintenance
history of the equipment will not further
the value of this inspection, for defects
previously discovered should have been
repaired and defects not present in the
past may now exist. For example, if a
part such as a ball bearing is replaced
with a new part, there is no reason to
expect that the bearing will fail. To the
contrary, the brand new part is less
likely to fail than another ball bearing
that has been subjected to heavy use for
years. OSHA determines that the
inspection will be more valuable if the
inspector concentrates on thoroughly
inspecting the items listed in the rule to
determine whether they currently
present any safety defects. Similarly,
OSHA is not convinced that contacting
the manufacturer will yield valuable
information that will advance the

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

annual inspection. OSHA determines
that important safety information about
their products is provided voluntarily
by manufacturers to their customers and
that a requirement to contact them each
year is not likely to yield any further
information of value.
Paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (xxi)
specify the parts of the equipment and
the conditions the inspector must look
for during the annual inspection. The
Committee developed this list based on
the members’ experience and current
industry practice as reflected in current
consensus standards for annual/periodic
inspections. The Committee concluded
that each item plays an important role
in the safe operation of equipment. Only
a few of these items require discussion.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xiv) listed
‘‘[o]utrigger pads/floats’’ for excessive
wear or cracks.’’ The purpose of the
inspection of outrigger pads/floats is to
make certain that these pads (which are
attached to the outrigger and used to
distribute the weight of the load to the
ground) will not fail and leave the
outrigger without proper support. In the
final rule, OSHA is referring to
‘‘outrigger or stabilizer pads/floats’’
because some types of equipment, such
as articulating cranes, are designed to
use stabilizers instead of outriggers to
add stability at their bases. A full
discussion of the comments that
prompted this regulatory text change is
provided in the explanation of the rule
for § 1926.1404(q).
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xv) listed
‘‘slider pads for excessive wear or
cracks.’’ The word ‘‘cracks’’ had not been
included in the C–DAC Consensus
Document for this item, and two trade
associations (ID–0205.1; –0213.1)
commented that ‘‘cracks’’ should be
removed from the provision to be
consistent with the intent of C–DAC.
After examining how the word came to
be included in the proposed rule, OSHA
concludes that the word ‘‘cracks’’ was
added inadvertently to this provision
and, lacking an evidentiary basis to
include it, is removing the words ‘‘or
cracks’’ from paragraph (f)(2)(xv) in the
final rule.
Section 1926.1412(f)(2)(xviii) has
been modified from the proposed rule.
Upon review of this requirement, the
Agency found that it was necessary to
clarify this requirement to allow the use
of a seat that is equivalent to the original
operator’s seat. This provision requires
the employer to replace the original seat
with one that provides function and
safety that is equivalent to the original
seat. The text of the final rule has been
modified accordingly.
In § 1926.1412(f)(2)(xix) the term
‘‘unserviceable’’ is replacing the term

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

‘‘unusable’’ to clarify that the operator’s
seat must be in good working condition
to allow the operator to safely work at
the controls of the equipment. The text
of the final rule has been modified
accordingly.
Paragraph (f)(3) requires functional
testing as part of the annual/
comprehensive inspection. No
comments were received on this
provision.
Paragraphs (f)(4) through (6) delineate
the follow-up procedures that apply
when a deficiency is identified during
the annual/comprehensive inspection.
The purpose of these provisions is to
ensure that a deficiency that is not yet
a safety hazard but may develop into
one is monitored on a monthly basis,
and that a deficiency that is a safety
hazard is corrected before the
equipment is returned to service.
Paragraph (f)(4) provides that
immediately following the identification
of a deficiency, the qualified person
must determine ‘‘whether the deficiency
constitutes a safety hazard, or though
not yet a safety hazard, needs to be
monitored in the monthly inspections.’’
No comments were received and
paragraph (f)(4) is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (f)(5) requires that
equipment with a deficiency identified
as a safety hazard by the qualified
person be removed from service until
the deficiency is corrected. Paragraph
(f)(6) requires the employer to check the
deficiencies in the monthly inspections
that the qualified person had identified
as needing monitoring.
In the proposed rule, OSHA discussed
an apparent conflict between
§ 1926.1412(f)(4) and § 1926.1416.
Paragraph (f)(2)(v) lists operational aids
among the items that must be included
in the annual inspection.73 Section
1926.1416 permits equipment with
operational aids that are not functioning
properly to continue to be used for
limited periods of time as long as
specified alternative measures are used
while the operational aids are being
repaired. By contrast, under
§ 1926.1412(f)(4), if any deficiency is
identified in the annual inspection, the
73 Paragraph (f)(2)(v), as proposed and in the final
rule, distinguishes between deficiencies that result
in ‘‘significant inaccuracies’’ in the operation of any
of the safety devices or operational aides, and those
that do not. The phrase ‘‘significant inaccuracies’’
reflects the fact that such devices normally operate
within a tolerance range. Corrective actions are not
required if the inaccuracy is so small as to be
irrelevant regarding the safe operation of the
equipment. In contrast, significant inaccuracies in
these devices could mislead the operator and
contribute to actions that could result in the
equipment being inadvertently used in an unsafe
manner.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

qualified person must make an
immediate determination as to whether
the deficiency constitutes a safety
hazard. If it does, under
§ 1926.1412(f)(4), the equipment must
be removed from service immediately.
OSHA requested public comment on
whether § 1926.1412(f)(4) should
explicitly provide that the corrective
action in § 1926.1416 applies if an
operational aid is found to be
malfunctioning during an annual
inspection. Two trade associations
agreed that § 1926.1412(f) should state
that the corrective action required for
malfunctioning operational aids is that
specified in § 1926.1416. (ID–0205.1;
–0213.1.) OSHA also notes that
§ 1926.1435(e) specifies the temporary
alternative measures that must be
implemented when operational aids on
tower cranes malfunction, and
§ 1926.1412(f)(5) applies to tower cranes
as well as equipment covered by
§ 1926.1416. Paragraph (f)(5) of the final
rule is modified accordingly.
Moreover, OSHA is adding text to
paragraph (f)(1) of this section to
emphasize that paragraphs (d)(2) and
(d)(3) of this section do not apply to
annual inspections.
Paragraph (f)(7), Documentation of
annual/comprehensive inspection,
requires the employer that conducts the
inspection to complete and maintain,
for a minimum of twelve months,
documentation that contains ‘‘[t]he
items checked and the results of the
inspection,’’ and ‘‘[t]he name and
signature of the person who conducted
the inspection and the date of the
inspection.’’ Section 1926.1413(c)(4),
which pertains to the annual/
comprehensive wire rope inspection,
contains a similar documentation
requirement. In the proposed rule, the
12-month retention requirement was
located in paragraph (f)(7)(iii). OSHA
has incorporated that requirement into
the introductory sentence to clarify that
it is the employer who conducts the
inspection who must retain the
documents for 12 months. OSHA has
also clarified that the date of the
inspection, not the date on which the
document was signed, must be entered
on the document.
During the SBREFA process, several
Small Entity Representatives objected to
the requirement for documentation of
monthly and annual inspections, stating
that such documentation would be
unduly burdensome and would not, in
their opinions, add to worker safety.
The Panel recommended that OSHA
solicit public comment on the extent of
inspection documentation the rule
should require. OSHA requested
comment on this issue.

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47973

A local government supported
annual/comprehensive inspection
documentation. (ID–0156.) It also
commented that daily logs should be
maintained and submitted to the crane
owner to capture when maintenance has
been performed on the equipment, and
maintained by the equipment owner for
the life of the crane. This commenter
did not, however, explain how such a
retention requirement would produce
safety benefits, and OSHA declines to
adopt it.
The Committee determined that the
documentation of the annual inspection,
signed by the person who conducted the
inspection and retained for 12 months,
would have several effects. First, it
would increase the likelihood that more
employers would implement systems
for conducting and responding to
inspections. Second, the failure to do so
would be more readily apparent if a
record was not made, and the signature
of the person who conducted the
inspection would be an inducement to
that person to ensure that the inspection
was done correctly.
The Agency notes that the three
month retention period reflects the
Committee’s decision to have a
retention period that is consistent with
Department of Transportation truck
inspection documentation requirements.
The documentation of these
inspections serves as references that
inspectors can use to monitor the
condition of items critical to the safe
operation of the equipment. It has been
a longstanding industry practice to
maintain annual inspection
documentation as a reference that the
inspection was completed, to identify
who performed the inspections, and to
document the results of that inspection.
Paragraph (g) Severe Service
Paragraph (g) of this section requires
the employer to inspect the equipment
when the severity of use/conditions—
‘‘such as loading that may have exceeded
rated capacity, shock loading that may have
exceeded rated capacity, [or] prolonged
exposure to a corrosive atmosphere’’—creates
a ‘‘reasonable probability of damage or
excessive wear.’’ In such instances, the
employer is required to stop using the
equipment and have a qualified person
‘‘inspect the equipment for structural
damage;’’ determine whether, in light of
the use/conditions of the severe service,
any items listed in the annual/
comprehensive inspection need to be
inspected and if so, inspect them; and
if a deficiency is found, follow the
correction/monitoring procedures set
forth in § 1926.1412(f)(4)–(f)(6).
Upon review of this paragraph, the
Agency determines that

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47974

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

§ 1926.1412(g)(1) needs clarification;
therefore, OSHA added a phrase to the
provision requiring that a determination
be made to ensure the equipment
remains safe for continued use. This
revision emphasizes that this inspection
must determine the capability of the
equipment to operate continuously
under severe conditions. No comments
were received on this paragraph, and it
is promulgated as proposed, with the
exception of the clarification to
§ 1926.1412(g)(1).
Paragraph (h)
Regular Use

Equipment Not in

Paragraph (h) of this section requires
that equipment that sits idle for three
months or more be inspected by a
qualified person in accordance with the
monthly inspection provisions of
§ 1926.1412(e) before being used. This
would ensure that deficiencies that may
arise as a result of the equipment
standing idle are checked before its
subsequent use. The Committee
determined that this inspection would
need to be done by a qualified person,
rather than a competent person, because
some of the deficiencies that may arise
from sitting idle require the qualified
person’s higher level of ability to detect
and assess. (See further discussion at 73
FR 59775, Oct. 9, 2008.) No comments
were received on this paragraph. It is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (i)

[Reserved]

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (j)
Proposed paragraph (j) of this section
required that any part of a
manufacturer’s inspection procedures
relating to safe operation that is more
comprehensive or has a more frequent
schedule than that required by this
section must be followed. These
inspection procedures include any
information provided by the
manufacturer. Examples are provided in
the provision of the types of items that
would be considered to relate to safe
operation (‘‘a safety device or operator
aid, critical part of a control system,
power plant, braking system, loadsustaining structural components, load
hook, or in-use operating mechanism’’).
The proposed paragraph goes on to
state: ‘‘Additional documentation
requirements by the manufacturer are
not required.’’
Several commenters asked that OSHA
delete the line in the regulatory text of
§ 1926.1412(j) that reads ‘‘Additional
manufacturer documentation
requirements need not be followed.’’
(ID–0165; –0232; –0235.) OSHA
acknowledges that the intent of this

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

sentence is unclear and is not including
it in the final rule.
A safety association and a trade
association commented that the
thorough and equipment-specific
frequency of inspections required by the
manufacturer are well suited for the
equipment used in their trades.
(ID–0184; –0206.) The safety association
asserted that compliance with
equipment manufacturers’ inspection
recommendations assure a greater
degree of safety than compliance with a
list of shift, monthly, and annual
inspections, which may be deficient
with regard to thoroughness and
frequency. The two commenters asked
that OSHA revise § 1926.1412 to allow
employer-documented compliance with
the inspection recommendations of the
equipment manufacturer as an
alternative to meeting the requirements
of § 1926.1412.
OSHA agrees with the commenters
that manufacturer’s equipment-specific
inspection requirements can help
promote safety. For this reason,
§ 1926.1412(j) provides that any
additional inspection requirements
recommended by the manufacturer must
be followed by employers. However,
OSHA does not agree with the
commenters regarding their assessment
that the minimum inspection
requirements and schedules specified in
§ 1926.1412 are more burdensome for
employers who use articulating lifting
equipment in particular. There is no
evidence in the record that inspections
recommended by manufacturers are as
thorough as those provided in this
section. To the extent that they are,
there is no additional burden to
employers in requiring them to follow
this section than to follow the
manufacturer’s recommendations.
Paragraph (k)
OSHA determines that the competent
person or persons who conduct shift
and monthly inspections, and the
qualified person who conducts annual
inspections, must have access to all
written documents produced under this
section, during the time for which the
employer is required to retain those
documents, so that they are made aware
of any components of the equipment
that may require special attention
during their inspections. Accordingly,
OSHA is adding a new paragraph (k) at
the end of § 1926.1412.
Section 1926.1413 Wire Rope—
Inspection
Cranes and derricks use wire rope to
lift and support their loads and parts of
the equipment. If the rope is worn or
damaged, it can break, causing the

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

equipment to fail and/or the load to fall,
which can kill or injure workers.
Approximately 3% of crane fatalities in
construction work result from wire
ropes snapping. J.E. Beavers et al,
Crane-Related Fatalities in the
Construction Industry, 132 Journal of
Construction Engineering and
Management 901, 903 (Sept. 2006).
(ID–0011.) Accordingly, C–DAC
concluded it would improve crane/
derrick safety to establish updated
requirements for wire rope inspections.
The definition C–DAC developed for
proposed § 1926.1401 defined ‘‘wire
rope’’ as ‘‘rope made of wire.’’ In the
preamble of the proposed rule, OSHA
noted that this definition could be read
to exclude rope made with a fiber core,
which, as discussed below under
§ 1926.1414, may be used for purposes
other than boom hoist reeving. OSHA
requested public comment on whether a
more appropriate definition would be
the following one used by the
Specialized Carriers & Rigging
Association:
A flexible rope constructed by laying steel
wires into various patterns of multi-wired
strands around a core system to produce a
helically wound rope.

(73 FR 59739, Oct. 9, 2008.) Three
commenters supported this revised
definition, and none were opposed.
(ID–0187.1; –0205.1; –0213.1.)
Accordingly, OSHA is revising the
definition in § 1926.1401 to that quoted
above.
One of the commenters supporting the
revised definition also stated that OSHA
should not exclude wire rope with a
synthetic or fiber core and should
include definitions of these terms. (ID–
0187.1.) However, as OSHA explained
in the proposed rule, the revised
definition is designed to encompass
cores other than wire, and OSHA
determines it is not necessary to include
separate definitions for each type of
such rope to make clear that they fall
within the definition of ‘‘wire rope.’’
The proposed rule provided for wire
rope inspections at the same
frequency—shift, monthly, and
annually—that would apply for other
crane components under § 1926.1412. It
also proposed that, like inspections of
other components, the shift and
monthly inspections be conducted by a
‘‘competent person,’’ and the annual
inspection by a ‘‘qualified person.’’ As
discussed below, OSHA is retaining this
equivalence of frequency and
qualifications in the final rule.
Paragraph (a)

Shift Inspection

Paragraph (a)(1) of this section of the
proposed rule required a shift

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
inspection by a competent person. One
commenter recommended that this
provision require the shift inspection to
be conducted ‘‘each shift the equipment
is used’’ rather than ‘‘each shift,’’ to
clarify that the equipment does not have
to be inspected when it will not be used
on a shift. (ID–0226.0.) This suggested
change is consistent with the intent of
the proposed rule, and OSHA is adding
similar language to § 1926.1413(a)(1) to
clarify that intent.
Another commenter stated that it was
unnecessary to require a wire rope
inspection each shift. (ID–0203.1.) This
commenter believed that per-shift wire
rope inspections were an unnecessary
burden for employers with good
maintenance programs who have not
experienced wire rope failures. The
commenter recommended that OSHA
adopt the protocol in sec. 5–2.4 of
ASME B30.5–2004, which allows the
periodic inspection frequency to be
determined by a qualified person based
on factors that affect rope life.
OSHA rejects this commenter’s
suggestion which could, at a qualified
person’s discretion, result in less
frequent wire rope inspections than
were required under former subpart N.
Section 5–2.4.1 of ANSI B30.5–1968,
which was incorporated by reference in
subpart N, provided for wire rope
inspections ‘‘once each working day.’’
The current version of B30.5, in sec. 5–
2.4.2(a) of ASME B30.5–2004, similarly
provides for daily wire rope inspections.
The commenter’s reference to the
provision in ASME B 30.5–2004 that
allows the inspection frequency to be
determined by a qualified person refers
to the type of comprehensive inspection
that is similar to the annual inspection
required by § 1926.1413(c), not to the
shift inspections required under
§ 1926.1413(a).
As discussed below, the purpose of
this inspection is to ensure that
deficiencies are identified and that,
depending on the competent person’s
evaluation of those deficiencies,
appropriate action is taken. C–DAC
wanted to make clear, however, that the
inspection was not to be so
comprehensive and time-consuming
that it would be unrealistic to conduct
it for each shift. To clarify that the
inspection was one that was reasonable
for a shift inspection, the provision
states that neither ‘‘untwisting (opening
of wire rope)’’ nor ‘‘booming down’’ is
required during this inspection. OSHA
believes that requiring a realistic level of
inspection each shift will encourage
compliance and ultimately serve to
reduce accidents. No comments were
received on this aspect of the proposed
rule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Proposed § 1926.1413(a)(1) referred to
wire ropes (running and standing) that
are ‘‘reasonably likely’’ to be in use
during the shift. OSHA is also removing
the word ‘‘reasonably’’ to avoid
ambiguity. Accordingly,
§ 1926.1413(a)(1) is promulgated as
proposed except for the minor changes
noted above.
Paragraph (a)(2) Apparent Deficiencies
Paragraph (a)(1) of this section
requires the competent person to
conduct a ‘‘visual inspection * * * for
apparent deficiencies, including those
listed in paragraph (a)(2).’’ Proposed
paragraph (a)(2) established three
categories (I, II, and III) of apparent wire
rope deficiencies. The likelihood that a
deficiency is hazardous increases as the
number of the category increases from I
to III. The basis for categorizing
apparent deficiencies in this way was
discussed in detail in the proposed rule
(73 FR 59776–59777, Oct. 9, 2008). As
discussed further below, the category
determines the options or ‘‘next steps’’
available to or required of the employer
under paragraph (a)(4), Removal from
service.
The Agency is providing minor
clarifications for the two apparent
deficiencies that relate to damage from
electricity. As proposed, paragraph
(a)(2)(i)(C) read: ‘‘Electric arc (from a
source other than power lines) or heat
damage.’’ C–DAC intended that both
‘‘electric arc’’ and ‘‘heat’’ would modify
‘‘damage.’’ To make this more clear,
OSHA is adding the word ‘‘damage’’
after ‘‘electric arc.’’ Proposed paragraph
(a)(2)(iii)(B) read: ‘‘Electrical contact
with a power line.’’ OSHA is adding the
word ‘‘prior’’ at the beginning of the
paragraph to clarify that the inspector
must note a deficiency whenever he or
she is aware, through observation or
from any other information, that the
wire rope has previously made electrical
contact with a power line.
OSHA notes that a wire rope can be
damaged in two ways from electrical
contact. First, if the source of electrical
power contacts the wire rope, the
electricity can arc to the wire rope and
cause a localized burn. The extent of the
damage will depend on the amount of
electrical energy involved. A low energy
arc will typically cause little damage; a
high energy arc may cause significant
damage. When the arc results from a
source other than a power line, the
extent of the damage will vary, and the
inspector must determine whether the
rope is damaged to the extent that repair
or replacement is necessary.
If a power line arcs to a wire rope,
there will usually be sufficient localized
burn damage that the rope must be

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47975

removed from service. However, a wire
rope may make electrical contact with a
power line and leave no visible damage.
For example, if the load contacts a
power line and is not insulated from the
wire rope, a large current can flow
through the rope. The current may be
large enough to damage the internal
structure of the rope and weaken it
without leaving any visible evidence on
the rope itself that this has happened.
There is no realistic way to assess the
internal damage that such electrical
contact has caused to the wire rope.
Therefore, C–DAC determined that any
wire rope that came into electrical
contact with a power line must be
removed from service.
Only one comment was submitted
regarding proposed paragraph (a)(2).
The commenter suggested adding two
additional conditions to the list of
Category II deficiencies. (ID–0121.1.)
The first is where one outer wire is
broken at the point of contact with the
core of the rope and protrudes or loops
out from the rope structure. The second
is where one outer wire is broken at the
strand to strand contact point and is
raised up from the body of the rope or
looped out of the rope structure.
OSHA disagrees with the commenter
because this commenter did not offer
any rationale to justify these additional
provisions. Therefore, OSHA is
deferring to the expertise of the
Committee. Section 1926.1413(a)(2) is
promulgated as proposed except for the
clarifications noted above.
A ‘‘running wire rope’’ is a wire rope
that moves over sheaves or drums. This
definition is included in § 1926.1401 of
this final rule to make clear the nature
of the wire rope that is subject to this
inspection provision. These criteria are
the same as those contained in sec. 5–
2.4.3 of ASME B30.5–2004, and those
for running wire ropes and pendant or
standing wire ropes are also contained
in sec. 5–2.4.2 of ANSI B30.5–1968,
which is incorporated by reference in
subpart N. One issue that was left
unanswered during the Committee
discussions is whether these broken
wire criteria are equally applicable
when using plastic sheaves. The Agency
requested public comment on this issue.
However, no comments were received.
OSHA notes that the proposed broken
wire criteria did not depend on the type
of sheave involved and would therefore
include plastic as well as metal sheaves.
Since the paragraph is being
promulgated as proposed, the criteria
apply regardless of the material of
which the sheave is made.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47976

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Paragraph (a)(3)

Critical Review Items

Under paragraph (a)(3) of this section,
the competent person must give
particular attention to certain ‘‘Critical
Review Items’’ during the shift
inspection (as well as, as discussed
below, in the monthly and annual
inspections). Proposed paragraph
(a)(3)(iii) listed, among the critical
review items, ‘‘wire rope at flange
points, [and] crossover points.’’ These
terms were defined in proposed
§ 1926.1401, Definitions.
One commenter suggested that each
wrap of the rope is a crossover point
such that the crossover points will line
up across the face of the drum. (ID–
0121.) The Agency disagrees with this
view. As defined in the standard, a
crossover point occurs ‘‘where one layer
of rope climbs up and crosses over the
previous layer * * *.’’ While the rope
climbs up at the drum’s flange, it does
not climb up as it then spools across the
previous (lower) layer towards the other
flange, i.e., as it wraps across the face of
the drum.
In the proposed rule, OSHA noted
that the items listed in
§§ 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v)
(‘‘Wire rope adjacent to end
connections’’ and ‘‘Wire rope at and on
equalizer sheaves’’) are functionally
equivalent to items requiring special
scrutiny during the annual inspections
required in proposed
§§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (F) (‘‘Wire
rope in contact with saddles, equalizer
sheaves or other sheaves where rope
travel is limited’’ and ‘‘Wire rope at or
near terminal ends’’). The Agency stated
that it planned to revise the language in
proposed §§ 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and
(a)(3)(v) to match the language in
§§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F).
This would enable OSHA to delete
§§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F)
because § 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A)
incorporates by reference the critical
review items listed in
§§ 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v),
thereby making the items listed in
§§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F)
redundant. OSHA did not receive any
adverse comment on modifying
§§ 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v) in
this manner and modified
§ 1926.1413(a)(3) accordingly.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (a)(4)

Removal From Service

Paragraph (a)(4) of this section of the
proposed rule set out remedial steps to
be taken once the competent person
performing the inspection identifies an
apparent deficiency. Those steps
depended upon whether, under
§ 1926.1413(a)(2), the deficiency falls
under Category I, II, or III. Under this

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

approach, immediate removal from
service would be required for certain
deficiencies, while continued use under
prescribed circumstances would be
allowed for others before the rope must
be removed from service. When removal
from service is required, the provisions
of § 1926.1417 (Operation) apply, and
the inspector must either tag out the
entire equipment or the hoist with the
damaged wire rope. This approach was
adopted by C–DAC because, in the
Committee’s collective experience,
different types of deficiencies warrant
different responses, with some
deficiencies being so serious that
continued use of the rope must be
prohibited while other deficiencies may,
if adequately evaluated and monitored,
allow continued use of the rope for a
limited time.
Paragraph (a)(4)(i) applies to Category
I apparent deficiencies. Paragraph
(a)(4)(i)(B) allows the rope to be severed
under some circumstances and the
undamaged part to be used. Two
commenters suggested that language be
added to require the user to verify that
the drum will still have at least two
wraps of rope around it when the block
is lowered to its lowest position. (ID–
0122; –0178.1.) The concern of these
commenters is that shortening the rope
too much might not leave enough rope
to allow a sufficient margin of safety
(two wraps) to remain on the drum and
prevent the rope from becoming
disconnected from the drum.
Another provision of the final rule,
§ 1926.1417(t), addresses this potential
safety hazard by requiring that neither
the load nor the boom be lowered below
the point where less than two full wraps
of rope remain on their respective
drums. Normally, newly installed ropes
are long enough to ensure compliance
with § 1926.1417(t) when the load or
boom are in their lowest positions, and
these commenters are concerned that
shortening the rope could result in the
rope becoming disconnected if the
remaining part of the rope is not long
enough to always ensure that two wraps
remain on the drum.
OSHA agrees with this comment and
is adding language to paragraph
(a)(4)(i)(B) (and also to paragraphs
(a)(4)(iii)(B) and (c)(3)(i)(B) of this
section, which contain a similar
provision) to specify that if a wire rope
is shortened under this paragraph, the
employer is required to ensure that the
drum will still have two wraps of wire
rope when the load and/or boom is in
its lowest position.
OSHA also notes that paragraph
(a)(4)(i)(B) twice refers to power line
contact in the phrases ‘‘other than power
line contact’’ and ‘‘repair of wire rope

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

that contacted an energized power line
is also prohibited.’’ OSHA is concerned
that these phrases could be misleading
in a paragraph devoted to remedial steps
for a Category I deficiency, as power
line contact can never be a Category I
deficiency. It is a Category III deficiency
that requires immediate replacement of
the rope. To avoid any implication that
power line contact could be a Category
I deficiency and that a competent
person could determine that the rope
does not constitute a safety hazard
under paragraph (a)(4)(i), OSHA is
deleting the words in proposed
paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) referring to power
line contact.
Paragraph (a)(4)(ii) applies to Category
II apparent deficiencies. In paragraph
(a)(4)(ii)(A), OSHA is removing the
references to safety hazards to make it
clear that utilization of this option
(compliance with manufacturer
requirements) mandates removal of the
rope from service whenever the
manufacturer’s criteria for removal from
service are met, without the employer
making an independent determination
as to whether the rope is a safety hazard.
Paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) allow
the employer the option of either
removing the wire rope from service or
to implement the measures as described
in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) above. In
addition, OSHA is adding a crossreference to § 1926.1417 (Operation),
which includes a number of separate
requirements that are triggered if the
equipment is taken out of service.
The proposed rule would have
allowed Category II wire-rope
deficiencies 74 to remain in service up to
30 days when using specified
alternative measures. Under former
subpart N, these deficiencies would
have resulted in removing the wire rope
immediately from service. However,
OSHA relied on C–DAC’s expertise and
proposed the provision as
recommended by the Committee.
The Agency received comments
regarding the alternative measures
proposed for Category II wire-rope
deficiencies from three commenters. All
of the commenters objected to allowing
continued use of wire rope with
Category II deficiencies. Two of the
commenters stated that the proposed
option to continue using wire rope with
the proposed alternative measures
relaxed both national consensus
standards and the instructions of wire
rope manufacturers. (ID–0122.0;
–0178.1.) They believed allowing the
employer to use the damaged wire rope
in service up to 30 days was a
74 These measures were proposed at
§§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(B) and 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii).

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
dangerous precedent because it based
employee protection on conditions that
could be difficult for a qualified person
to assess accurately.
The third commenter (a crane
manufacturer), which had a
representative on C–DAC, also objected
to the continued use of wire rope with
Category II deficiencies. (ID–0292.1.)
This commenter noted that such
deficiencies indicate that the wire rope
does not meet the ‘‘acceptable life’’
criteria accepted by the wire-rope
industry. Further, the commenter noted
that, if the wire rope continued to be
used with the Category II deficiencies,
‘‘failure could occur without further
indication.’’
OSHA finds these comments
persuasive with respect to the
protection of employee safety. The
integrity of the wire rope is critical to
the safety of any lift performed by
equipment covered by this subpart. For
example, a break in the rope can result
in a dropped load which endangers
employees on the worksite. Based on
these comments and the requirements of
former subpart N, OSHA is changing the
requirements in the final rule for wire
rope with Category II deficiencies. The
Agency notes that this revision is
consistent with the requirements of
former subpart N. Accordingly, the
alternative measures outlined in the
proposed rule at § 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)
have been deleted and subsequent
paragraphs renumbered.
Paragraph (a)(4)(iii) 75 applies to
Category III apparent deficiencies. Two
commenters suggested that Category III
is unnecessary because paragraph
(a)(4)(iv)(B) is the same as for Category
I. (ID–0122; –0178.1.) As noted above,
the corresponding proposed provision
for Category I, paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B), is
being changed to remove the references
to power line contact. Moreover,
Category III differs from Category I
because the competent person may
decide that rope with a Category I
deficiency does not constitute a safety
hazard and allow the rope to continue
to be used. However, rope with a
Category III deficiency must either be
replaced or, if the deficiency is localized
and did not result from power line
contact, be severed and the undamaged
part to be used.
As discussed above in relation to
paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B), OSHA is changing
paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B) 76 to state that, if
the rope is severed and the undamaged
portion used, the rope in use must be
75 This was § 1926.1413(a)(4)(iv) in the proposed
rule (73 FR 59930, Oct. 9, 2008).
76 This was § 1926.1413(a)(4)(iv)(B) in the
proposed rule (73 FR 59930, Oct. 9, 2008).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

long enough to ensure that two full
wraps remain on the drum at all times.
Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(iv) 77
specified that where a wire rope must be
removed from service under this
section, the equipment (as a whole) or
the hoist with that wire rope must be
tagged-out as provided in proposed
§ 1926.1417(f)(1) until the wire rope is
replaced or repaired. No comments were
received on this provision, and it is
being promulgated as proposed.
A commenter suggested adding that
the competent person who conducts the
shift inspection must receive such
information in writing. (ID–0132.1.)
OSHA concludes that the competent
person or persons who conduct shift
and monthly inspections, and the
qualified person who conducts annual
inspections, must have access to all
written documents produced under this
section so that they are made aware of
any components of the equipment that
may require special attention during
their inspections.
Accordingly, OSHA is adding a new
paragraph (e) at the end of § 1926.1413
that specifies that all documents
produced under this section must be
available to all persons who conduct
inspections under this section.
Paragraph (b) Monthly Inspection
Proposed paragraph (b) required a
monthly inspection of wire rope that
would be, in both the level of scrutiny
and the expertise required of the
inspector, a documented shift
inspection.
A commenter pointed out that
paragraph (c)(3)(ii) requires that certain
deficiencies identified during the
annual inspection must be monitored
during the monthly inspection and
suggested that this requirement be
specifically stated in paragraph (b). (ID–
0226.) OSHA agrees and is adding
paragraph (b)(2), which states that the
inspection must include any
deficiencies identified in the annual
inspection as needing to be monitored.
Paragraph (c)

Annual/Comprehensive

Proposed § 1926.1413(c) required an
annual inspection (at least every 12
months) for wire rope, conducted by a
qualified person. The annual inspection
would be considerably more thorough
and comprehensive than the shift and
monthly inspections required by
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. In
addition, it would be conducted by a
‘‘qualified person,’’ who would have
greater expertise than the ‘‘competent
person’’ who must conduct the shift and
77 This was § 1926.1413(a)(4)(v) in the proposed
rule (73 FR 59930, Oct. 9, 2008).

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47977

monthly inspections. The timing and
inspector qualifications for the annual
wire rope inspection coincide with
those for the general equipment annual/
comprehensive inspection. C–DAC
believed that the use of corresponding
timeframes and personnel will allow
inspections to be conducted efficiently
and thereby promote effectiveness and
compliance.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(1), all
apparent deficiencies and critical
review items required to be checked in
a shift inspection would have to be
checked in the annual/comprehensive
inspection (see paragraphs (a)(2) and
(a)(3)). No comments were received on
this provision, and it is being
promulgated as proposed.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) provided
for a more thorough inspection than that
required under paragraph (c)(1). Under
proposed paragraph (c)(2), a complete
and thorough inspection, covering the
surface of the entire length of the wire
ropes, would be required. One
commenter, which had nominated a
member of C–DAC, stated that the entire
length of the rope needed to be
inspected more frequently than
annually and suggested that this
requirement should be included in the
monthly inspection provision. (ID–0
292.1.) This commenter did not provide
any evidence to support this assertion or
explain why it was deviating from the
position its nominee took in favor of the
provision in the C–DAC negotiations.
This comment is accorded diminished
weight in light of this inconsistency of
position. OSHA defers to the expertise
of the full Committee and is retaining
the requirement that the entire length of
the rope be inspected during the annual
inspection; it is not adding such a
requirement to the monthly inspection
provision.
As discussed in relation to
§ 1926.1413(a)(3), OSHA has, in the
final rule, modified proposed
§§ 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v) to
read the same as proposed
§§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (F) (‘‘Wire
rope in contact with saddles, equalizer
sheaves or other sheaves where rope
travel is limited’’ and ‘‘Wire rope at or
near terminal ends’’). Section
1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A) now incorporates
by reference the critical review items
listed in §§ 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and
(a)(3)(v), thereby making the items listed
in §§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and
(c)(2)(ii)(F) redundant.
Two commenters supported keeping
paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(C) and (F), even
though they are also included in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, saying
that annual inspections are more
comprehensive and, in their view,

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47978

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

should be treated separately. (ID–
0205.1; –0213.1.) However, the
modification made by OSHA does not
change the proposed requirements for
annual inspections; it only avoids
redundant language. Accordingly,
OSHA is deleting proposed
§§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (F) from
the final rule and is renumbering
proposed paragraphs (D) and (E) to (C)
and (D).
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii)
established an exception to the timing of
the annual/comprehensive inspection
where that inspection is infeasible due
to ‘‘existing set-up and configuration of
the equipment (such as where an assist
crane is needed) or due to site
conditions (such as a dense urban
setting).’’ The provision sets a timetable
for annual/comprehensive inspections
in such cases that requires the
inspection to be performed ‘‘as soon as
it becomes feasible, but no longer than
an additional 6 months for running
ropes and, for standing ropes, at the
time of disassembly.’’ The provision
reflects C–DAC’s concern that,
particularly in densely developed urban
settings, the inability to boom down
would prevent the employer from
completing a comprehensive wire rope
inspection.
Two commenters objected to the
length of the six-month period and
suggested it be reduced to one month.
(ID–0122.0; –0178.1.) Neither
commenter provided any evidence of
explanation to support its
recommendation, so OSHA is deferring
to C–DAC’s collective judgment and is
retaining the six-month period in the
proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) listed the
next steps to be taken once the qualified
person performing the annual/
comprehensive inspection discovers a
deficiency. The qualified person must
immediately determine whether the
deficiency constitutes a safety hazard. If
it does, under proposed paragraph
(c)(3)(i), the rope would either have to
be replaced or, if the deficiency is
localized, the damaged part may be
severed and the undamaged portion
may continue to be used. As with
paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B), joining lengths of
wire rope by splicing would be
prohibited.
As discussed under paragraph (b)(3),
a commenter recommended that the
requirement of paragraph (c)(3)(ii)
should be explicitly referenced in the
monthly inspection reports, and OSHA
has made an addition to paragraph (b)(3)
to accomplish this. (ID–0226.) Also, as
discussed under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B),
OSHA is adding a requirement to
paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) that at least two

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

full wraps of wire rope must remain on
the drum when the load and/or boom is
in its lowest position.
Paragraph (c)(4) requires the annual/
comprehensive inspection to be
documented according to
§ 1926.1412(f)(7), which is the
documentation provision for the annual
general inspection. As with other
parallel requirements in this section, C–
DAC intended to ensure consistency
with other recordkeeping requirements
and thus facilitate compliance. Section
1926.1412(f)(7), which is incorporated
by reference, requires the employer that
is conducting the inspection to
document and retain for 12 months, ‘‘the
items checked and the results of that
inspection’’ and ‘‘the name and signature
of the person who conducted the
inspection and the date.’’ No comments
were received on paragraph (c)(4), and
it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)
Proposed § 1926.1413(d) provided
that employers may not use rope
lubricants that are of the type that
hinder inspection.
This provision would prohibit, for
example, rope lubricants that are
opaque or so dark that they mask the
wire rope inside them. A commenter
suggested adding to this provision the
following sentence: ‘‘The rope surface
and strand valleys must be cleaned of
dirt, lubricant or other material that will
hinder inspection.’’ (ID–0121.1.) OSHA
determines that this addition is
unnecessary. Section 1926.1413 requires
various inspections, and the
requirement to conduct an inspection
inherently means that where foreign
material that would prevent the
inspection is present, it must be
removed. The prohibition against rope
lubricants that are of the type that
hinder inspection is needed because
they are difficult to remove and pose an
unnecessary obstacle to compliance.
Section 1926.1413(d) is promulgated in
the final rule as proposed.
Paragraph (e)
A commenter suggested adding that
the competent person who conducts the
shift inspection must receive such
information in writing. (ID–0132.1.)
Similarly, OSHA determines that the
competent person or persons who
conduct shift and monthly inspections,
and the qualified person who conducts
annual inspections, must have access to
all written documents produced under
§ 1926.1413. In response to this
comment, OSHA is adding paragraph (e)
to ensure that persons who conduct
inspections have access to
documentation required by § 1926.1413

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

during the period for which those
documents must be retained. This
documentation serves as a reference for
conditions that must be monitored in
subsequent inspections. OSHA
concludes that this documentation will
ensure that only safe equipment is put
into service.
Section 1926.1414 Wire Rope—
Selection and Installation Criteria
This section sets forth requirements
for selecting and installing wire rope. C–
DAC determined, and OSHA agrees, that
the proper selection and installation of
wire rope is integral to the safe
operation of equipment that uses such
rope. Improper selection or installation
could cause the wire rope to fail,
resulting in any number of hazards from
uncontrolled movement of the
equipment or the load. As discussed in
the proposed rule, § 1926.1414, in
addition to addressing safety concerns
related to wire rope selection and
installation, provides greater flexibility
in the selection process than previous
requirements under subpart N (73 FR
59781, Oct. 9, 2008). This flexibility
reflects and takes advantage of new
developments in wire rope technology.
Paragraph (a)
Proposed paragraph (a) of this section
stated that ‘‘selection of replacement
wire rope shall be in accordance with
the requirements of this section and the
recommendations of the wire rope
manufacturer, the equipment
manufacturer, or a qualified person.’’ In
the proposed rule, OSHA noted that
proposed paragraph (a)’s mention of
only ‘‘replacement rope’’ could mislead
some readers to conclude that all of
§ 1926.1414 applies only to replacement
rope, whereas C–DAC clearly intended
that § 1926.1414 would apply to both
original equipment rope and
replacement rope. OSHA proposed to
reword § 1926.1414(a) to read as
follows: ‘‘Original equipment wire rope
and replacement wire rope shall be
selected and installed in accordance
with the requirements of this section.
Selection of replacement wire rope shall
be in accordance with the
recommendations of the wire rope
manufacturer, the equipment
manufacturer, or a qualified person.’’
OSHA requested public comment on
such a revision. OSHA received no
comment on proposed § 1926.1414(a) or
on its proposed rewording. Accordingly,
OSHA modified § 1926.1414(a) of the
final rule to reflect the proposed
rewording.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (b)
The proposed rule, in § 1926.1414(c),
included design factors for rotation
resistant rope but did not include design
factors for standard (that is, non-rotation
resistant) rope. In the proposal, OSHA
stated its determination that, in light of
the importance of design factors for wire
rope, the omission of design factors for
standard rope was inadvertent (73 FR
59781, Oct. 9, 2008). OSHA proposed to
include the design factors for standard
rope in sec. 5–1.7.1 of ASME B30.5–
2004. OSHA requested public comment
on the issue.
Comments were received from two
parties, both of whom nominated C–
DAC members. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1.)
They stated that the omission was
intentional, believing that C–DAC did
not include design factor criteria for
standard wire rope because technology
is continually evolving and including
design criteria in the rule may hamper
future crane operations. The
commenters stated that the proposed
rule had provisions requiring end users
to conform with requirements or criteria
established by the wire rope
manufacturer, equipment manufacturer,
or a qualified person.
OSHA notes that C–DAC determined
it was important for this rule to allow
flexibility to accommodate future
technological changes. The commenters
on this issue reiterated that
determination, and OSHA shares that
concern. Setting unduly restrictive
specifications based on current
technology could unnecessarily impinge
on the use of future designs. The
Agency also concludes, however, that
some form of minimum criteria is
necessary so that those selecting wire
rope have a minimum benchmark
available as a reference point.
To meet both of these objectives, the
Agency has decided, in the final rule, to
add a new paragraph (b) to § 1926.1414
to provide employers with two options
with regards to wire rope design criteria.
The first option would be to comply
with an industry consensus standard
(sec. 5–1.7.1 of ASME B30.5–2004) on
design factors for standard wire rope.
See § 1926.1414(b)(1). This is a wellestablished benchmark for standard
wire rope design factors, and the
Agency therefore determined that it is
appropriate to include it as an option.
Paragraph (c) of sec. 5–1.7.1 is excluded
because that deals with rotation
resistant rope, which is addressed in
§ 1926.1414(e).
The second option provides a
performance benchmark that is based on
the rope’s compatibility with the rated
capacity of the equipment and on the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

need to be able to rely on the
inspections in § 1926.1413 as an
effective means of ensuring the
continued safety of the rope. See
§ 1926.1414(b)(2). Specifically, the
design must be sufficient to ensure that,
when the equipment is used in
accordance with its rated capacity, the
employer will be able to prevent a
sudden failure of the rope by meeting
the inspection requirements in
§ 1926.1413.
This concept reflects the underlying
premise of § 1926.1413 that regular
inspection of the rope can prevent
catastrophic failure because the rope’s
degradation will take place over time
and will be accompanied by indications
of wear. Therefore, if the rope is
appropriate for the equipment, the
degradation that occurs with use will be
sufficiently gradual so that its
development can be identified in the
required inspections and the rope can
be removed from service before safety is
compromised.
Paragraph (c)
The benchmarks in the two options in
paragraph (b) of this section do not
address an additional design issue,
which is the suitability of the wire rope
with respect to the proper functioning of
the equipment. For example, selecting a
rope with a diameter that is too large for
a particular machine can result in the
rope jumping a sheave. Such a
condition could, among other adverse
consequences, affect the operator’s
ability to control the load. Therefore,
OSHA has added an additional
provision, in new § 1926.1414(c), that
requires the rope to be compatible with
the safe functioning of the equipment.
Paragraph (d) Boom Hoist Reeving
With the addition of the two new
paragraphs, (b) and (c), OSHA is
redesignating proposed paragraphs (b)
through (f) of this section as paragraphs
(d) through (h) in the final rule.
Proposed paragraph (b) would have
prohibited the use of fiber core ropes for
boom hoist reeving, except for use on
derricks. In the Committee’s view, the
composition of fiber core ropes makes
them prone to degradation that is not
completely detectable by normal
inspection techniques. Nothing in the
record contradicts that conclusion.
One commenter stated that there was
no practical reason to allow the use of
fiber core ropes for boom hoist reeving
on derricks but not in other boom hoist
applications. (ID–0121.1.) However, as
explained in the proposed rule, the
distinction between derricks and cranes
is warranted because the sheaves on
derricks are smaller than those on

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47979

cranes and therefore require ropes that
can accommodate reverse bending better
than ropes used on cranes. Fiber core
ropes are more pliable than ropes with
a metal core and are therefore suited to
applications requiring greater reverse
bending, such as use on derricks.
Moreover, the distinction between
derricks and cranes is consistent with
current national consensus standards.
The 2004 version of ASME B30.5, in
sec. 5.1.7.2(b), prohibits the use of fiber
core wire ropes for boom hoist reeving
for mobile and locomotive cranes. By
contrast, the standard in the ASME B30
series that applies to derricks, ASME
B30.6–2003, does not prohibit the use of
fiber core wire rope for boom hoist
reeving. Permitting the use of fiber core
ropes for boom hoist reeving on cranes,
as the commenter suggests, would
reduce protection over that currently
considered prudent in the industry, and
OSHA is therefore promulgating
paragraph (b)(1) as proposed,
renumbering it as paragraph (d)(1).
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) prohibited
the use of rotation resistant rope for
boom hoist reeving except where the
requirements of paragraph (c)
(renumbered paragraph (e) in the final
rule), are met. No comments were
received on this paragraph (b)(2), and it
is being promulgated as paragraph (d)(2)
with the reference to paragraph (c) in
the proposed rule changed to paragraph
(e)
Paragraph (e)

Rotation Resistant Ropes

Paragraph (e)(1)
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) of this
section classified rotation resistant
ropes into three ‘‘Types’’ (‘‘Type I’’,
‘‘Type II’’, and ‘‘Type III’’). Proposed
paragraph (c)(2) specified use
limitations and requirements for each
type of wire rope. This approach
differed from former subpart N, ANSI
B30.5–1968 and ASME B30.5–2004,
which did not distinguish between
types of rotation resistant rope. By
distinguishing between different types
of rope, the Committee sought to ensure
that ropes with different internal
structures were subject to appropriate
requirements and limitations that would
enable them to be used safely. Types I,
II, and III, which have different
capabilities, were described in proposed
paragraph (c)(1).
ASTM A 1023/A 1023M–02 has a
similar classification system, although it
divides rotation resistant ropes into
‘‘categories’’ rather than ‘‘types.’’ One
commenter noted that there is no
meaningful difference between the
classification in the proposed rule and
that in ASTM A 1023. (ID–0060.1.) This

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47980

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

commenter urged OSHA to incorporate
by reference the ASTM definitions
rather than to state the definitions in the
final rule. This would, the commenter
suggested, avoid confusion among
manufacturers and users who rely on
the ASTM’s classification system.
Although the provisions in the final
rule are substantively similar to those in
the ASTM standard, the Agency uses
the term ‘‘category’’ in the wire rope
provisions of subpart CC that relate to
the classification of apparent
deficiencies (see, e.g.,
§ 1926.1413(a)(2)). Therefore, to avoid
confusion with those provision, OSHA
uses the term ‘‘type’’ in classifying
rotation resistant rope in § 1926.1414.
OSHA concludes that the use of
‘‘category’’ in the ASTM standard would
cause considerable confusion if OSHA
were to incorporate the ASTM
definitions directly. Accordingly, OSHA
is promulgating proposed paragraph
(c)(1) as paragraph (e)(1) of the final
rule.
Paragraph (e)(2)
Paragraphs (e)(2) of this section sets
forth use requirements of the three types
of rotation resistant rope in terms of
operating design factors (and in some
instances activity). The purpose of these
provisions is to ensure that the selection
of the type of rotation resistant rope is
suitable, in terms of safety, to its use.
These requirements are identical to
those in proposed paragraph (c)(2). The
preamble to the proposed rule explained
in detail the basis for setting these
design factors for rotation resistant rope
(see 73 FR 59782–59783, Oct. 9, 2008).
One commenter, stated that rotation
resistant ropes should have a design
factor of less than 5 only for single
engineered lifts, but provided no
rationale for this position. No other
comments addressed the proposed
design factors, and OSHA is deferring to
the expertise of C–DAC and
incorporating the design factors in
paragraph (e)(2) of the final rule.
As discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, paragraphs (e)(2)(i)–(iv)
use the phrase ‘‘operating design factor.’’
‘‘Operating’’ is included to show that the
factors specified in these provisions are
to reflect how the rope is installed on
the specific piece of equipment in
which it is used. In other words, the
operating design factor is calculated
based on numerous considerations
associated with both the rope’s design
and how it is installed on the
equipment.
The prohibition on the use of rotation
resistant rope for duty cycle and
repetitive lifts does not apply to Type I
rope because the Committee determined

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

that such rope is significantly more
resistant to rotation or torque compared
with Types II and III. This reduces Type
I’s potential for internal wear during use
and moves degradation from the inner
wires to the outer wires, where damage
is more easily detected during wire rope
inspections. Accordingly, the
Committee concluded that Type I rope
can safely be used for duty cycle and
repetitive lifts at an operating design
factor below 5 (but no less than 3.5), as
specified in proposed paragraph
(c)(2)(ii). No comments addressed the
distinction between the types of wire
rope in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this
section.
In the proposed rule, OSHA noted
that C–DAC did not include definitions
for ‘‘duty cycle’’ or ‘‘repetitive lifts.’’ The
Agency asked for comment on whether
definitions of these terms should be
included in § 1926.1401 and proposed
definitions that it determined were
consistent with C–DAC’s understanding
and widely understood in the industry.
OSHA proposed to define ‘‘duty cycle’’
as ‘‘a continuous operation in which
approximately the same type and weight
of load is handled.’’ It gave dredging
with a clamshell as an example of duty
cycle work. OSHA proposed to define
‘‘repetitive lifts’’ as ‘‘a continuous
operation with loads that may vary in
size and weight.’’ For an example, it
noted that steel erection work typically
involves repetitive lifts of various size
and configurations of structural steel
members.
Three commenters agreed that ‘‘duty
cycle’’ and ‘‘repetitive lifts’’ should be
defined, and no commenters suggested
otherwise. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1; –0226.)
The commenters on the subject did not
object to OSHA’s proposed definition of
‘‘repetitive lifts,’’ but two recommended
that OSHA’s proposed definition of
‘‘duty cycle’’ be replaced with the
following:
A type of crane service in which bulk
material is transferred from one point to
another by rapidly lifting, swinging,
booming, and placing the material. Typical
types of duty cycle service are dragline,
clamshell, grapple, and magnet. This type of
service is differentiated from standard crane
‘‘lift service’’ in that cycle times are very short
and continuous, often less than 1 minute per
load, and loads are lifted and placed in
general areas rather than precise positions to
permit such rapid cycles.

(ID–0205.1; –0213.1.)
OSHA determines that in most
respects the commenters’ suggested
definition is clearer and better reflects
the intent of the Agency. Therefore,
OSHA is adopting their definition with
only minor modification (the reference
to ‘‘lifting, swinging, booming and

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

placing’’ is not necessary, since those
actions simply describe typical crane
movements). OSHA is therefore
adopting a slightly modified version of
the definition suggested by the
commenters. This definition is being
included in § 1926.1401, as is the
definition for ‘‘repetitive lifts’’ proposed
by OSHA and quoted above.
Paragraph (e)(3)
This proposed paragraph specified
additional requirements that must be
met when Types II and III rotation
resistant wire rope are used with an
operating design factor of between 3.5
and 5 (for non-duty cycle, non-repetitive
lifts). The Committee concluded that
these additional requirements are
needed to ensure that use of such ropes
would be safe.
Due to renumbering, proposed
paragraph (c)(3) corresponds to final
paragraph (e)(3). One commenter
believed that the reference to ‘‘these
provisions’’ in proposed paragraph
(c)(3)(iii) was unclear and should be
clarified to state whether it refers to the
entire subpart CC or to specific
provisions. (ID–0214.1.) As used here,
‘‘these provisions’’ refers to lifts under
final paragraph (e)(3). To avoid any
ambiguity, ‘‘these provisions’’ is being
changed to ‘‘§ 1926.1414(e)(3).’’
The same commenter who stated in
regard to final paragraph (e)(2) that
rotation resistant rope should have a
design factor of less than 5 only for
single engineered lifts recommended
that paragraph (e)(3) also be changed to
reflect its recommendation. (ID–0292.1.)
OSHA is rejecting that suggestion for the
same reason given in relation to
paragraph (e)(2). No other objections to
proposed paragraph (c)(3) (final
paragraph (e)(3)) were received.
Accordingly, with the single exception
just mentioned in regard to final
paragraph (e)(3)(iii), proposed paragraph
(c)(3) is being promulgated as final
§ 1926.1414(e)(3).
Paragraph (e)(4) Additional
Requirements for Rotation Resistant
Rope for Boom Hoist Reeving
Paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section
prohibits rotation resistant rope from
being used for boom hoist reeving
except where the requirements of
paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section are
met. C–DAC members determined that
the general prohibition was necessary
because, in their experience, rotation
resistant rope used for boom hoist
reeving tends to twist and thereby suffer
internal damage when it passes over
sheaves that are close together.
However, C–DAC concluded that safety
would not be compromised when

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
rotation resistant rope is used for boom
hoist reeving as long as the conditions
in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section are
met.
The Committee also determined that
the exception would serve a practical
purpose, especially when using
attachments such as luffing jibs. The
auxiliary hoist is typically used as a
boom hoist for such attachments, and is
normally rigged with rotation resistant
rope. The exception enables the
employer to avoid the need to change
the rope when using such attachments
when safety could be assured by
meeting the specified conditions for its
use.
The conditions under which rotation
resistant rope may be used for boom
hoist reeving were contained in
proposed paragraph (c)(4). No
substantive objections to that proposed
paragraph were received. Two
commenters stated that the phrase
‘‘rated capacity’’ in proposed paragraph
(c)(4)(ii)(F) should be replaced with
‘‘rated load capacity.’’ (ID–0205.1;
–0213.1.) As noted in the proposed rule,
the C–DAC proposal attributed the same
meaning to both ‘‘rated capacity’’ and
‘‘rated load capacity,’’ and OSHA is
consistently using the term ‘‘rated
capacity’’ wherever C–DAC used either
term to avoid any confusion (see 73 FR
59738, Oct. 9, 2008). Accordingly,
proposed paragraph (c)(4) is being
promulgated as final paragraph (e)(4)
without substantive change.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (f)
Proposed paragraph (d) of this section
specified that wire rope clips used with
wedge sockets may only be attached to
the unloaded dead end of the rope,
except that devices specifically
designed for dead ending rope in a
wedge socket are also permitted.
The Committee concluded that this
provision was necessary to ensure
attachment strength, reliability and
prevention of cable damage. No
comments concerning this provision
were submitted, and OSHA is
promulgating it as § 1926.1414(f).
Paragraph (g)
Proposed paragraph (e) of this section
stated that socketing must be done
according to the specifications of the
manufacturer of the wire rope or fitting.
No comments regarding this provision
were received, and OSHA is
promulgating it as § 1926.1414(g).
Paragraph (h)
Proposed paragraph (f) of this section
specified that seizings must be placed
on each side of the point to be cut before
the wire rope is cut. It also specified

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

that the length and number of seizings
must be in accordance with the
instructions of the wire rope
manufacturer.
Seizings are needed to hold the wire
in the strands and the strands in place
during handling while cutting, thereby
keeping the rope beyond the area of the
cut intact. In the Committee’s
experience, the instructions and
procedures for seizing differ among
various wire rope manufacturers. The
Committee decided to require
employers to follow the manufacturer’s
instructions because it concluded that
wire rope manufacturers have the
knowledge and expertise to best
determine the length and number of
seizings that are needed to maintain the
integrity of their wire ropes during
cutting. No comments regarding this
provision were received, and OSHA is
promulgating it as § 1926.1414(h).
Section 1926.1415 Safety Devices
This section sets forth the
requirements for equipping cranes and
derricks with certain safety devices and
prohibits the use of the equipment if
those devices are not working properly.
The safety devices addressed by this
section are devices that C–DAC
determined are essential for the safe
operation of cranes and derricks and
therefore, required to be present and in
proper working order during all
equipment operations with no
alternative measures permitted. Those
devices considered less critical to
equipment safety are designated as
operational aids and are governed by
§ 1926.1416. That section allows
equipment to continue operating if the
operational aid fails or malfunctions but
requires certain temporary alternative
protective measures in such cases.
Those devices designated as safety
devices in this section, however, are so
essential and integral to safe equipment
operation that C–DAC determined that
there is no acceptable alternative to
having them in proper working order.
Paragraph (a) Safety Devices
Paragraph (a) of this section lists the
safety devices that are required on all
equipment covered by this subpart and
specifications and conditions applicable
to those devices (including the
exemption of certain equipment from
the requirements of the listed devices).
Crane Level Indicator: Paragraph
(a)(1) requires that a crane level
indicator be on all equipment covered
under this subpart. C–DAC determined
that level equipment is a key factor in
ensuring equipment safety. Using a
crane level indicator is necessary
because it has the requisite accuracy for

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47981

leveling the equipment. C–DAC
members stressed the need to use a
crane level indicator because, if the
equipment is not properly leveled, it
will not have all the capacities indicated
in the load charts. Reliance on the
charts in such situations could cause the
equipment to overturn or otherwise fail.
Section 1926.1415(a)(1)(i) specifies
that a crane level indicator must either
be built into the equipment or available
on it. One commenter requested
clarification of whether the rule allows
for the use of a carpenter’s level to
satisfy the requirements of proposed
§ 1926.1415(a)(1)(i). (ID–0292.1.)
A carpenter’s level of sufficient length
(such as a four-foot level), available to
the operator, that gives an accurate
reading, meets the requirements of this
paragraph as proposed; such a level is
typically used in the industry for this
purpose. Therefore, it is not necessary to
revise the text of the rule and OSHA is
promulgating paragraph (a)(1)(i) as
proposed.
Section 1926.1415(a)(1)(ii) addresses
the hazard posed by false readings from
non-operational crane level indicators
remaining on the equipment. The
Agency is requiring built-in (i.e.,
integral) crane level indicators that are
not working properly to be tagged-out or
removed. Similarly, removable crane
level indicators must be removed from
the equipment if they are not working
properly. Both requirements are
intended to avoid confusion and the
operator’s inadvertent reliance on a
device that is not working correctly.
OSHA received no comment on this
provision. Therefore, OSHA
promulgated it as proposed, with the
additional specification that a
removable crane level indicator must be
removed prior to operation if it is not
working properly.
Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) exempts portal
cranes,78 derricks, floating cranes/
derricks and land cranes/derricks on
barges, pontoons, vessels, or other
means of flotation from the
requirements of § 1926.1415(a)(1). C–
DAC members indicated that these types
of equipment are leveled and then fixed
in place when installed, precluding the
need for a crane level indicator.79 OSHA
78 Section 1926.1401 defines ‘‘portal crane’’ as a
‘‘type of crane consisting of a rotating
upperstructure, hoist machinery, and boom
mounted on top of a structural gantry which may
be fixed in one location or have travel capability.
The gantry legs or columns usually have portal
openings in between to allow passage of traffic
beneath the gantry.’’
79 Note that, § 1926.1437(e) requires barge,
pontoon, vessel or other means of flotation list and
trim device for floating cranes/derricks and land
cranes/derricks.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47982

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

received no comment on this provision.
Therefore, OSHA is promulgating
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) as proposed.
Boom Stops: Paragraph (a)(2) requires
boom stops on all equipment except for
derricks and hydraulic booms (see the
discussion of this provision in 73 FR
59785, Oct. 9, 2008). ‘‘Boom stop’’ is
defined in § 1926.1401 as a device that
restricts the boom from moving above a
certain maximum angle and toppling
over backwards. OSHA received no
comment on this provision or
definition. Therefore, OSHA is
promulgating paragraph (a)(2) as
proposed.
Jib Stops: Section 1926.1415(a)(3)
requires jib stops on all equipment
where a jib is attached, except for
derricks (see the discussion of this
provision in 73 FR 59785, Oct. 9, 2008).
The standard defines ‘‘Jib stop (also
referred to as a jib backstop)’’ in
§ 1926.1401 as the ‘‘same type of device
as a boom stop but used for a fixed or
luffing jib.’’ OSHA received no comment
on this provision or definition.
Therefore, OSHA is promulgating
paragraph (a)(3) as proposed.
Foot Pedal Brake Locks: Proposed
paragraph (a)(4) required that
equipment with foot pedal brakes have
locks, except for portal cranes and
floating cranes. Such locks prevent the
unintentional disengagement of a foot
pedal brake, which could lead to
unintended equipment movement and
consequent injuries and fatalities. Due
to the physical effort needed to keep the
pedal engaged, this is particularly
important where the brake is applied for
long periods.
The rationale for exempting portal
cranes and floating cranes from this
requirement discussed by C–DAC was
that there are instances in which, due to
the pitching of a floating crane and the
pitching of the vessel or object in the
water with which a portal crane works,
the operator may have to immediately
release the brake. The concern is that, if
the foot pedal brake lock has been
activated, the operator may not be able
to release the brake quickly enough to
prevent the equipment from being
overloaded or to prevent unintended
movement of the load.
As explained in the proposed rule,
upon review of the exemption in the
provision, the Agency realized that C–
DAC assumed that the locking device
would always be of the type that is
located on the brake pedal. That type of
device can be difficult to disengage,
thereby delaying the operator’s ability to
release the brake. However, there are
other types of brake locking
mechanisms that do not present this
problem (for example, a brake lock that

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

is hand-actuated). This raised the issue
of whether the exemption is needed.
Consequently, OSHA asked for public
comment on whether to change
proposed § 1926.1415(a)(4) by deleting
the exemption and requiring a hoist
brake locking mechanism for all cranes.
OSHA received no comment on this
issue. Therefore, OSHA has not
included the exemption in the final
rule. The final paragraph (a)(4) is
published as proposed except that
OSHA has removed the phrase ‘‘except
for portal cranes and floating cranes.’’
Integral Holding Device/Check Valve:
Paragraph (a)(5) requires that hydraulic
outrigger jacks have an integral holding
device/check valve. Such a device is
necessary to prevent the outrigger jack
from collapsing in the event of a
hydraulic failure. (See the discussion of
this provision in 73 FR 59786, Oct. 9,
2008.) OSHA is promulgating this
provision as proposed.
Two commenters, both of which had
nominated C–DAC members, suggested
moving this requirement to § 1926.1433
(Design, construction and testing) due to
their belief that an integral holding
device/check valve is a design feature.
(ID–0205.1; –0213.1.) Neither of these
organizations’ nominees dissented on
this issue. Both organizations indicated
in their comments that they supported
the recommendations of C–DAC and
were not providing any negative
comments on provisions that mirrored
the C–DAC consensus document. Since
this provision is unchanged from the C–
DAC consensus document, the Agency
assumes that the commenters believe
that they are suggesting a nonsubstantive formatting change.
The commenters are mistaken in that
regard. By locating this provision in the
Safety Devices section of the standard,
the employer is required to inspect the
integral holding device/check valve
(see, e.g., § 1926.1412(d)(1)(xiv)) and, if
it is not functioning properly, to not use
the crane until it is repaired (see
§ 1926.1415(b)). If this provision were
moved to the Design, construction and
testing section, it would no longer be
considered a safety device. If it was not
functioning, it would be left to the
competent person conducting the shift
and monthly inspections (and the
qualified person conducting the annual
inspection) to determine if the
deficiency constituted a safety hazard
(see, e.g., § 1926.1412(d)(2)). C–DAC
determined, and OSHA agrees, that an
integral holding device/check valve is
essential for the safe operation of
hydraulic outrigger jacks and therefore
needs to be designated as a safety
device.

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Rail Clamps and Rail Stops:
Paragraph (a)(6) specifies that
equipment on rails have rail clamps and
rail stops, except for portal cranes. (See
the discussion of this provision in 73 FR
59786, Oct. 9, 2008.) OSHA received no
comment on this provision. Therefore, it
is promulgated as proposed.
Horn: In the proposed rule, a horn
was not listed as a safety device. One
commenter requested that the standard
require a horn. (ID–0156.1.) ASME
B30.5–2004 requires that an ‘‘audible
signal device’’ be provided, within reach
of the operator. OSHA agrees that a horn
is an important safety feature; it is
typically a standard feature on cranes
and is used to warn workers of
imminent dangers. Therefore, OSHA has
included a horn in the list of safety
devices in § 1926.1415(a)(7) of the final
rule.
The horn need not be permanently
installed on the equipment, but it must
be in a location where the operator can
access and use it immediately to warn
workers of imminent danger. An
operator may use a removable device,
such as a hand-held air horn that is
stored near the operator in a manner
that would not interfere with the
operation of the equipment, if it satisfies
those requirements.
OSHA is also requiring in
§ 1926.1415(a)(7)(ii) that built-in (i.e.,
integral) horns be removed or tagged out
when they are not working properly.
Similarly, a removable horn must be
removed from the equipment when it is
not working properly. As noted in the
previous paragraph, the operator would
be permitted to resume operation if an
operational horn, such as a hand-held
air horn, is added to the cab in the
proper location. It is therefore critical
that the operator, and operators in
subsequent shifts, not be confused about
which horn is operational. A nonoperational horn must be tagged out or
removed, prior to the resumption of
operation, to avoid the operator’s
inadvertent reliance on the
nonoperational horn. The horn is often
required when an unexpected hazard
presents itself, and the operator must
therefore locate and use it quickly.
Paragraph (b) Proper Operation
Required
Paragraph (b) prohibits the operation
of the equipment if any of the safety
devices listed in this section are not in
proper working order. Under OSHA’s
existing § 1926.20(b)(3), employers must
tag out or remove any equipment that is
not in compliance with any applicable
requirement in part 1926. In
§ 1926.1417(f), OSHA makes it clear that
when equipment is ‘‘taken out of

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
service,’’ the employer must place a tag
in the cab to provide clear notice to all
employees that the equipment is out of
service. To avoid any potential
ambiguity about whether equipment is
‘‘taken out of service’’ when its operation
is prohibited because of an
inoperational safety device, OSHA is
inserting new text in § 1926.1415(b) and
a cross reference to § 1926.1417
(Operation). Specifically, final
paragraph (b)(2) requires that equipment
be ‘‘taken out of service’’ when one of
the safety devices in § 1926.1415 is not
operating properly. The general tagout
requirement in § 1926.1417(f)(1) will
apply whenever any of the safety
devices are not operating properly.
The Agency notes that the specific
tagout/removal requirements for crane
level indicators (§ 1926.1415(a)(1)(ii))
and horns (§ 1926.1415(a)(7)(ii)) are
intended to supplement this general
requirement. Unlike the safety devices
addressed in §§ 1926.1415(a)(2) through
(a)(6), which are not as likely to be left
on the equipment once they are nonoperational, §§ 1926.1415(a)(1)(ii)) and
1926.1415(a)(7)(ii)) address the
additional hazard that non-operational
equipment might remain in the cab, and
be accidently relied on by the operator,
once an operational version of the same
device has been placed in the cab.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Section 1926.1416

Operational Aids

This section sets forth the
requirements for equipping cranes and
derricks with certain operational aids.
‘‘Operational aids’’ are defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘devices that assist the
operator in the safe operation of the
crane by providing information or
automatically taking control of a crane
function. These include, but are not
limited to, the devices listed in
§ 1926.1416 (‘listed operational aids’).’’
As discussed above regarding
§ 1926.1415, OSHA determines that the
devices addressed in § 1926.1416
enhance safety. However, they are less
essential to the safe operation of
equipment than the safety devices
addressed by § 1926.1415 because
sufficient temporary alternative
measures are available. Crane operators
historically used these temporary
alternative measures as safety
precautions prior to the widespread
availability and use of these operational
aids.
Paragraph (a)
Proposed paragraph (a) of this section
provided that the operational aids listed
in this section are required on all
equipment covered by subpart CC,
unless otherwise specified.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Other sections of this rule provide
exceptions for various types of
equipment. Under § 1926.1435(e)(1),
this section does not apply to tower
cranes. Instead, the operational aids
required for tower cranes are specified
in § 1926.1435. Under § 1926.1436(f)(1),
§§ 1926.1416(d)(1), (e)(1), and (e)(4) do
not apply to derricks.
This section also does not apply to
existing equipment manufactured before
certain dates. Those dates are keyed
either to the time an operational aid was
first required by a national consensus
standard or to the effective date of the
standard. One year after the effective
date of this final rule, the proposed rule
would have required all operational aids
on all equipment, with a single
exception: proposed paragraph (e)(4)
did not require load weighing or similar
devices on derricks.
A trade association asked that
articulating cranes be exempt from
certain requirements of this section: the
requirement for a boom angle or radius
indicator in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section; the requirement for a jib angle
indicator in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section; the requirement for a boom
length indicator in paragraph (e)(3) of
this section; and the requirement for an
outrigger position sensor/monitor in
paragraph (e)(5)(i) of this section. (ID–
0206.1.) As to the first three, the
commenter stated that these would not
be practical on articulating cranes
because of the boom configuration on
such cranes. The commenter said that a
boom angle indicator or jib angle
indicator could not be used because
articulating cranes can have up to three
boom sections at different angles.
Unlike cranes with straight booms, their
capacity is determined by the
combination of boom angles rather than
a single angle. Similarly, the commenter
stated, boom length indicators are not
practical on articulating cranes because
their lifting capacity is based on the
position of the boom sections rather
than the boom length. Finally, the
commenter asserted that articulating
cranes should be exempt from the
requirement for outrigger position
sensor monitors because such cranes
use stabilizers rather than outriggers.
OSHA agrees with the commenter that
boom angle indicators, jib angle
indicators, and boom length indicators
are not appropriate for articulating
cranes for the reasons given by the
commenter. Accordingly, OSHA is
adding § 1926.416(a)(1), which excludes
articulating cranes from the
requirements in §§ 1926.1416(e)(1),
(e)(2), and (e)(3).
OSHA is not exempting articulating
cranes from the requirement of

PO 00000

Frm 00079

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47983

§ 1926.1416(e)(5)(i). As discussed under
§ 1926.1404, for certain types of cranes,
stabilizers serve the same function as
outriggers and, where appropriate,
provisions of the proposed rule that
applied to outriggers are being changed
in the final rule to also apply to
stabilizers. One such provision is
paragraph (e)(5)(i) of this section,
which, as discussed below, has been
modified from the proposed rule to
require outrigger/stabilizer position
sensor monitors rather than outrigger
position sensor monitors on equipment
manufactured more than one year after
the effective date of the standard. As so
modified, the provision appropriately
applies to articulating cranes.
Another commenter stated that digger
derricks do not typically have anti-two
blocking devices (paragraph (d)(3)),
radius indicators (paragraph (e)(1)), load
weighing devices (paragraph (e)(4)),
outrigger position indicators (paragraph
(e)(6)(i)), and hoist drum rotation
indicators (paragraph (e)(5)(ii).80 (ID–
0155.1.) This commenter does not state
that such devices would be impractical
on digger derricks but only that they are
not currently equipped with the
devices. OSHA notes that the ANSI
standard applicable to digger derricks,
ANSI/ASSE A10.31–2006, does not
require the devices listed by the
commenter. As noted above, this final
rule is exempting certain older or
existing equipment from the need to be
equipped with certain operational aids
when the consensus standard for such
equipment has not required those
devices. Consistent with this policy,
OSHA is specifying that only those
digger derricks manufactured more than
one year after the effective date of this
standard must be equipped with antitwo blocking devices, boom angle or
radius indicators, and load weighing
devices. Under § 1926.1416(e)(5),
outrigger position indicators and hoist
drum rotation indicators are not
required on any equipment until one
year after the effective date of the
standard, so it is not necessary to single
out digger derricks for special treatment
for these devices. Accordingly, OSHA is
adding § 1926.1416(a)(2) to the final
rule, which provides that the
requirements in §§ 1926.1416(d)(3),
(e)(1), and (e)(4) only apply to those
digger derricks manufactured more than
one year after the effective date of this
standard.
80 The term ‘‘digger derrick’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401. As discussed in § 1926.1400, digger
derricks are not covered by the standard when used
for work related to utility poles but are subject to
this final rule when used covered for general lifting
activities unrelated to utility poles.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47984

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Paragraph (b)
Proposed paragraph (b) of this section
stated that operations shall not begin
unless the listed operational aids are in
proper working order, except where the
employer meets specified temporary
alternative measures. If the crane or
derrick manufacturer specified more
protective alternative measures, the
employer would have to follow those
measures.
Upon reviewing the proposed
paragraph, OSHA believes it does not
state its requirement as clearly as
possible. As subsequent provisions of
this section make clear, employers may
only use temporary alternative measures
while listed operational aids are being
repaired, and then only for limited
times. OSHA is rewording paragraph (b)
in the final rule to make these
requirements clearer.
Two hearing participants requested
that, in general, OSHA remove any
provision in the proposed rule that
would require strict adherence to
manufacturer’s procedures. (ID–0341;
–0342.) Compliance with manufacturer
procedures is addressed in the
discussion of § 1926.1417. In addition,
OSHA determines that the rule
addresses the hearing participants’
concerns. Employers can fully comply
with the standard by maintaining the
listed operational aids in proper
working order. For brief periods while
such aids are being repaired, employers
can generally comply by following the
temporary alternatives listed in the rule.
Only if manufacturers recommend safer
alternatives, which OSHA concludes
will rarely occur, will employers need
to look to those recommendations rather
than the precautions specified in the
rule.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (c)
Paragraph (c) of this section states that
if a listed operational aid stops working
properly during operations, the operator
must safely stop operations until the
temporary alternative measures are
implemented or the device is again
working properly. Further, if a
replacement part is no longer available,
a substitute device that performs the
same type of function may be used, and
the use of such a device is not
considered a modification under
§ 1926.1434, Equipment modifications.
Section 1926.1434 applies to
modifications or additions that affect
the capacity or safe operation of the
equipment except where the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),
or (a)(3) of § 1926.1434 are met. OSHA
determines that it is unnecessary to
apply § 1926.1434 to the use of a

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

substitute operational aid because, as
long as the substitute device works
properly, its use will not affect the
capacity or safe operation of the
equipment. No comments were received
on this paragraph, and it is promulgated
as proposed.
Paragraph (d) Category I Operational
Aids and Alternative Measures
The standard categorizes operational
aids by the amount of time permitted for
the use of temporary alternative
measures in place of the listed
operational aids. Employers must
ensure the repair of Category I
operational aids, addressed by
paragraph (d), no later than 7 days after
the deficiency occurs. Category II
operational aids, addressed below by
paragraph (e), have a 30-day time limit
for repair. Except where noted, C–DAC
recommended each of these aids for the
reasons set forth below. The Committee
further determined that each of the
temporary alternative measurers would
be safe to use until the deficient
operational aid was restored to proper
service within the time required under
the section. OSHA agrees. (For purposes
of clarification, the Agency has added a
reference to § 1926.1416(d) noting that
the requirements of § 1926.1417(j) are
applicable. See further discussion at
§ 1926.1417(j).)
Both Category I and II have an
exception to the repair time limits. For
Category I, if the employer documents
that it has ordered the necessary parts
within 7 days of the occurrence of the
deficiency, the repair must be
completed within 7 days of receipt of
the part. For Category II, if the employer
documents that it has ordered the
necessary parts within 7 days of the date
on which the deficiency was
discovered, and does not receive the
part in time to complete the repair in 30
days, the repair must be completed
within 7 days of receipt of the part.
OSHA determines that these time limits
are both feasible and reflective of the
amount of time that it is appropriate to
rely on the temporary alternative
measures in each category.
During the SBREFA Panel process,
one Small Entity Representative stated
that an extended time limit might be
required to determine the appropriate
part number for older equipment.
Therefore, it might not be possible to
order a replacement within 7 days of the
occurrence of the deficiency. OSHA
sought public comment on the extent to
which this is a problem. OSHA further
sought comment on how to
accommodate employers when the
unavailability of a part number hinders
them from ordering a replacement part.

PO 00000

Frm 00080

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

OSHA did not receive comments on
these issues.
The SBREFA Panel also questioned
whether the number of ‘‘days’’ for
ordering parts and completing repairs
for operational aids refers to calendar
days or business days. Absent a
different definition in the standard,
OSHA interpreted the word ‘‘days’’ to
mean ‘‘working days’’ which, as
discussed above in relation to proposed
§ 1926.1407(e), would mean Mondays
through Fridays, excluding Federal
holidays. OSHA sought public comment
on whether a different definition of
‘‘days’’ should apply under this section.
One commenter stated that the use of
the term ‘‘days’’ is unclear. (ID–0143.1.)
Two commenters stated it was C–DAC’s
intention that the term ‘‘days’’ mean
calendar days as opposed to business
days. The commenters stated that the
circumstances in § 1926.1407(e), where
the rule uses business days, are unique
because power companies are not open/
available on weekends.
OSHA concludes that the 7 and 30
day time frames should refer to calendar
days. The periods correspond to one
calendar week and one typical calendar
month, and it is, therefore, easy to
determine when the period ends if they
mean calendar days. Moreover, referring
to ‘‘calendar’’ days will lead to faster
repairs and help promote safety.
Therefore, OSHA has clarified by
adding the word ‘‘calendar’’ before each
use of the word ‘‘days’’ in this section;
the remainder of paragraph (c) is
identical to the proposed rule.
Paragraph (d) lists the required
Category I operational aids and the
acceptable temporary alternative
measures for these aids.
Boom Hoist Limiting Device:
Paragraph (d)(1) requires that all
equipment manufactured after
December 16, 1969, have a boom hoist
limiting device. As defined in
§ 1926.1401, a boom hoist limiting
device ‘‘disengages boom hoist power
when the boom reaches a predetermined
operating angle’’ and also ‘‘sets brakes or
closes valves to prevent the boom from
lowering after power is disengaged.’’
Section 1926.1401 also defines the term
‘‘boom hoist limiting device’’ to include
‘‘boom hoist disengaging device, boom
hoist shutoff, boom hoist disconnect,
boom hoist hydraulic relief, boom hoist
kick-outs, automatic boom stop device,
or derricking limiter.’’ A boom hoist
limiting device automatically prevents
the boom hoist from pulling the boom
past the minimum allowable radius
(maximum boom angle). If the boom
hoist pulls the boom past that point, a
failure is likely (for example, the boom

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
could buckle from being forced against
the boom stop).
The December 16, 1969, date reflects
the effective date of ASME B30.5–1968.
This was the first national consensus
standard to require a boom hoist
limiting device, and C–DAC regarded
that date as a reasonable indicator of
when the industry began to widely
manufacture or equip cranes and
derricks with such devices. OSHA
agrees. Although the ASME standard
only applies to crawler, locomotive, and
truck cranes, OSHA is extending this
provision to all equipment based on
prevailing industry practice.
The standard includes three
temporary alternative measures in
paragraphs (d)(1)(A)–(C), of which the
employer must use at least one if the
boom hoist limiting device
malfunctions: (A) Use of a boom angle
indicator; (B) clearly marking the boom
hoist cable at a point that will give the
operator sufficient time to stop the hoist
to keep the boom within the minimum
allowable radius; and, (C) if a spotter is
used, clearly marking the boom hoist
cable at a point that will give the spotter
sufficient time to signal the operator and
have the operator stop the hoist to keep
the boom within the minimum
allowable radius. C–DAC recommended
these measures because historically they
were used by employers prior to the
development of the boom hoist limiting
device.
In the proposed rule,
§ 1926.1416(d)(1)(ii) specified that
employers must, on a permanent basis,
use at least one of these measures for
equipment manufactured on or before
December 16, 1969 that ‘‘was not
originally equipped’’ with a boom hoist
limiting device. OSHA notes that
equipment not originally equipped with
a boom hoist limiting device might have
one added later, and that such a piece
of equipment should be treated the same
as equipment originally equipped with
such a device. Accordingly, OSHA has
modified § 1926.1416(d)(1)(ii) by
replacing ‘‘was not originally equipped’’
with ‘‘is not equipped’’ and removing
‘‘on a permanent basis.’’ If and when the
equipment is modified to include the
limiting device, it would fall under
§ 1926.1416(d)(1)(i). Until that point, it
would remain under
§ 1926.1416(d)(1)(ii), and at least one of
the measures in paragraphs (d)(1)(A)–(C)
would be required at all times.
Luffing Jib Limiting Device: Paragraph
(d)(2) requires that equipment with a
luffing jib have a luffing jib limiting
device. As defined in § 1926.1401, a
luffing jib limiting device ‘‘is similar to
a boom hoist limiting device, except
that it limits the movement of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

luffing jib.’’ These devices function
similarly and are distinguished only as
to the type of crane extension they are
designed to limit automatically, the jib
or the boom. The temporary alternative
measures for a luffing jib limiting device
are the same as those for a boom hoist
limiting device in paragraphs
(d)(1)(i)(A)–(C). For clarity, the Agency
added the words, ‘‘rather than the boom
hoist’’ to paragraph (d)(2)(i).
Anti Two-Blocking Device: Paragraph
(d)(3) sets forth the requirements for anti
two-blocking devices. Section
1926.1401 defines ‘‘two-blocking’’ as ‘‘a
condition in which a component that is
uppermost on the hoist line such as the
load block, hook block, overhaul ball, or
similar component, comes in contact
with the boom tip, fixed upper block or
similar component. This binds the
system and continued application of
power can cause failure of the hoist rope
or other component.’’ As the definition
indicates, two-blocking can cause the
crane to drop the load, the headache
ball, or another component, creating a
hazard to employees below. When
hoisting personnel, an anti two-blocking
device had been required by former
§ 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(C) since October 3,
1988, but was not otherwise required
under subpart N. OSHA concludes that
requiring the use of anti two-blocking
devices will reduce the number of
crane-related injuries and fatalities.
There are two forms of anti two-block
devices: an automatic prevention device
or a warning device. The automatic
prevention device automatically stops
two-blocking from occurring. The
warning device warns the operator
when two-blocking is about to occur.
OSHA determines that an automatic
prevention device provides better
protection than a warning device for
employees, since it automatically stops
two-blocking. As discussed below, the
standard ultimately requires automatic
prevention devices on all equipment
manufactured after February 28, 1992,
under a phase-in schedule. The
standard takes into account of the date
the national consensus standard, ASME
B30.5, began to require such devices for
telescopic boom cranes, and that B30.5
continues to allow lattice boom cranes
to be equipped with either automatic
prevention devices or warning devices.
ASME B30.5, effective February 28,
1992, states that telescopic boom cranes
must have automatic prevention
devices. For lattice boom cranes, ASME
B30.5 states that they must have twoblock protection but allows greater
flexibility, allowing them to be
equipped with either automatic
prevention devices or warning devices.
The additional protection for telescopic

PO 00000

Frm 00081

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47985

boom cranes in the ASME standard
reflects the fact that such cranes are
more likely to two-block because
telescoping the boom out (an action that
does not occur with lattice boom cranes)
moves the boom’s block closer to the
load end of the hoist cable, which can
cause two-blocking.
Because February 28, 1992 is the date
that ASME B30.5 first stated that
telescopic boom cranes must have anti
two-block devices and is when the
industry first began widely
manufacturing or equipping such cranes
with such devices, proposed paragraph
(d)(3)(i) requires automatic prevention
devices on all telescopic boom cranes
manufactured after February 28, 1992.
However, because ASME B30.5 allows
lattice boom cranes to have either an
automatic prevention device or a
warning device since February 28, 1992,
paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A) gives employers
the option of using either device on
lattice boom cranes manufactured
between February 28, 1992, and one
year after the effective date of this
standard.
OSHA concludes that an automatic
prevention device provides better
protection than a warning device
because it directly addresses the hazard,
rather than alerting an operator and
requiring an additional step by the
operator to address the hazard.
Therefore, lattice boom cranes
manufactured more than one year after
the effective date of this standard must
be equipped with an automatic
prevention device.
Paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(C) excludes lattice
boom equipment used during certain
activities from the anti two-block
requirements of (d)(3)(A) and (B). The
provision exempts lattice boom
equipment when used for dragline,
clamshell (grapple), magnet, drop ball,
container handling,81 concrete bucket,
marine operations that do not involve
hoisting personnel, and pile driving
work. C–DAC indicated that most of
these operations involve heavy
repetitive motion, and anti-two-block
devices used during these activities
consistently malfunction (that is, the
device ‘‘trips’’ even though two-blocking
has not occurred) and are frequently
damaged.
However, note that § 1926.1437(f)(1)
requires anti two-block devices on
floating cranes/derricks and land
81 In most situations hoisting containers are
regulated under 29 CFR part 1918; this standard
applies to hoisting containers only where that
activity is construction work. For example, hoisting
a container of construction material from a ship
onto a concrete pier that is part of a bridge
construction project is a construction activity
covered by this standard.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47986

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

cranes/derricks on barges when hoisting
personnel or hoisting over an occupied
cofferdam or shaft. The Agency
determines that cranes need anti twoblock devices to prevent employees
from being dropped and to prevent
loads from striking employees in the
confined work environment of a
cofferdam or shaft. These safety
considerations outweigh any concern
for damage to a device or unnecessary
‘‘tripping’’ during marine operations.
The temporary alternative measures
available when an anti two-block device
on a lattice-boom crane or derrick
malfunctions are to clearly mark the
cable so that it can easily be seen by the
operator at a point that will give the
operator sufficient time to stop the hoist
to prevent two-blocking, or to use a
spotter to warn the operator to stop the
hoist.
For telescopic boom cranes, the
temporary alternative measures required
are to clearly mark the cable so that it
can easily be seen by the operator at a
point that will give the operator
sufficient time to stop the hoist to
prevent two-blocking and to use a
spotter when extending the boom.
OSHA determines that the alternative
measures for telescopic boom cranes
must require the use of a spotter when
extending the boom because twoblocking can occur even when the cable
hoist is not being operated. As noted
above, telescoping the boom out moves
the boom’s block closer to the load end
of the hoist cable, which can cause twoblocking. A mark on the hoist cable in
such instances will not warn the
operator that two-blocking is about to
occur. Therefore, when extending the
boom, a spotter is required.
The proposed rule did not address the
issue of anti two-block protection for
articulating cranes. Many such cranes
are equipped with forks at the end of the
boom and do not have the potential for
two-blocking. However, those equipped
with a load hoist present the same
potential for two-blocking as other
cranes with load hoists. A trade
association pointed out that the ASME
standard for articulating cranes, ASME
B30.22–1998, first required two-block
protection effective December 31, 1999.
(ID–0206.1.) OSHA infers that
articulating cranes with boom hoists
manufactured after December 31, 1999,
were routinely equipped with automatic
two-block protection after that date.
Therefore, to treat such cranes in a
manner similar to lattice boom cranes
and telescopic boom cranes, OSHA is
adding § 1926.1416(d)(3)(iii) to the final
rule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Paragraph (e) Category II Operational
Aids and Alternative Measures.
Paragraph (e) of this section lists the
required Category II operational aids
and the acceptable temporary
alternative measures for these aids. If
any of these aids is not working
properly, it must be repaired no later
than 30 days after the deficiency occurs.
As noted above, if the employer
documents that it has ordered the
necessary parts within 7 calendar days
from the occurrence of the deficiency,
and does not receive the part in time to
complete the repair in 30 calendar days,
the repair must be completed within 7
calendar days of receipt of the part. (For
purposes of clarification, the Agency
has added a reference to § 1926.1416(e)
noting that the requirements of
§ 1926.1417(j) are applicable. See
further discussion at § 1926.1417(j).)
Boom Angle or Radius Indicator:
Paragraph (e)(1) requires a boom angle
or radius indicator that is readable from
the operator’s station on all equipment.
Section 1926.1401 defines ‘‘boom angle
indicator’’ as ‘‘a device which measures
the angle of the boom relative to the
horizontal.’’ This definition is identical
to that in the SC&RF Handbook. It is
necessary to know the boom angle to
determine the crane’s capacity from its
load chart. The temporary alternative
measure is to measure the radii or boom
angle with a measuring device.
Jib Angle Indicator: Paragraph (e)(2)
requires a jib angle indicator on all
equipment with a luffing jib. The
temporary alternative measure is to
measure the radii or jib angle with a
measuring device.
Boom Length Indicator: Paragraph
(e)(3) requires a boom length indicator
on all equipment equipped with a
telescopic boom. Section 1926.1401
defines a ‘‘boom length indicator,’’ as a
device that, ‘‘indicates the length of the
permanent part of the boom (such as
ruled markings on the boom) or, as in
some computerized systems, the length
of the boom with extensions/
attachments.’’ OSHA did not receive any
comments on the definition and is
promulgating it as proposed. The
operator must know the length of the
boom because it affects the crane’s
capacity, as shown on the load chart. At
least one of the following must be used
as a temporary alternative measures:
mark the boom with measured marks to
calculate boom length; calculate boom
length from boom angle and radius
measurements; or measure the boom
with a measuring device.
Load Weighing and Similar Devices:
Proposed paragraph (e)(4) required load
weighing and similar devices on all

PO 00000

Frm 00082

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

equipment with a rated capacity over
6,000 pounds and manufactured after
March 29, 2003 (except derricks; a
comparable provision for derricks is in
§ 1926.1436(f)(3), discussed below). The
framework of this proposed paragraph
was similar to the approach taken in
sec. 5–1.9.9.2 of ASME B30.5–2004,
respecting these aids. The proposed
standard permitted employers to choose
to outfit its equipment with either a load
weighing device, load moment (or rated
capacity) indicator, or a load moment or
rated capacity limiter. The latter two
terms are defined in § 1926.1401. All
three devices are intended to help the
operator avoid exceeding the
equipment’s rated capacity and thereby
prevent the crane from tipping over.
This proposed provision was limited
to equipment (other than derricks)
manufactured after March 29, 2003.
That was the date when ASME B30.5
first called for all mobile cranes with a
rated capacity over 6,000 pounds to be
equipped with load weighing devices.
The proposed provision was thus keyed
to the date when the industry first began
widely manufacturing or equipping
mobile cranes with load weighing or
load moment devices.
A trade association pointed out that
ASME B30.5 does not apply to
articulating cranes and that the
applicable consensus standard, ASME
B30.22, does not require the devices
specified in paragraph (e)(4). (ID–
0206.1.) The commenter stated,
however, that these are likely to be
required by the 2010 update of ASME
B30.22.
As discussed in § 1926.1400, evidence
in the record shows that many
articulating cranes are currently
equipped with automatic overload
prevention devices which, like the
devices specified in this section, are
designed to avoid the possibility of
tipover. Therefore, the tipover hazard
addressed by paragraph (e)(4) can be
addressed for newly-manufactured
articulating cranes by requiring such
cranes to be equipped with either
automatic overload prevention devices
or one of the devices specified in
paragraph (e)(4). To achieve this
objective, OSHA is therefore revising
proposed paragraph (e)(4). The
requirement in proposed paragraph
(e)(4) is revised to exclude articulating
cranes and is renumbered paragraph
(e)(4)(i) in the final rule. New paragraph
(e)(4)(i) includes temporary alternative
measures based on calculations from
sources recognized by the industry. The
proposed rule had provided for
calculations based on a ‘‘reliable’’ source
or calculation method, or ‘‘by other
equally reliable means.’’ To avoid the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
potentially subjective interpretations of
‘‘reliable,’’ OSHA is instead requiring
that the measurements be from a source
typically relied on in the industry.
A new paragraph (e)(4)(ii), applicable
to articulating cranes, is added. This
new paragraph requires articulating
cranes manufactured more than one
year after the effective date of the
standard to be equipped with either an
automatic overload prevention device, a
load weighing device, a load moment
(or rated capacity) indictor, or a load
moment (or rated capacity) limiter.
Paragraph (e)(4)(ii) will protect workers
against articulating cranes tipping over
while giving employers a choice of
means to achieve this objective. The
temporary alternative measure required
under paragraph (e)(4)(ii) is the same as
that required under paragraph (e)(4)(i).
A commenter informed OSHA that
New York City requires a load weighing
or similar device on cranes
manufactured after December 30, 1993,
and requested that the final rule allow
local governments to impose stricter
requirements. (ID–0156.1.) Whether
local governments can impose stricter
requirements than provided under this
final rule is discussed under federalism
in section V.D of this preamble.
Proposed paragraph (e)(5) required
two future operational aids—an
outrigger position sensor/monitor and a
hoist drum rotation indicator—on all
equipment manufactured more than one
year after the effective date of this
standard.82 As discussed in § 1926.1404,
certain types of equipment are equipped
with stabilizers rather than outriggers,
and OSHA is modifying the language of
proposed ‘‘outrigger’’ provisions to
clarify that such provisions also apply
to equipment with stabilizers.
Therefore, paragraph (e)(5)(i) is being
reworded in the final rule to apply to
equipment with stabilizers as well as
outriggers. Paragraph (e)(5)(ii), which
requires hoist drum rotation indicators,
is promulgated as proposed.
One commenter stated that deadman
controls should be required on all
cranes. (ID–0156.1.) Section
1926.1435(d)(2)(viii) requires that tower
cranes have deadman controls, but C–
DAC did not determined these should
be required on other types of cranes.
This commenter has not stated why it
believes such controls are needed for
safe operation of other types of cranes.
Accordingly, OSHA defers to C–DAC’s
judgment that deadman controls should
82 The

proposed rule would have required these
aids on equipment manufactured after January 1,
2008. Here, as elsewhere, OSHA believes that
devices not commonly installed on equipment
should be not be required until more than one year
after the effective date of the final rule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

not be required on cranes other than
tower cranes.
Section 1926.1417 Operation
Section 1926.1417 addresses hazards
associated with general operation of
equipment covered by this standard.
Previously, 29 CFR part 1926, subpart N
primarily addressed safe operation by
incorporating national consensus
standards and manufacturer
recommendations. For example, former
§ 1926.550(b)(2) required crawler, truck,
and locomotive cranes to comply with
the operation requirements of ANSI
B30.5–1968. The provisions in this
section are designed to update such
requirements, make them more
comprehensive, and state them in a way
that is clear and enforceable.
Paragraph (a)
Paragraph (a) of this section requires
employers to comply with the
manufacturer procedures applicable to
the operational functions of all
equipment covered by this standard,
including the use of equipment with
attachments. ‘‘Procedures’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 to include, but not be
limited to, ‘‘instructions, diagrams,
recommendations, warnings,
specifications, protocols, and
limitations.’’
Two commenters opposed this
provision. The first, a representative
from the building industry, stated that it
was ‘‘problematic’’ to ‘‘literally require
employers to become familiar with and
obey to the letter anything written by a
manufacturer related to a crane, no
matter how unwise, unnecessary, or
infeasible.’’ (ID–0232.1.) The commenter
also explained that crane manufacturers
fear tort liability, which causes them to
over-warn in their manuals, and
suggested that employers needed to be
able to use common sense to separate
over-warning from serious
recommendations. The commenter
argued further that this provision
constituted a delegation of authority
inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution
and the Occupational Safety and Health
Act, and was unsupported by the
rulemaking record. A building industry
trade association agreed with the
building industry representative’s
points and advocated amending this
provision to require operation of
equipment in a manner ‘‘consistent with
manufacturers’ recommendations.’’ (ID–
0214.1.) It also believed that the costs of
complying with this provision would be
excessive.
OSHA disagrees with the suggestion
that this provision is problematic
because of the possibility that some
equipment manufacturer may

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47987

conceivably develop procedures which
are ‘‘unwise, unnecessary, or infeasible.’’
Neither commenter provided any
specific examples or data in support of
this assertion, and it is unreasonable to
think that crane manufacturers would
develop such procedures. Like all
product manufacturers, crane
manufacturers want satisfied customers
and repeat business, and OSHA has no
basis to conclude, as the commenters
suggest, that they will alienate their
customers by recommending
unnecessary procedures that will reduce
the usefulness and productivity of their
products. Moreover, there are sound
reasons to determine that following
manufacturer procedures will result in
both the safe and productive use of
cranes. The manufacturer of a large and
complex piece of machinery such as a
crane is thoroughly familiar with the
machine’s design, components, and
capabilities and is well-positioned to
develop the procedures that enable the
crane to be used effectively and safely.
The commenters provided no basis for
OSHA to conclude that allowing crane
users to pick and choose which
manufacturer recommendations to
follow will promote safety, and OSHA
does not believe this is the case.
Moreover, C–DAC’s members had vast
experience in crane manufacturing and
use and were well-positioned to
determine whether compliance with
manufacturer’s recommendations will
promote crane safety. They concluded
that it would. In the absence of
additional evidence, OSHA defers to
C–DAC’s experience.
OSHA also finds no merit in the
building industry representative’s
assertion that compliance with
manufacturer recommendations should
not be required because manufacturers
‘‘over-warn’’ out of liability concerns.
The best way for manufacturers to avoid
liability for accidents involving their
products is to recommend the
precautions that are needed to prevent
such accidents, so their concern for tort
liability is fully consistent with the
objective of this standard.
Regarding the delegation of authority
issue, OSHA notes that provisions
similar to this one, including provisions
in the prior cranes standard in former
§ 1926.550, have withstood judicial
scrutiny on every occasion on which
they have been challenged.83 See, e.g.,
83 Among the many OSHA standards requiring
compliance with manufacturer information are:
§ 1910.134, UI; § 1910.184, Slings; § 1910.265,
Sawmills; § 1915.113, Shackles and hooks;
§ 1910.217, Mechanical power presses; § 1926.451,
Scaffolds: General requirements; § 1926.302, Power-

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

Continued

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47988

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Associated Builders & Contractors v.
Miami-Dade County, 594 F.3d 1321;
Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc.
v. Brock, 862 F.2d 63, 68–69 (3d Cir.
1988); Towne Constr. Co. v.
Occupational Safety & Health Review
Comm’n, 847 F.2d 1187, 1189 (6th Cir.
1988) (finding the physical
impossibility of requiring OSHA
independently to set safety standards for
every industry job classification and
industrial substance in the country
justifies reliance on the fruits of private
efforts as governmental standards).
The requirement in § 1926.1417(a) to
comply with manufacturers’ operating
procedures is essentially the same as
that imposed by former § 1926.550(a)(1)
of the prior rule. As the commenter from
the building industry notes, former
§ 1926.550(a)(1) was upheld against a
challenge that requiring compliance
with manufacturer’s specifications and
operating limitations is an illegal
delegation of authority to private
persons. (ID–0232.1, citing Towne
Construction, 12 BNA OSHC 2185
(OSHRC 1986) aff’d 847 F.2d 1187 (6th
Cir. 1988).) The Review Commission
and the Sixth Circuit found that the
prior rule’s delegation to manufacturers
was circumscribed by other regulatory
requirements governing the design and
construction of cranes. (See, e.g., 12
BNA OSHC at 2186 noting design
specifications in 29 CFR 1910.180(c)(1)
applied to cranes covered by former
§ 1926.550.) The final rule contains
design, construction and testing
requirements that are more
comprehensive than those applicable
under the prior rule. These limitations
on manufacturers’ discretion are
sufficient to defeat a facial delegation
challenge. 12 BNA OSHC at 2186, 847
F.2d at 1189. See also Associated
Builders and Contractors, 2010 WL
276669 *3 (OSHA’s adoption of
consensus specifications for safe
operation of cranes ‘‘conforms with an
intelligible principle’’ and is therefore
valid). To require OSHA to
independently determine and codify
every safety procedure for every
configuration of every make and model
of crane or other equipment covered by
this standard, as well as every
attachment or device that could be used
with that equipment, would be
unrealistic, inefficient, and contrary to
all jurisprudence on this issue. In light
of C–DAC’s recommendations to
include manufacturer procedures in
subpart CC, and based on the record as
a whole, OSHA concludes that requiring
compliance with manufacturer
operated hand tools; and § 1917.43, Powered
industrial trucks.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

procedures is an efficient and
appropriate means of ensuring safe
maintenance, assembly and
disassembly, configuration, and
operation of equipment covered by this
subpart. Therefore, OSHA is
incorporating manufacturers’
procedures and recommendations into
§ 1926.1417, and several other
provisions of this standard, where the
Agency determines that it is the most
effective and appropriate way to
accomplish the OSH Act goals.
Two commenters objected to OSHA’s
inclusion of manufacturer
‘‘recommendations’’ in the definition for
equipment criteria. (ID–0205.1;
–0213.1.) The commenters, however,
provide no justification for
distinguishing manufacturer
recommendations from other
manufacturer procedures. C–DAC
determined that manufacturer
recommendations were an appropriate
means of ensuring the safe use of
equipment, and OSHA agrees.
Manufacturer recommendations, like
procedures, specifications, prohibitions,
etc., instruct the user how to use the
equipment safely and in a manner most
consistent with the equipment’s design.
Moreover, there is nothing novel in
OSHA’s reliance on manufacturer
recommendations. A number of OSHA
standards already require compliance
with manufacturer recommendations.
See, e.g., § 1910.134, Respirator
protection; § 1910.184, Slings. As noted
above, the former crane standard (in
former § 1926.550(a)) replaced by this
final rule included a broad prohibition
based solely on manufacturer
recommendations: ‘‘Attachments used
with cranes shall not exceed the
capacity, rating, or scope recommended
by the manufacturer.’’ Yet no court has
invalidated an OSHA standard requiring
compliance with manufacturer
recommendations, even though several
containing such language have been
challenged. The commenters offer no
new compelling legal arguments for
why OSHA should delete provisions
requiring compliance with manufacturer
recommendations, and do not identify a
meaningful distinction between a
manufacturer’s recommendation,
procedure, instruction, or specification.
Accordingly, OSHA is requiring
compliance with manufacturer
recommendations as proposed.
Finally, with respect to the suggestion
to permit alternate procedures provided
they are ‘‘consistent with’’
manufacturers’ procedures, the Agency
concludes that amending this provision
in that manner would be unacceptable
because it would lead to uncertainty
over what procedures are ‘‘consistent

PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

with’’ the manufacturers’ recommended
procedures. Therefore, this provision is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (b)
Procedures

Unavailable Operation

Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
in the event that the manufacturer
procedures for operation are
unavailable, the employer will be
required to develop procedures
necessary for the safe operation of the
equipment and its attachments. The
employer will also be required to ensure
compliance with such procedures.
‘‘Unavailable procedures’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as procedures that are no
longer available from the manufacturer,
or have never been available from the
manufacturer. For instance, procedures
that are in the employer’s possession
but are not on the job site, would not be
considered unavailable under
§§ 1926.1417(b) and 1926.1441(c)(2),
where the same term is used.
An example of a situation where
procedures might be unavailable is old
equipment where the manufacturer is
no longer in business. Even where the
original manufacturer became part of
another company that is still in
business, in some cases the successor
company no longer has the original
manufacturers’ procedures for that
equipment. In such instances the
employer will be required to develop
and follow substitute procedures.
Paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this
section specify qualifications criteria for
those who develop two aspects of the
substitute procedures. Under
§ 1926.1417(b)(2), procedures for the
operational controls will have to be
developed by a qualified person. As
defined in § 1926.1401 of this standard,
‘‘operational controls’’ are levers,
switches, pedals and other devices for
controlling equipment operation. A
qualified person has the requisite level
of expertise to develop such procedures
in light of both the complexity of the
factors that must be considered and the
nature of the operational controls.
Under paragraph (b)(3), operational
procedures related to equipment
capacity would have to be developed
and signed by a registered professional
engineer familiar with the equipment.
The type and complexity of engineering
analysis that is needed to develop safe
procedures related to capacity
necessitates that this work be done by
a registered professional engineer (RPE).
In addition, because capacity is so
critical to safe operation, a signature by
the RPE is needed to ensure that this
work is done with the requisite care. No
comments were submitted on this

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

provision; therefore, it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (c) Accessibility of
Procedures
Paragraph (c)(1) of this section
requires employers to provide the
operator with ready access in the cab to
the procedures applicable to the
operation of the equipment, including
the following: Rated capacities (load
charts), recommended operating speeds,
special hazard warnings, and the
instructions and operator’s manual.
For the purposes of this standard,
‘‘special hazard warnings’’ are warnings
of site-specific hazards (for example,
proximity of power lines). This term is
defined in § 1926.1401 to differentiate
these site-specific warnings from all
other general hazard warnings which
are common to typical construction
worksites.
Previously, former § 1926.550(a)(2) of
subpart N required rated capacities,
recommended operating speeds, and
special hazard warnings to be posted on
the equipment, and instructions and
warnings to be visible at the operator’s
station. Unlike § 1926.1417(c)(1) of this
standard, it did not require the
operator’s manual to be accessible to the
operator.
OSHA concludes that the information
in these materials, including the
operator’s manual, is essential for safe
crane operation. C–DAC determined
that this information is needed to help
the operator avoid performing
operations beyond a crane’s capacity
and recommended operating speed, and
by increasing operator awareness of
special hazards related to a specific
piece of equipment. In addition, C–DAC
determined that this information needs
to be available to the equipment
operator in the cab so that the operator
can obtain the information as the need
arises. If the information were not
available in the cab, operations would
have to be delayed for the operator to
leave the cab and obtain the information
elsewhere (or for someone else to obtain
them and bring them to the operator).
The prospect of such a delay would
serve as a disincentive to obtaining the
information and increase the chance
that operations would proceed without
it.
A building industry trade association
stated its belief that the cost of obtaining
and maintaining manufacturers
procedures applicable to operation of
the equipment would be excessive, and
stated that OSHA’s contention that such
costs would be ‘‘modest’’ was not
supported by the rulemaking record.
(ID–0214.1.) This commenter did not
provide any substantiation for this

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

claim. Based on the absence of this
support, and on the absence of other
comments raising a cost objection
related to this requirement, OSHA
concludes that the cost of obtaining and
maintaining manufacturers’ procedures
for equipment operations is not
generally viewed as significant,
especially when weighed against the
potential economic and human costs of
a crane accident. Moreover, as noted
below, the trend toward providing
operating manuals and procedures via
digital media and over the Internet is
substantially lowering costs for
acquiring and maintaining such
information. Therefore, OSHA defers to
C–DAC’s experience and is
promulgating this provision as
proposed.
It has become increasingly common
for equipment to be supplied by
manufacturers with load capacities in
electronic form. Because of the potential
for an electronic or other failure to occur
that would make that information
inaccessible, § 1926.1417(c)(2) addresses
a situation in which electronic or other
failure makes such information
unavailable. Under this paragraph,
where load capacities are available in
the cab only in electronic form and a
failure makes the load capacities
inaccessible, this paragraph requires
that the operator immediately cease
operations or follow safe shut-down
procedures until the load capacities
become available again (in electronic or
other form). No comments were
submitted on this provision; therefore it
is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)
This paragraph requires that operators
refrain from engaging in any practice
that would divert their attention while
operating the crane. This includes the
use of cell phones except when cell
phones are used for signal
communications. Operating a crane is a
complex task that requires an operator’s
full attention to be performed safely.
This paragraph addresses the risk that
an accident can occur if the operator’s
full attention is not directed toward that
task.
During the hearing, a witness from a
lumber trade association described the
practice in which the operator controls
an articulating boom crane with a
forklift attachment via remote controls
and then assists with the off-loading of
the materials. (ID–0341.) He expressed
concern that the operator’s participation
in the off-loading of the crane would
violate § 1926.1417(d)’s prohibition on
‘‘any practice that diverts his/her
attention while actually engaged in
operating the crane.’’ (ID–0341.) As a

PO 00000

Frm 00085

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47989

result, his company would need to use
an additional person for the delivery,
raising costs. (ID–0341.)
Section 1926.1417(d) would not
necessarily prohibit the activity that the
witness described. If the operator uses
the remote controls to position the
articulating crane and lock it into
position before off loading the materials,
and does not simultaneously operate the
controls and offload the materials, the
operator would not be ‘‘actually engaged
in operating the crane’’ at the same time
as he is off-loading the crane. The
operator would also not be considered
to ‘‘leave the equipment unattended’’ so
long as the operator has immediate
access to the remote controls. See
discussion of § 1926.1417(e) below. No
other comments were submitted on this
provision; therefore it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (e) Leaving Equipment
Unattended
Paragraph (e)(1) of this section
specifies when the operator must be at
the controls for safety-related reasons.
These include making necessary
adjustments to keep the load in a safe
position, moving the load where
necessary for reasons of safety (such as
for the safety of employees working
with or near the load), and responding
to emergencies that may arise during
lifting operations. Previously, under 29
CFR part 1926, subpart N, the operator
of a crawler, locomotive, or truck crane
was prohibited from leaving the controls
while a load is suspended.
In the experience of C–DAC members,
this requirement was routinely breached
when the load is ‘‘held suspended,’’ that
is, without need for adjustment of the
load’s or the equipment’s position for an
extended period. In such circumstances,
the operator does not need to
manipulate the controls for the period of
time that the load is suspended and it
was a common practice for the operator
to leave the controls. To address this
problem, C–DAC proposed that OSHA
establish criteria that allow the operator
to leave the controls when it is safe to
do so rather than to simply continue the
existing rule unchanged. (Note that the
suspension of working gear, such as
slings, spreader bars, ladders, and
welding machines, is addressed
separately in § 1926.1417(e)(2).)
Several commenters from the
materials delivery industry noted that
various types of equipment in that
industry can be operated by remote
control and expressed concern that
§ 1926.1417(e)(1) would prohibit the use
of those remote controls and thereby
require additional personnel to perform
the same task. (ID–0184.1; –0206.1.) To

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47990

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

be clear, the new standard does not
prohibit the use of remote controls.
During the hearing on this rulemaking,
a witness from a lumber trade
association testified that the use of
portable radio remote controls is
common, and provided examples of
operators with their remotes strapped
around their waists or their shoulders.
(ID–0341; –0345.13.) He explained that
the ‘‘operator is physically located at the
same location as the remote control and
is therefore able to perform controlled
operations as quickly as an operator
who is seated at the top seat controls’’
and ‘‘can also be positioned to ensure
that there’s no obstructed view.’’ (ID–
0341.) Such use would not be
prohibited. Where an operator takes the
remote controls out of the cab, keeps the
controls within reach in the same
manner as if in the cab, and is able to
use the remote controls to control the
equipment as effectively as if in the cab,
the operator has not left the controls
within the meaning of § 1926.1417(e).
Therefore, the operator is not subject to
the conditions of §§ 1926.1417(e)(1)(i)
through (iv).
Section 1926.1417(e) requires that the
operator not leave the controls while the
load is suspended except when four
conditions, outlined in
§§ 1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv),
are met. OSHA has revised the
introductory text to make it clear that
each one of the conditions in
§§ 1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv)
must be met for the operator to leave the
controls.
Paragraph (e)(1)(i) requires the
operator to remain adjacent to the
equipment and not engage in any other
duties. This paragraph will not only
prevent unauthorized use of the crane
by persons who are not competent crane
operators but also allow the operator to
quickly access the controls in case the
equipment or load inadvertently moves.
Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) requires the load
to be held suspended for a period of
time exceeding normal lifting
operations. As explained above, these
are instances when the load is ‘‘held
suspended,’’ that is, without need for
adjustment of the load’s or the
equipment’s position—for an extended
period. These are circumstances in
which the operator will not need to
manipulate the controls. Such
circumstances must be for a period of
time in excess of the periods that occur
during normal lifting operations.
For example, during the construction
of a structure, a large subassembly is
being attached to another part of the
structure. After the subassembly has
been initially connected, it is held
suspended (that is, without need for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

adjustment of position) for support for
several hours while the final
connections are made. This period
exceeds normal lifting operations. In
this example, the criterion of
§ 1926.1417(e)(1)(ii) would be met.
Another, contrasting example is the
following: A steel structure is being
erected. When installing the steel
beams, the operator holds the beam
suspended (typically for several
minutes) while it is initially connected.
Holding the beam suspended in such
instances is a normal part of the steel
erection process. In this example the
criterion in § 1926.1417(e)(1)(ii) would
not be met and the operator cannot
leave the controls.
Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) requires the
competent person to determine that it is
safe for the operator to leave the
controls and implement measures
necessary to restrain the boom hoist and
telescoping, load, swing, and outrigger
functions. This provision addresses the
hazard of inadvertent movement while
the controls are unattended.
Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) requires
barricades or caution lines, and notices
to be erected to prevent all employees
from entering the fall zone.
Furthermore, under this paragraph no
employees would be permitted in the
fall zone, including those listed in
§§ 1926.1425(b)(1) through (3), (d), or
(e). This is necessary because the added
margin of safety that results from the
operator being at the controls would not
be present in these circumstances.
A labor representative recommended
retention of the previous prohibition of
leaving any unattended loads
suspended because it believed that the
four conditions for the exemption were
unclear and unenforceable. (ID–0199.1.)
Specifically, the commenter stated that
(1) The term ‘‘adjacent to the
equipment’’ needed to be further
explained or quantified; (2) further
guidance was needed to explain the
meaning of the phrase ‘‘a period of time
exceeding normal operations;’’ (3) the
Agency needs to clarify that the
equipment operator can be the
‘‘competent person’’ referred to in this
section; and (4) the proposed
requirement to erect barriers or caution
lines to prevent employees from
entering fall zones are infeasible in
many construction zones.
Regarding the commenter’s first two
points, in light of the extreme variability
of equipment types, loads lifted, and
construction site conditions, OSHA
determines it is not possible to use more
precise language without making the
rule underinclusive and/or
overinclusive. Specifying a precise
distance in lieu of saying ‘‘adjacent to

PO 00000

Frm 00086

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the equipment,’’ and a precise time in
lieu of ‘‘a period of time exceeding
normal operations,’’ as the commenter
suggests, would not be practical in light
of the numerous variables that affect
these distances and times on
construction sites. OSHA also rejects the
commenter’s suggestion that the
previous prohibition be retained if it is
not possible to use more precise
language. OSHA concludes that this is
an area where employers can be
afforded flexibility without detracting
from safety, and that the limited
conditions under which it is permissible
to leave a suspended load unattended
will accomplish this objective.
Regarding the third point, the answer
is ‘‘yes,’’ an equipment operator can be
a ‘‘competent person’’ for purposes of
this section if he or she meets the
requirements of the § 1926.1401
definition of that term. Finally, where
conditions in a construction site exist
that prevent erection of barriers or
caution lines as prescribed by this
section, § 1926.1417(e) prohibits
employers from using this exception to
the general prohibition of leaving
suspended loads unattended.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) stated that
the provisions in paragraph (e) do not
apply to working gear, which includes
slings, spreader bars, ladders, and
welding machines, where the load is not
suspended over an entrance or exit.
The Agency noted in the proposal that
the reference to paragraph (e) was a
drafting error and that the appropriate
reference was to paragraph (e)(1). In
addition, the provision as proposed
contained two incidences of the word
‘‘not’’ which could lead to confusion.
Therefore, the Agency noted in the
proposal that it was considering
changing the language to state that the
provisions in § 1926.1417(e)(1) do not
apply to working gear where the
working gear is suspended over an area
other than an entrance or exit.
In the proposed rule, OSHA noted
that it was common practice for
employers to leave lightweight items
suspended overnight to prevent theft
and stated that this provision was only
intended to apply to working gear
whose weight was negligible relative to
the capacity of the equipment. Four
commenters believed that the proposed
wording of § 1926.1417(e)(2) was overly
broad to accomplish this purpose
because it did not limit the weight of the
suspended working gear relative to the
capacity of the equipment and could
therefore allow a load that placed a
significant strain on the equipment to be
suspended overnight. (ID–0122.1;
–0172.1; –0178.1; –0199.1.) OSHA
agrees with these commenters that this

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
provision should be clarified and, in the
final rule, has made explicit what was
stated in the preamble to the proposed
rule: that the provision only applies
where the weight of the working gear is
negligible relative to the lifting capacity
of the equipment.
Paragraph (f) Tag-Out
Paragraph (f)(1) Tagging Out of Service
Equipment/Functions
Where the employer has taken the
equipment out of service, this paragraph
requires that the employer place a tag in
the cab stating that the equipment is out
of service and is not to be used. Where
the equipment remains in service but
the employer has taken a function out
of service, this paragraph requires that
the employer place a tag in a
conspicuous position stating that that
function is out of service and is not to
be used. This paragraph is designed to
prevent hazards associated with workers
inadvertently attempting to use out-ofservice equipment or a function that is
out of service.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (f)(2) Response to ‘‘Do Not
Operate’’/Tag-Out Signs
If there is a warning sign on the
equipment or starting control, paragraph
(f)(2)(i) of this section prohibits the
operator from activating the switch or
starting the equipment until the sign is
removed by someone authorized to
remove it or until the operator can
verify that (A) no one is servicing,
working on, or otherwise in a dangerous
position on the machine, and (B) the
equipment has been repaired and is
working properly. Similarly, under
§ 1926.1417(f)(2)(ii), when there is a
warning sign on any other switch or
control, the operator will be prohibited
from activating that switch or control
until the sign has been removed by an
individual authorized to remove it, or
until the operator meets the two
requirements of § 1926.1417(f)(2)(i),
described above.
These provisions will prevent two
types of hazards. First, since the
machine is out of service, there is a risk
that an employee servicing, working on,
or otherwise in a dangerous position on
it is not expecting it to be activated and
would be injured if it were activated.
Second, if an employee does not know
that the equipment is malfunctioning or
has a function that is not working
properly, an employee could
inadvertently try to operate it with the
result that the equipment will not work
as intended, causing unintended
movement or a collapse.
Subpart N of the former rule
addressed this issue through sec. 5–

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

3.1.3g of ANSI B30.5–1968, which
states: ‘‘If there is a warning sign on the
switch or engine starting controls, the
operator shall not close the switch or
start the engine until the warning sign
has been removed by the person placing
it there.’’ Instead of requiring that the
sign be removed by the person who
placed it, § 1926.1417(f)(2) permits it to
be removed by an authorized person
and, as an alternative, permits the
operator to start the equipment after
verifying that no worker is in a
dangerous area and that the equipment
has been repaired and is working
properly. OSHA concludes that either
alternative would achieve the safety
purpose of the tag-out because it would
ensure that a knowledgeable and
responsible person, either the operator
or another authorized person, verifies
that repairs are complete and all
workers are in a safe position before the
equipment can be started.
As discussed above, the operator will
be permitted to start equipment that is
tagged out, or activate a tagged-out
switch, only if the procedures specified
in § 1926.1417(f)(2)(i) are met. In
reviewing this provision during the
proposal stage, the Agency noted that
these procedures were not as
comprehensive as those in the general
industry standard for the control of
hazardous energy (lockout/tagout),
which are listed in §§ 1910.147(e)(3)(i)
through (iii).84 The Agency requested
public comment on whether procedures
similar to those in §§ 1910.147(e)(3)(i)
through (iii) 85 would be feasible and
appropriate for cranes/derricks used in
construction.
Two commenters opposed broadening
the requirements along the lines of the
requirements in §§ 1910.147(e)(3)(i)
through (iii), stating that the general
industry standards were not appropriate
for cranes and derricks used in
construction. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1.) A
third commenter believed that the
§ 1910.147(e)(3) procedures were
feasible and appropriate. (ID–0144.1.) A
fourth commenter recommended that
the tag-out requirements be upgraded to
a lock-out requirement to provide
greater worker protection. (ID–0199.1.)
A fifth commenter agreed that a lock-out
84 Section 1910.147 is not applicable to
construction (see § 1910.147(a)(ii)(A)).
85 These general industry provisions state:
(i) Verification by the employer that the
authorized employee who applied the device is not
at the factory;
(ii) Making all reasonable efforts to contact the
authorized employee to inform him/her that his/her
lockout or tagout device has been removed; and
(iii) Ensuring that the authorized employee has
this knowledge before he/she resumes work at that
facility.
Section 1910.147(e)(3)(i) through (iii).

PO 00000

Frm 00087

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47991

requirement would provide superior
protection to the proposed tag-out
proposal, but that locking out was not
feasible on some equipment, especially
older equipment. (ID–0187.1.) That
commenter recommended that the
requirement be upgraded to a lock-out
requirement where feasible, but remain
a tag out procedure where lock out was
not feasible. Upon consideration of all
these comments, OSHA concludes that
the record does not clearly indicate that
adding a lock-out requirement as
suggested by the last two commenters is
needed to ensure safety and, as the one
commenter noted, would not be feasible
on all equipment. Instead, the Agency
concludes that the tag-out requirement
in the proposed rule contains clear and
concise restrictions on the conditions
under which equipment can be brought
back into service and will ensure that
equipment is not started when
employees are in a danger zone.
Therefore, this section is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (g)
This paragraph requires the operator
to verify, before starting the engine, that
all controls are in the proper starting
position and that all personnel are in
the clear. Requiring operators to check
that all controls are in their proper
starting positions will prevent
unintended movement of the equipment
when the engine is initially started.
Similarly, requiring operators to ensure
that all personnel are in the clear will
prevent personnel from being injured in
the event that some aspect of the
equipment moves upon start-up. No
comments were submitted on this
paragraph; therefore it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (h) Storm Warning
When a local storm warning has been
issued, this paragraph requires the
competent person to determine whether
it is necessary to implement
manufacturer recommendations for
securing the equipment. This provision
was designed to prevent hazards that
could arise from severe weather
including inadvertent movement and
crane collapse. High-speed winds in
particular can affect both the crane and
the load, reducing the rated capacity of
the crane and affecting boom strength.
No comments were submitted on this
paragraph; therefore it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (i) [Reserved.]
Paragraph (j)
Under paragraph (j)(1) of this section,
when the operator determines that an
adjustment/repair is necessary, the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

47992

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

operator is required to promptly inform,
in writing, the individual designated by
the employer to receive such
information, as well as the next operator
in cases where there are successive
shifts. OSHA revised the organization of
the proposed provision for clarity. This
reorganization involved removing the
introductory sentence that operators be
familiar with the equipment and its
proper operation because this sentence
merely described an enabling condition
necessary for operators to identify any
necessary repairs and adjustments.
This paragraph addresses the need to
identify problems that may develop
with the equipment during operations.
Early recognition of such problems by
the operator will help prevent accidents
that could result from continued
operation of equipment that needs
adjustment and/or repair. In the
Committee’s experience, operators who
are familiar with the equipment and its
proper operation can recognize such
equipment anomalies and problems. By
requiring that information about needed
adjustments and/or repairs be provided
to the individual designated by the
employer to receive it, this paragraph
will facilitate the correction of those
problems.
The rule does not specify any
particular job title for the person to
whom the operator would be required to
provide this information because
different employers may assign the
responsibility of receiving such
information to different job
classifications.
Providing this information to the next
operator in cases where there are
successive shifts (that is, shifts that have
no break between them) will ensure that
the next operator is aware of this
information and will be able to take
appropriate action.
One commenter recommended that
the information be transmitted in
written form. (ID–0132.1.) OSHA agrees
with this comment primarily because
written information would be more
easily passed on between shifts. OSHA
has, therefore, revised § 1926.1417(j) to
specify that the notification of necessary
adjustments or repairs must be in
writing.
Additionally, OSHA added
§ 1926.1417(j)(2) to require employers to
notify, at the beginning of each shift, all
affected employees of any necessary
adjustments or repairs. This
requirement will allow all employees
affected by the operation of the
equipment to be notified of any
outstanding repairs or adjustments, and
provides them with information about
alternative measures implemented by
the employer. Affected employees are

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

any employees exposed to equipmentrelated hazards; such employees
include, but are not limited to, any
employee in the fall zone of the load,
signal persons, riggers, operators, load
handlers, and lift directors. OSHA
concludes that this provision is
necessary to allow employees to adjust
their work practices following
implementation of the alternative
measures.
The Agency finds this modification to
be consistent with the requirements
throughout this subpart with respect to
sharing information about equipmentrelated hazards. This added provision
merely requires employers to take the
information acquired under
§ 1926.1417(j)(1) and distribute it to
affected employees. Employers may
distribute this information by any
effective means available.
Paragraph (k)
This paragraph prohibits safety
devices and operational aids from being
used as a substitute for the exercise of
professional judgment by the operator.
Such devices and aids do not displace
the need for operators to apply their
professional judgment because the
devices and aids can malfunction and
lead to the types of safety hazards they
are designed to prevent. No comments
were submitted on this paragraph;
therefore it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (l) [Reserved.]
Paragraph (m)
If the competent person determines
that there is a slack rope condition
requiring re-spooling of the rope, this
paragraph requires that before starting
the lift, it must be verified that the rope
is seated on the drum and in the sheaves
as the slack is removed. This will
prevent a loose coil of rope from
becoming cross-coiled on the drum, a
portion of the rope coming off the drum
altogether, or the rope being pulled
alongside (instead of seating in) a
sheave. Each of these conditions can
lead to sudden failure of the rope. No
comments were submitted on this
paragraph; therefore it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (n)
This paragraph requires the
competent person to adjust the
equipment and/or operations to address
the hazards posed by wind, ice and
snow on equipment capacity and
stability. In the proposed rule, the
person would have been required to
‘‘consider the effect’’ of those elements,
but OSHA is clarifying in the final rule
that the competent person must actually
take steps such as re-calculating a lower

PO 00000

Frm 00088

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

load capacity, stabilizing the equipment,
or even postponing a lift. Wind can
reduce capacity by imposing loads on
the equipment, which can also reduce
stability. Ice and snow can also reduce
capacity and stability when it
accumulates on the equipment. There
are numerous variables involved in
determining the effects of wind, ice and
snow in any particular circumstance,
(for example, the extent to which the
crane is operating below its rated
capacity, the sail effect presented by the
load, the rate at which ice or snow is
accumulating, and whether the snow is
wet or light). No comments were
submitted on this paragraph; therefore it
is promulgated as proposed with the
one change noted above.
Paragraph (o) Compliance With Rated
Capacity
Section 1926.1417(o)(1) requires
employers to ensure that equipment is
not operated beyond its rated capacity.
Overloading a crane or derrick can
cause it to collapse, with potentially
catastrophic consequences. This basic
safeguard has long been recognized in
the industry as crucial and is designed
to prevent such accidents. (See
additional discussion at 73 FR 59792,
Oct. 9, 2008).
Section 1926.1417(o)(2) requires
employers to ensure that operators are
not required to operate the equipment in
a manner that would exceed its rated
capacity, in violation of
§ 1926.1417(o)(1) above. This provision
reinforces the general prohibition of
§ 1926.1417(o)(1) by making it a
separate violation for an employer to
expressly require an operator to exceed
the equipment’s rated capacity. It is
designed to avoid a situation where an
employer pressures an operator to
conduct a lift that exceeds the
equipment’s rated capacity to avoid the
time and expense associated with
bringing in larger capacity equipment.86
In the experience of C–DAC members,
employers sometimes will attempt to lift
loads that exceed a crane’s rated
capacity in the belief that the rated
capacity is sufficiently conservative to
perform the lift. In some such cases, the
employer assumes that a safety factor is
built into the capacity rating and that
the crane actually has a higher capacity
than its rating. In the C–DAC
discussions of this issue, members
explained that while equipment
capacity ratings are developed with
86 In some instances the overcapacity problem can
be avoided by repositioning the crane (for example,
by moving the crane so that the lift can be
performed at a higher boom angle). However, even
in those instances some time (and associated
expense) is involved.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
consideration of a safety factor, that
safety factor is not intended by the
manufacturer to be treated as excess
capacity. There are numerous, complex
considerations used by manufacturers in
setting the capacity rating. Employers
cannot safely assume that, in any
particular situation, they will not need
the benefits conferred by the safety
factor.
There continue to be a significant
number of injuries and fatalities
resulting from equipment overturning.
Although it has long been a requirement
not to exceed the equipment’s rated
capacity, a significant number of
overturning incidents are caused by
exceeding rated capacity. A study of
fatal accidents involving cranes in the
U.S. construction industry for 1984–
1994, based on investigations of
reported accidents conducted by OSHA
and states with OSHA-approved safety
and health programs, showed that 22
deaths resulted from overloaded cranes.
A. Suruda, M. Egger, & D. Liu, ‘‘CraneRelated Deaths in the U.S. Construction
Industry, 1984–94,’’ p. 12, Table 9, The
Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (Oct.
1997). (ID-0013.) By stressing the need
both to comply with the rated capacity
and to separately preclude employers
from requiring operators to exceed the
rated capacity, paragraphs (o)(1) and
(o)(2) should prevent this type of
accident. No comments were received
on these paragraphs, and they are
promulgated as proposed.
Another cause of injuries and
fatalities from overturning equipment is
the use of unreliable information on
load weight. OSHA concludes that one
of the ways these incidents can be
reduced is to require that load weight be
verified by a reliable means.
Under § 1926.1417(o)(3), Load weight,
the operator is required to verify that the
load is within the rated capacity of the
equipment by using the procedures in
either § 1926.1417(o)(3)(i) or (ii). Under
§ 1926.1417(o)(3)(i), the weight of the
load must be determined in one of three
ways: from a source recognized by the
industry, by a calculation method
recognized by the industry, or by other
equally reliable means. An example of
verifying the load weight from a source
recognized by the industry would be
where the load is mechanical equipment
and the weight is obtained from its
manufacturer. The proposed rule had
provided for the weight of the load to
be based on a ‘‘reliable source.’’ To avoid
the potentially subjective interpretations
of ‘‘reliable,’’ OSHA is instead requiring
in the final rule that the measurements
be from a source typically relied on in
the industry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

An example of a calculation method
recognized by the industry would be the
following: The load is a steel I-beam.
After measuring the thickness of the
steel and the I-beam’s other dimensions,
the operator uses an industry table that
shows weight per linear foot for a beam
of these dimensions. The operator then
calculates the beam’s weight using that
information. In the proposed rule
calculations would be based on a
‘‘reliable source.’’ To avoid the
potentially subjective interpretations of
‘‘reliable,’’ OSHA is instead requiring in
the final rule that the calculations be
based on a source typically relied on in
the industry.
If the weight of the load is determined
under § 1926.1417(o)(3)(i), the
information about how the load weight
was determined must be provided to the
operator, prior to the lift, upon the
operator’s request. This provision is
included to help ensure that the
operator has the information necessary
to verify that the load is within the rated
capacity of the equipment.
One commenter suggested that this
section be amended to specifically
include as a reliable source the personal
experience of the operator with loads of
similar size and materials. (ID-0232.1.)
OSHA rejects that suggestion because it
is not convinced by any evidence in the
record that all operators, regardless of
whether the operator is experienced or
has been on the job for a few weeks, are
capable of producing an accurate,
reliable estimate of the load weights. For
example, an operator may have recently
lifted precast concrete sections that,
based on date provided by the
manufacturer, weighed 5 tons each. The
operator may be called upon to lift other
precast concrete sections of unknown
weight that are actually 10% heavier
than those lifted earlier. It is unlikely
that the heavier sections would be
significantly different in appearance
than those that weigh 10% less, and the
operator may mistakenly underestimate
the weight of the sections if permitted
to estimate load weight based on his or
her personal experience with loads of
similar size.
Paragraph (o)(3)(ii) establishes an
alternative procedure that does not
require the employer to determine the
actual weight of the load under certain
circumstances. Under paragraph
(o)(3)(ii), the operator would have to
begin hoisting the load to determine if
it exceeds 75 percent of the maximum
rated capacity at the longest radius that
will be used during the lift operation,
using a load weighing device, load
moment indicator, rated capacity
indicator, or rated capacity limiter. If
the load does not exceed 75 percent of

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47993

the maximum rated capacity, the lift can
be conducted without determining the
weight of the load. This verification
procedure 87 incorporates a sufficient
margin of error and would be adequate
to ensure that the crane’s rated capacity
will not be exceeded. If, however, the
load does exceed 75 percent of the
maximum rated capacity, then the
operator may not proceed with the lift
until he/she verifies the weight of the
load in accordance with
§ 1926.1417(o)(3)(i). No comments were
received on this paragraph, and it is
promulgated without change from the
proposed rule.
Paragraph (p)
This paragraph requires that the boom
or other parts of the equipment not
contact any obstruction. No comments
were submitted on this paragraph, and
it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (q)
This paragraph requires that the
equipment not be used to drag or pull
loads sideways. This is to prevent the
sideloading that occurs when a load is
dragged or pulled sideways. Sideloading
can buckle the boom, damage the swing
mechanism, or overturn the crane (such
as when the boom is at a high angle). No
comments were submitted on this
paragraph, and it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (r)
Paragraph (r) of this section applies to
wheel-mounted equipment and requires
that no loads be lifted over the front
area, except as permitted by the
manufacturer. Wheel-mounted
equipment typically is not designed to
lift loads over the front area. Equipment
that is not so designed will likely tip
over or otherwise fail when lifting loads
over the front area. If the equipment is
specifically designed for loads to be
lifted over the front area (such as where
equipped with a front outrigger for
support and stabilization for this
purpose), the operator must follow the
87 The operator would still be required to use his
or her professional judgment in determining
whether the load exceeds the capacity of the
equipment. As discussed above, proposed
§ 1926.1417 (k) would prohibit sole reliance by the
operator on an operational aid, such as a load
weight device, for ensuring that the equipment’s
capacity will not be exceeded. The procedure in
proposed § 1926.1417(o)(3)(ii) is a verification
procedure—it would verify that the operator’s
estimate is at least correct in terms of not exceeding
75% of the equipment’s rated capacity (at the
longest radius that will be used). If, for example, the
load weight device yields a figure that is
significantly below what the operator estimates to
be the true weight, the operator would need to
reliably determine the weight of the load before
proceeding with the lift.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47994

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

manufacturer’s procedures for doing so.
No comments were submitted on this
paragraph; it is therefore promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (s)
Each time an operator handles a load
that is 90% or more of the maximum
line pull, § 1926.1417(s) requires the
operator to test the brakes by lifting the
load a few inches and applying the
brakes. In duty cycle and repetitive lifts
where each lift is 90% or more of the
maximum line pull, this requirement
applies to the first but not to successive
lifts, because the operator would have
already determined from the initial test
that the brakes are sufficient. The brake
test required by this paragraph is
designed to ensure that the brakes are
sufficient to handle loads close to their
design capacity before lifting the load
high off the ground. No comments were
submitted on this paragraph, and it is
promulgated as proposed.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (t)
This paragraph requires that neither
the load nor the boom be lowered below
the point where less than two full wraps
of rope remain on their respective
drums. This provision is designed to
ensure that the rope is not unspooled to
the point where the rope would become
disconnected from the drum. No
comments were submitted on this
provision, and it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (u) Traveling With a Load
Paragraph (u)(1) of this section
prohibits traveling with a load if the
practice is prohibited by the
manufacturer. If the manufacturer does
not prohibit this practice, the equipment
may travel with a load, but only if the
requirements of paragraph (u)(2) are
met. Paragraph (u)(2) of this section sets
forth three procedures that employers
would have to follow when traveling
with a load: a competent person must
supervise the operation; the
determinations of the competent person
must be implemented; and for
equipment with tires, the tire pressure
specified by the manufacturer must be
maintained.
During discussions of this issue, C–
DAC members noted the dynamic
effects of traveling with a load impose
additional and/or increased forces on
crane components. Unless the crane has
been designed to handle these types of
forces and force levels, they can cause
component failure, collapse, instability
or overturning. The Committee
concluded that the manufacturer has the
expertise to ascertain its equipment’s
capabilities. Therefore, the Committee

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

recommended that where the
manufacturer has prohibited traveling
with the load, the operator must comply
with such a determination to ensure
safety. (For additional explanation, see
73 FR 59794, Oct. 9, 2008.) No
comments were submitted on these
provisions and they are promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (v)
This paragraph requires that
rotational speed of the equipment be
such that the load does not swing out
beyond the radius at which it can be
controlled. Like paragraph (q) of this
section, discussed above, this provision
is designed to prevent the hazard of
sideloading, which occurs when the
load swings to either side of the boom
tip, rather than its appropriate position
directly beneath the boom tip. When the
load is not directly under the boom tip,
sideloading occurs and decreases
capacity. This hazard can lead to tipover or boom failure. No comments
were submitted on this paragraph, and
it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (w)
This paragraph requires that a tag or
restraint line be used if necessary to
prevent the load from rotating if that
would be hazardous. No comments were
submitted on this paragraph, and it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (x)
This paragraph requires that the
brakes be adjusted in accordance with
manufacturer procedures to prevent
unintended movement. This
requirement applies to all brakes on
equipment covered by this standard,
including brakes used to control the
lowering of the load and those used to
stop the equipment while it is traveling.
C–DAC noted that improper adjustment
can cause a delay in the onset of braking
after the operator attempts to activate
the brake and can also diminish the
brake’s capacity. Brakes are critical to
the safe operation of the equipment and
must be properly adjusted to serve their
safety function. (See additional
explanation at 73 FR 59795, Oct. 9,
2008.) No comments were submitted on
this paragraph; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (y)
This paragraph requires that the
operator obey a stop or emergency stop
signal, regardless of who gives the
signal. Any person on a worksite may
observe a hazardous condition that is
not visible to or recognized by the crane
operator and that can only be avoided
if the equipment stops immediately, so

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

it is imperative that the operator
respond immediately to any such signal
by anyone. No comments were
submitted on this paragraph; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (z)
Cranes

Swinging Locomotive

Pursuant to this paragraph, a
locomotive crane must not be swung
into a position where railway cars on an
adjacent track could strike it, until it is
determined that cars are not being
moved on the adjacent track and that
proper flag protection has been
established. The Agency is including
this paragraph to prevent contact
between the locomotive cranes and
railway cars, and notes comparable
requirements in § 1910.180(i)(6) and sec.
5–3.4.4 of ANSI B30.5–1968. No
comments were submitted on this
paragraph, and it is promulgated with
only one modification. The proposed
rule incorporated an additional
determination of whether it would be
‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ that other
railway cars on an adjacent track could
strike the locomotive crane. OSHA
concludes that when a locomotive crane
swings into a position where it is
physically possible for a railway car on
an adjacent track to strike it, a hazard is
present and the additional language
would serve only to generate confusion
about the appropriate response to that
hazard. The concepts of reasonableness
and forseeability are typically raised
during legal processes and would be
factored into those processes in
accordance with law.
Paragraph (aa)

Counterweight/Ballast

Section 1926.1417(aa)(1) contains
counterweight/ballast requirements that
apply to equipment other than tower
cranes and are intended to prevent
unintended movement, tipover, and
collapse. As noted in § 1926.1417(aa)(2),
requirements regarding counterweight/
ballast for tower cranes are found in
§ 1926.1435(b)(8).
Section 1926.1417(aa)(1)(i) requires
that equipment not be operated without
the counterweight or ballast in place as
specified by the manufacturer.
Section 1926.1417(aa)(1)(ii) prohibits
the employer from exceeding the
maximum counterweight or ballast
specified by the manufacturer for the
equipment. Exceeding that maximum
could result in component failure,
which could cause unintended
movement, tipover or collapse. No
comments were submitted on this
provision, and it is promulgated as
proposed.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Section 1926.1418 Authority To Stop
Operation
This section provides that whenever
there is a concern as to safety, the
operator has the authority to stop and
refuse to handle loads until a qualified
person has determined that safety has
been assured. Section 1926.1401 defines
‘‘qualified person’’ as a person who, by
possession of a recognized degree,
certificate, or professional standing, or
who by extensive knowledge, training
and experience, successfully
demonstrated the ability to solve/
resolve problems relating to the subject
matter, the work, or the project.
Section 1926.1418 continues the longstanding requirements under subpart N
and current consensus standards. (See
former § 1926.550(b)(2), incorporating
by reference ANSI B30.5–1968, sec. 5–
3.1.3(d).88) As discussed in the
proposed rule preamble, a capable
equipment operator is highly
knowledgeable in matters affecting
equipment safety and is well qualified
to determine whether an operation
presents a safety concern (see 73 FR
59795–59796, Oct. 9, 2008). Under the
provision, operations would be
prohibited from resuming ‘‘until a
qualified person had determined that
safety has been assured,’’ meaning that
operations could resume only after the
qualified person either: (1) assesses the
factors that led the operator to stop and
refuse to handle the load and
determines that there is not, in fact, a
safety hazard, or (2) after corrective
action has been taken, determines that
there is no longer a safety hazard.
One commenter argued that OSHA
lacks the authority to promulgate
§ 1926.1418.89 (ID–0232.1.) First, the
commenter contended that the
provision exceeds the Agency’s
standards-setting authority under sec.
3(8) of the OSH Act. Second, it
expresses concern that § 1926.1418
circumvents the limitations on OSHA’s
ability to grant employees (i.e., crane
operators) stop-work authority. In
88 Current consensus standards specify that an
operator with a safety concern must raise that
concern with a supervisor before proceeding with
a lift. See sec. 5–3.1.3(d) of ASME B30.5–2004,
‘‘Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,’’ sec. 2–3.1.7 of
ASME B30.2–2001, ‘‘Overhead and Gantry Cranes,’’
sec. 3–3.1.3(d) of ASME B30.3–1996, ‘‘Construction
Tower Cranes,’’ sec. 6–3.2.3 of ASME B30.6–2003,
‘‘Derricks,’’ and other standards in the ASME B30
series.
89 The commenter nominated a C–DAC member
who did not dissent on this section of the standard.
The commenter has not explained why it has
changed its position from the one taken by their C–
DAC member during negotiations. In light of the
unexplained inconsistency of its position, the
Agency accords diminished weight to the
commenter’s comment and is hesitant to rely on it
to undermine the product of the negotiation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

support of its position, the commenter
cited the U.S. Supreme Court opinions
in Industrial Union Dep’t, AFL–CIO v.
American Petroleum Institute 90 and
Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall 91.
OSHA disagrees with the
commenter’s contention that OSHA
lacks the authority to promulgate
§ 1926.1418. Under sec. 3(8) of the OSH
Act and applicable case law,92 the
Agency has broad authority to
promulgate standards that are
reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful places of
employment. In Whirlpool Corp., the
U.S. Supreme Court stated that the Act
‘‘does not wait for an employee to die or
become injured.’’ 93 Section 1926.1418 is
an essential mechanism for preventing
fatalities and injuries. It enables the
person who has the expertise to
recognize a safety concern and is best
positioned to act quickly to do so where
such a concern arises.94
OSHA also disagrees with the
commenter’s contention that
§ 1926.1418 impermissibly grants stopwork authority, as well as a different
commenter who asserted that the
wording of the provision is too vague
and could lead to an abuse of the
operator’s authority. Both commenters
suggested that OSHA limit the
operator’s authority to specific reasons
involving a potential violation of a
requirement in subpart CC. (ID–0218.1;
0232.1.)
The provision does not authorize an
operator to stop operations for reasons
unrelated to a good faith belief that
there may be a safety problem. In this
respect the provision is similar to other
provisions in the standard (and
elsewhere in 29 CFR part 1926) in
which an employer is required to have
a person in a specialized role perform
specific tasks involving the application
of expertise (e.g., competent and
qualified persons performing
inspections under § 1926.1412). In each
case compliance with the standard is
predicated on the good faith application
of that expertise.95
90 448

U.S. 607 (1980).
U.S. 1 (1980).
92 E.g., Indus. Union Dep’t, AFL–CIO, 448 U.S. at
611–12.
93 445 U.S. at 12.
94 As stated above, current consensus standards
manifest the industry’s recognition of the necessity
for a crane operator to have such authority. In
concert with § 1926.1400(f), § 1926.1418 requires
the employer to authorize its crane operator to halt
operations upon a safety concern until a qualified
person determines that safety has been assured.
95 Two organizations that nominated C–DAC
members reminded the Agency in their comments
that OSHA had committed during the C–DAC
negotiations to include a discussion in the preamble
regarding this principle of good faith. (ID–0205.1;
91 445

PO 00000

Frm 00091

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47995

C–DAC thoroughly discussed the
wording of this provision, mindful of
the need for both clarity and sufficient
flexibility to enable the operator to
address myriad circumstances. The
Committee’s wording strikes an
appropriate balance. The word
‘‘concern’’ refers to a good faith belief
that safety may be in jeopardy. The
word ‘‘assured’’ means that the qualified
person has assessed whatever triggered
the crane operator’s belief that there was
a concern as to safety and either: (1)
Determines that there is not, in fact, a
safety hazard, or (2) after corrective
action is taken, determines that there is
no longer a safety hazard.
OSHA disagrees with the
commenter’s suggestion to link the
authority to a violation of subpart CC.
While C–DAC and the Agency have
made every effort to address the hazards
associated with crane and derrick
operation, there may be circumstances
that present hazards that have not been
anticipated here.
In addition, a particular situation may
not be immediately recognized as falling
within one of subpart CC’s provisions.
An operator’s uncertainty in that regard
could lead him/her to hesitate to
exercise the authority even where it
needs to be applied. Also, the
determination by a qualified person to
proceed with operations needs to be
based on whether safety is assured, not
on the resolution of a debate about
whether the operator’s concern fits
within a provision of this standard.
Another commenter expressed the
following concerns: ‘‘qualified person’’
should be better defined; the qualified
person would feel undue pressure from
the controlling entity or crane employer
to find that safety had been assured, and
that the qualified person’s scope of
responsibility once operations resume is
unclear. (ID–0218.1.)
As explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the definition of
‘‘qualified person’’ in § 1926.1401
corresponds to the definition of
‘‘qualified’’ in § 1926.32(m) and reflects
the fact that the duties assigned to
‘‘qualified persons’’ here are similar to
those assigned under other construction
standards. The Committee intentionally
used the same definition to make it clear
that employers could rely on their
current understanding of ‘‘qualified
person.’’ OSHA sees no reason to deviate
from that definition where the
commenter did not explain how it
viewed the definition as vague or
provide alternative language.
–213.1.) The Agency believes that the foregoing
paragraph satisfies that agreement.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47996

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

With respect to the issue of undue
pressure on the qualified person, C–
DAC shared the commenter’s concern;
the Committee identified pressure
placed by some employers on operators
to proceed with unsafe lifts as a
significant problem in the industry. This
led C–DAC, for example, to include the
specific prohibition in § 1926.1417(o)(2)
against requiring an operator to operate
the equipment in excess of its rated
capacity (see the discussion of
§ 1926.1417(o)(2) in 73 FR 59792–
59793, Oct. 9, 2008). The commenter
did not suggest, and OSHA is not aware
of, any additional measures that could
be included in the standard to help
prevent the application of that type of
pressure.
As to the commenter’s final point,
after a crane operator stops and refuses
to proceed with operations due to a
concern as to safety, the qualified
person would then assess the situation
and determine whether or when safety
has been assured. At that point, the
qualified person’s responsibilities under
§ 1926.1418 would be completed unless
and until the crane operator identifies
another concern as to safety. The
Agency, therefore, is promulgating this
provision as proposed.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Sections 1926.1419 Through 1926.1422
Signals
Sections 1926.1419 through
1926.1422 address the circumstances
under which a signal person must be
provided, the type of signals to be used,
criteria for how signals are transmitted,
and other criteria associated with the
use of signals.
OSHA has decided to replace the term
‘‘lift supervisor’’ with the term ‘‘lift
director’’ in §§ 1926.1419(c)(2),
1926.1421(a), and 1926.1421(c). This
decision was made to be consistent with
the similar change from ‘‘A/D
supervisor’’ to ‘‘A/D director’’ in
§ 1926.1404(a). For an explanation of
the change, see the discussion of
§ 1926.1404(a).
Section 1926.1419 Signals—General
Requirements
This section sets requirements
regarding signals when using equipment
covered by this standard. C–DAC
determined that addressing these issues
is one of the means by which the
number of injuries and fatalities caused
by ‘‘struck-by’’ incidents, in which the
equipment or load strikes an employee,
can be reduced.
Paragraph (a)
Paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this
section address the circumstances that
require the use of a signal person: (1)

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

When the point of operation, meaning
the load travel path or the area near or
at load placement, is not in full view of
the operator (§ 1926.1419(a)(1)); (2)
when the equipment is traveling and the
operator’s view in the direction of travel
is obstructed (§ 1926.1419(a)(2)); and (3)
when, due to site specific safety
concerns, either the operator or the
person handling the load determines it
is necessary (§ 1926.1419(a)(3)). The
first two of these circumstances involve
an obvious hazard—limited operator
visibility. With respect to the third
circumstance, C–DAC determined that
other situations arise that, from a safety
standpoint, necessitate the use of a
signal person (see examples in the
preamble to the proposed rule at 73 FR
59796, Oct. 9, 2008).
One commenter, representing the
interests of the material delivery
industry, suggested that § 1926.1419(a)
be changed to specify that, if a signal
person is needed at the site due to the
obstructed view of the operator when
delivering building materials, then the
construction site customer (not the
material delivery employer) would be
responsible for providing the signal
person. (ID–0184.1.) OSHA concludes
that the question of whether the
material delivery employer or the
construction site customer should bear
the cost of providing the signal person
when required is an economic issue that
is most appropriately left to the parties
to resolve.
During the public hearing, a labor
representative stated that his
organization believes that a signal
person is always necessary when
working with cranes. (ID–0343.) Two
commenters representing the materials
delivery industry disagreed (ID–0184.1;
–0218.1.)
OSHA has decided to defer to the
expertise of the Committee, which
found that a signal person should only
be required in the three circumstances
listed in § 1926.1419(a). Moreover,
OSHA notes the requirement in
§ 1926.1419(a)(3), which provides that a
signal person must be provided if the
crane operator or person handling the
load determines a signal person is
necessary due to site specific safety
concerns. This provision, in particular,
ensures that a signal person will be
required when necessary.
One commenter asked for clarification
on the meaning of ‘‘full view of the
operator’’ in § 1926.1419(a)(1). (ID–
292.1.) In particular, the commenter
asked whether mirror or camera systems
would meet this requirement. Another
commenter suggested adding language
allowing the use of boom mounted

PO 00000

Frm 00092

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

video cameras for blind lifts. (ID–
0120.0.)
A live video system that provides a
full view to the crane operator—i.e.,
provides a sufficiently broad, clear and
detailed view to enable the operator to
see all that is needed to operate the
equipment safely—would meet the ‘‘full
view of the operator’’ requirement.
Mirrors, on the other hand, typically
distort images or distances and thus
would not normally be sufficient to
provide a ‘‘full view.’’
The sufficiency of any system will
depend on the particular needs posed
by each situation. For this reason,
OSHA has decided to rely on C–DAC’s
clear and succinct phrase, ‘‘full view of
the operator,’’ rather than to attempt to
further define that concept or to list
acceptable devices in the regulatory
text.
Paragraph (b) Types of Signals
As explained in the proposed rule
preamble, under paragraph (b) of this
section, signals to crane operators
would have to be by hand, voice,
audible, or ‘‘new’’ signals (see 73 FR
59796–59797, Oct. 9, 2008). As used in
this standard, these terms refer to the
type of signal, not the means by which
the signal is transmitted. For example,
signaling by voice refers to oral
communication, not whether the oral
communication is done with or without
amplification or with or without
electronic transmission. The manner of
transmission of the signal is addressed
separately. No comments were received
on this paragraph; it is promulgated as
proposed.
The criteria for the use of these signal
types are set out in §§ 1926.1419(c)–(m)
(additional voice signal requirements
are in § 1926.1421, Signals—voice
signals—additional requirements). The
Committee’s intent was to reduce the
potential for miscommunication, which
can lead to injuries and fatalities,
particularly from ‘‘struck-by’’ and
‘‘crushed-by’’ incidents. In setting
parameters for the use of the various
types of existing signal methods, and for
signal methods that may be developed
in the future, the Committee sought to
promote a degree of standardization
while still allowing appropriate
flexibility. In addition, the provisions
are designed to ensure that the selection
of signal type and means of sending the
signals are appropriate under the
circumstances and reliable.
Paragraph (c) Hand Signals
Paragraph (c) of this section addresses
the use of hand signals. The industry
has long recognized the need for
consistent, universal hand signals to

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
minimize the potential for
miscommunication between signal
persons and operators. ANSI B30.5–
1968, ‘‘Crawler, Locomotive and Truck
Cranes,’’ contains illustrations of hand
signals that are the same as the current
2004 edition of ASME B30.5 and that
are consistent with hand signals for
other types of cranes in ASME B30
standards. The same hand signals have
been expressed in similar charts
published by a variety of other groups.
(See, e.g., Construction Safety
Association of Ontario, MIOSHA,
MSHA.)
Because of the industry’s long
familiarity with these standard hand
signals, C–DAC determined that, when
using hand signals, the standardized
version of the signals should continue to
be required. These signals, which are
located in Appendix A, are referred to
as the ‘‘Standard Method,’’ and this term
is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘the
protocol in Appendix A for hand
signals.’’ However, the Committee
recognized that there are instances
when use of the Standard Method is
either infeasible or where there is no
Standard Method signal applicable to
the work being done.
In such instances, under this
paragraph, non-standard signals may be
used. To avoid confusion when nonstandard signals are used, proposed
§ 1926.1419(c)(2) requires that the signal
person, crane operator, and lift director
(where there is one) meet prior to the
operation to agree upon the signals that
will be used.
At the public hearing, one witness
commented that the use of non-standard
hand signals should not be allowed
because it would unnecessarily confuse
contractors and utility workers, and
because standard signals are already
used in the industry. (ID–345.17.) OSHA
defers to the expertise of the Committee,
which found that a non-standard signal
may be needed on occasion (see 73 FR
59797, Oct. 9, 2008, in which the
Agency described examples of such
situations). Additionally, it should be
noted that § 1926.1419(c) requires the
use of Standard Method hand signals
and permits an exception only where
the Standard Method signals are
infeasible or where there is no Standard
Method signal for the particular
attachment.
One commenter pointed out that there
are currently no hand signals specific to
articulating cranes and asked which
signals OSHA intended to be used with
articulating cranes. (ID–0206.1.) The
record contains no information on the
extent to which hand signals for
articulating cranes may differ from those
used for other cranes. If the use of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Standard Method hand signals is either
infeasible for articulating cranes, or if
the use or operation of an attachment is
not covered by the Standard Method,
then the exception in § 1926.1419(c)(1)
and the requirements for non-standard
hand signals in § 1926.1419(c)(2) would
apply.
OSHA is only making two changes,
neither of which is substantive, from
§ 1926.1419(c) as proposed. The first is
a grammatical correction, and the
second merely removes the superfluous
direction that ‘‘[t]he following
requirements apply to the use of nonstandard hand signals,’’ which is already
clear from the text of § 1926.1419(c)(2).
Paragraph (d) New Signals
Paragraph (d) of this section allows
signals other than hand, voice, or
audible signals to be used if certain
criteria are met. As explained in the
discussion of § 1926.1419(b) in the
preamble to the proposed rule, C–DAC
included § 1926.1419(d) to allow for the
development of new signals in the
future (see 73 FR 59796–59797, Oct. 9,
2008). To ensure that any new signals
developed by a particular employer are
as effective as hand, voice, or audible
signals, §§ 1926.1419(d)(1) and (d)(2)
require the employer to demonstrate
that the new signals are as effective as
existing signals for communicating.
Alternatively, an employer may use
signals that comply with a national
consensus standard.96 OSHA decided to
change the language of paragraph (d)(2)
to clarify that an employer’s signals
must comply with the national
consensus standard signals. C–DAC
determined it was appropriate to allow
reliance on signals in a national
consensus standard because their
inclusion in such a standard shows a
high degree of standardization and
widespread acceptance by persons who
are affected by the signals, thereby
ensuring that the signals can be used
safely to control equipment operations
and preventing the ‘‘on the fly’’
development of signals cited as
dangerous by the commenter. (ID–
0110.1.)
Paragraph (e) Suitability
Under paragraph (e) of this section,
the type of signal (hand, voice, audible,
or new) and the transmission method
used must be suitable for the site
conditions. For example, hand signals
would not be suitable if site conditions
do not allow for the signal person to be
96 The C–DAC draft refers to an ‘‘industry
consensus standard.’’ OSHA has changed this to
‘‘national consensus standard’’ to conform to the
terminology used in the OSH Act. See definition in
section 3(9) of the Act.

PO 00000

Frm 00093

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47997

within the operator’s line of sight. Radio
signals would not be suitable if
electronic interference on the site
prohibits the signals from being readily
understood.
One commenter requested that the
determination of which type and means
of signaling is appropriate for the site
conditions be made by the crane
operator or other qualified person. (ID–
0172.1.)
The Agency concludes that this is a
straight-forward determination that does
not require the specialized expertise of
a qualified person. Also, the crane
operator will typically be involved in
this determination, since there are
several requirements relating to effective
communication that, as a practical
matter, will typically involve input from
the operator (see, for example,
§§ 1926.1419(f), 1926.1420(a), and
1926.1421(c)).
Paragraph (f)
Paragraph (f) of this section requires
the ability to transmit signals between
the operator and signal person to be
maintained. If that ability is interrupted,
the operator is required to safely stop
operations until signal transmission is
reestablished and a proper signal is
given and understood. No comments
were received on this provision; it is
included in the final rule without
change.
Paragraph (g)
As explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule, paragraph (g) of this
section requires the operator to stop
operations if the operator becomes
aware of a safety problem and needs to
communicate with the signal person
(see 73 FR 59797, Oct. 9, 2008).
Operations may only be resumed after
the operator and signal person agree that
the problem has been resolved.
No comments were received on this
provision; it is included in the final rule
without change.
Paragraphs (h) and (j)
Paragraph (h) of this section requires
that only one person at a time signal the
operator. As explained in the preamble
to the proposed rule, C–DAC
determined this provision was needed
to prevent confusion with respect to
which signals the operator is supposed
to follow (see 73 FR 59797, Oct. 9,
2008). An exception is provided in
§ 1926.1419(j) to address situations
when somebody becomes aware of a
safety problem and gives an emergency
stop signal. Under § 1926.1417(y), the
operator is required to obey such a
signal. No comments were received on
either of these provisions; they are

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

47998

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

included in the final rule without
substantive change. OSHA has modified
paragraph (h) to clarify that it is a
requirement.
Paragraph (i)

[Reserved.]

Paragraph (k)
As explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule, paragraph (k) of this
section requires that all directions given
to the operator by the signal person be
given from the operator’s direction
perspective, meaning that the signal
person must provide the signals as if he
or she was sitting in the operator’s seat
and facing the same direction as the
operator (see 73 FR 59797, Oct. 9, 2008).
In the Committee’s experience, the
operator will tend to react to a
directional signal, such as ‘‘forward,’’ by
acting on the signal from the operator’s
perspective. This provision ensures that
the signal that is given will be
consistent with that natural tendency.
No comments were received on this
provision; it is included in the final rule
without change.
Paragraph (l)

[Reserved.]

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (m) Communication With
Multiple Cranes/Derricks
Paragraph (m) of this section
addresses a situation where one or more
signal person(s) is in communication
with more than one crane or derrick (for
example, during multiple crane lifts). It
requires each signal person to use an
effective means of identifying which
crane or derrick the signal is for.
Sections 1926.1419(m)(i) and (ii) set out
alternate means of complying with this
requirement. Under § 1926.1419(m)(i),
for each signal the signal person must,
prior to giving the function/direction,
identify the crane/derrick for which the
signal is intended. Alternatively, under
§ 1926.1419(m)(ii), the employer could
implement a method of identifying the
crane/derrick for which the signal is
intended that is as effective as the
system in § 1926.1419(m)(i). For
example, under § 1926.1419(m)(ii), the
signal person could simultaneously
identify the crane and provide the
signal. Because of the potential for
confusion, it is essential that an
alternative system under
§ 1926.1419(m)(ii) be equally effective
as § 1926.1419(m)(i) in clearly
conveying, on a consistent basis, the
crane/derrick to which each signal is
directed. No comments were received
on this provision; it is included in the
final rule without substantive change.
The wording of the paragraph has been
modified with several minor
grammatical changes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Section 1926.1420 Signals—Radio,
Telephone, or Other Electronic
Transmission of Signals
C–DAC concluded that certain criteria
are needed to ensure the reliability and
clarity of electronically transmitted
signals; these criteria are listed in
§§ 1926.1420(a) through (c). Paragraph
(a) of this section requires the testing of
the transmission devices prior to the
start of operations to make certain that
the signals are clear and that the devices
are reliable. This helps ensure that the
operator receives, and can understand,
the signals that are given, and will
prevent accidents caused by
miscommunication.
One commenter, remarking that a
second or two of delay may still pose a
significant safety hazard, suggested that
§ 1926.1420(b) be amended to read,
‘‘Signal transmission must be through a
dedicated channel without noticeable
delay * * *.’’ (ID–0172.1.)
OSHA agrees that a noticeable delay
in transmission of an electronic signal
could pose a significant hazard and has
decided to address this concern by
adding the requirement that signal
transmission be ‘‘effective.’’ To be
effective, a transmitted signal must
produce or be capable of producing the
intended result. In other words, a signal
must be transmitted and understood by
the crane operator in such a way and
within such a time as would allow the
operator to respond to the signal and
operate the crane in a safe manner.
Paragraph (b) of this section requires
that signals be transmitted through a
dedicated channel. As defined in
§ 1926.1401, a ‘‘dedicated channel’’ is ‘‘a
line of communication assigned by the
employer who controls the
communication system to only one
signal person and crane/derrick or to a
coordinated group of cranes/derricks/
signal person(s).’’ Use of a dedicated
channel ensures that the operator and
signal person are not interrupted by
users performing other tasks or confused
or distracted by instructions not
intended for them.
An exception to § 1926.1419(b) allows
more than one signal person and more
than one crane/derrick operator to share
a dedicated channel in multiple crane/
derrick situations for coordinating
operations. The Committee determined,
and OSHA agrees, that this exception is
needed because, in those situations, it
may be advantageous to share a single
dedicated channel. For example, in
some situations several cranes may be
operating in an area in which their
booms, loads or load lines could come
in contact with each other. In such cases
it is crucial that the movements of each

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

crane be properly coordinated. By
sharing a single channel, each operator
can hear what each crane is being asked
to do, which can facilitate that
coordination.
Several commenters representing the
railroad industry raised concerns about
the dedicated channel requirement as it
relates to the use of cranes on or
adjacent to railroad tracks. (ID–0170.1;
–0176.1; –0291.1.) These commenters
pointed out that the actions of crane
operators often have to be coordinated
with other moving equipment (e.g.
trains) and that the use of a dedicated
channel in these circumstances would
actually be more dangerous.
The commenters’ points in this regard
are persuasive; OSHA has accordingly
added § 1926.1420(b)(2). This allows an
exception to the use of a dedicated
channel when a crane is being operated
on or near railroad tracks and the crane
operator must coordinate with the
movement of other equipment on or
near the railroad tracks.
Paragraph (c) of this section requires
that the operator’s reception be by a
hands-free system. In other words, the
operator must not have to depress a
button, manipulate a switch, or take any
action for the incoming signal to be
received. C–DAC determined that this
provision is needed because the
operator must have both hands free to
manipulate the equipment’s controls.
No comments were received on this
provision; it is included in the final rule
without change.
Section 1926.1421 Signals—Voice
Signals—Additional Requirements
C–DAC considered whether the rule
should include a standardized set of
voice signals. Unlike hand signals,
which have become standardized to a
large extent within the industry, in the
Committee members’ experience there is
significant variation in the phrases used
to convey the same instructions.
Consequently, C–DAC was concerned
that words or phrases that it might have
chosen to be ‘‘standard’’ voice signals
could be unfamiliar to many employees
in the industry or contrary to common
usage in some parts of the country. In
light of this, the Committee determined
that it would be better to use a different
approach to address the problem of
miscommunication when using voice
signals. This approach, which
establishes criteria for whatever voice
signals are used, is set out in
§§ 1926.1421(a)–(c).
Under paragraph (a) of this section,
prior to beginning operations, the
personnel involved with signals—the
crane operator, signal person and lift
director (if there is one)—are required to

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
meet and agree on the voice signals that
will be used. Because of the lack of
standardization and the variety of
languages that are in use in the
construction industry, the Committee
concluded that it is essential that the
persons who give and/or receive voice
signals agree in advance on the signals
that will be used to avoid
miscommunication. OSHA agrees. Once
the parties have met and agreed on the
voice signals, another meeting is not
required to discuss them unless another
worker is added or substituted, there is
some confusion about the signals, or a
signal needs to be changed.
Section 1926.1421(b) requires that
each voice signal contain the following
three elements, given in the following
order: function (such as hoist, boom,
etc.), direction; distance and/or speed;
function, stop command. For example:
hoist up; 10 feet; hoist stop. As
discussed above, the Committee
considered it impractical to attempt to
standardize the voice signals themselves
(that is, to require the use of particular
words to represent particular functions,
directions or other instructions).
However, the Committee concluded that
the chance of miscommunication could
nonetheless be reduced if certain
parameters were established for the type
of information and order of information
that would be given. OSHA agrees.
Section 1926.1421(c) requires the
crane operator, signal person, and lift
director (if there is one) to be able to
effectively communicate in the language
used. Voice signals will not serve their
intended purpose if they cannot be
understood, or can be misinterpreted.
The inability of these workers to
understand each other could lead to
accidents that occur when, for example,
the crane operator moves a load in a
different direction than the signal
person intends.
One commenter suggested that
uniform verbal signals were necessary to
limit the likelihood of
miscommunications resulting from
language barriers. (ID–0379.1.) Three
commenters suggested that OSHA
establish uniform verbal signals
enhanced by diagrams and pictures.
(ID–0110.1; –0115.1; –0178.1.) Two of
these commenters suggested that OSHA
require these verbal signal charts to be
conspicuously posted in the vicinity of
the hoisting operations. (ID–0110.1;
–0115.1.)
As discussed above, C–DAC
considered whether the rule should
include a standardized set of voice
signals and decided that it would not be
practical to do so. It did, however,
address the potential for
miscommunication by developing the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

requirements in § 1926.1421(a)
(requiring a meeting between the
operator, signal person and lift director
to determine which verbal signals will
be used). Having received no evidence
to the contrary, OSHA has decided to
defer to the expertise of the Committee,
and is promulgating this requirement
without substantive change. The word
‘‘shall’’ is replaced with ‘‘must’’ in
paragraphs (b) and (c) to remove any
doubt that the sentences are imperative
commands, rather than descriptive.
Section 1926.1422 Signals—Hand
Signal Chart
Section 1926.1422 requires that hand
signal charts be posted on the
equipment or readily available at the
site. OSHA is requiring the charts to be
posted to serve as a reference for
operators and signal persons of the
mandatory hand signals and thereby
help avoid miscommunication.
Three commenters suggested that
§ 1926.1422 be rewritten to require that
the hand signal charts be
‘‘conspicuously posted in the vicinity
of’’ the hoisting operations, rather than
merely making them ‘‘readily available
at the site’’ as proposed. (ID–0110.1;
–0115.1; –0178.1.)
Upon further reflection, the Agency
acknowledges that the original language
(that the hand signal chart could be
‘‘readily available at the site’’) did not
afford the same amount of protection
afforded by ‘‘conspicuously posted in
the vicinity of the hoisting operations.’’
For example, a hand signal chart stored
in a shop trailer on the other side of the
site or obscured from sight by other
objects might be ‘‘readily available at the
site,’’ but it would do little to ensure that
the chart would be accessed by
employees where it is needed. It is the
Agency’s intent that employees be able
to access the chart quickly. OSHA
therefore decided to modify the
language of § 1926.1422 to require that
signal charts be conspicuously posted in
the vicinity of hoisting operations, or on
the equipment.
Section 1926.1423 Fall Protection
This section contains provisions
designed to protect workers on
equipment covered by this subpart from
fall hazards. (See § 1926.1431, Hoisting
Personnel, for fall protection provisions
that apply when equipment is used to
hoist personnel).
Falls have traditionally been the
leading cause of deaths among
construction workers. BLS data for 2004
and 2005, the latest years for which
complete figures are available, shows
445 fatalities from falls in 2004 (ID–
0023) and 394 in 2005 (ID–0024). In

PO 00000

Frm 00095

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

47999

2004, 20 fatalities resulted from falls
from nonmoving vehicles and in 2005,
such falls caused 18 deaths. A recent
study of crane-related fatalities in the
U.S. construction industry found that
2% resulted from falls. J.E. Beavers, J.R.
Moore, R. Rinehart, and W.R. Schriver,
‘‘Crane-Related Fatalities in the
Construction Industry,’’ 132 Journal of
Construction Engineering and
Management 901 (Sept. 2006). (ID–
0012.) Falls from cranes, particularly
when the operator is entering or leaving
the crane, also cause numerous nonfatal injuries to construction workers.
(OSHA–S030–2006–0663–0422.)
As discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the Committee
determined that safety would be
enhanced by addressing the problem of
fall hazards associated with cranes and
derricks comprehensively and that
putting all such requirements in subpart
CC would make it easier for employers
to readily determine the applicable fall
protection requirements (see 73 FR
59799, Oct. 9, 2008). Accordingly, under
the final rule, subpart M does not apply
to equipment covered by subpart CC
except where § 1926.1423 incorporates
requirements of subpart M by reference.
In this regard, the Agency has
amended subpart M at
§ 1926.500(a)(2)(ii) to make clear that
subpart CC specifies the circumstances
in which fall protection must be
provided to workers on equipment
covered by subpart CC. The Agency has
also amended § 1926.500(a)(3) to state
that the criteria for fall protection
systems required under subpart CC are
as set forth in § 1926.1423 of subpart
CC. In addition, § 1926.500(a)(4) has
been amended to specify that the
training requirements in § 1926.503 do
not apply to the use of equipment
covered by subpart CC. These
amendments to § 1926.500 are discussed
in the explanation of amendments to
subpart M.
Definition of ‘‘Fall Protection
Equipment’’
‘‘Fall protection equipment’’ is defined
in § 1926.1401, and is limited to
guardrail systems, safety net systems,
personal fall arrest systems, positioning
device systems, and fall restraint
systems. One commenter stated that this
definition should be changed to that
found in ANSI/ASSE Z359.0—2007,
Definitions and Nomenclature used for
Fall Protection and Fall Arrest, which
defines ‘‘fall protection’’ more broadly to
include any equipment, device, or
system that either prevents a fall or
mitigates the effect of a fall. (ID–0178.1.)
However, as OSHA explained in the
proposed rule, the proposed definition

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48000

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

was chosen to use the same terminology
found in other OSHA standards to
ensure that employers would be familiar
with the terminology (see 73 FR 59799,
Oct. 9, 2008). Moreover, OSHA notes
that sec. 1.3.1 of ANSI/ASSE Z359.0—
2007 provides that the scope of that
standard does not include the
construction industry. Accordingly,
OSHA is retaining the proposed
definition in the final rule.
Definition of ‘‘Positioning Device
System’’
A trade association objected to the
lack of definitions for ‘‘fall arrest’’ or
‘‘positioning systems.’’ (ID–0178.1.)
OSHA notes that proposed § 1926.1401
did contain a definition for ‘‘personal
fall arrest system,’’ and that definition is
included in the final rule. OSHA agrees
that a definition of ‘‘positioning device
system’’ is needed and is adding a
definition to § 1926.1401 in the final
rule that is the same as the definition
found in subpart M.
Paragraph (a) Application
Section 1926.1423(a) specifies which
provisions in this section apply to all
equipment, including tower cranes
(§§ 1926.1423(c)(1), (c)(2), (d), (g), (j)
and (k)); which provisions apply to all
equipment except tower cranes
(§§ 1926.1423(b), (c) (3), (e) and (f)); and
which provisions apply only to tower
cranes (§§ 1926.1423(c)(4) and (h)).

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (b) Boom Walkways
For the reasons explained in the
preamble to the proposed rule,
§ 1926.1423(b) addresses the hazard of
falls from lattice booms by establishing
when walkways must be incorporated
into lattice booms, and the criteria for
such walkways (see 73 FR 59799–59800,
Oct. 9, 2008). No comments were
received on this paragraph; it is
included in the final rule without
change.
Paragraph (c) Steps, Handholds,
Ladders, Grabrails, Guardrails and
Railings
Section 1926.1423(c) in the final rule
specifies criteria for the use and
maintenance of steps, handholds,
ladders, grabrails, guardrails and
railings. The Agency notes that
proposed paragraph (c) inadvertently
omitted ‘‘ladders’’ from the list of
devices in the paragraph’s heading.
Accordingly, OSHA has revised final
paragraph (c) to include the word
ladders.
Section 1926.502(b) generally
provides criteria for guardrail systems,
with some exceptions (see discussion of
amendments to § 1926.500). C–DAC

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

concluded, however, that specific
criteria for steps, handholds, ladders,
grabrails, guardrails and railings were
necessary to address the design
characteristics of equipment covered by
subpart CC and the particular fall
hazards associated with the use of such
equipment.
OSHA agrees, and is therefore adding
§ 1926.1423(c)(1), which states that
§ 1926.502(b) (guardrail systems) must
not apply to equipment covered by
subpart CC, to the final rule. It makes
clear that the guardrail criteria
requirements in § 1926.502(b) for those
items do not apply to equipment
covered by subpart CC. Instead,
§§ 1926.1423(c)(2), (3), and (4),
discussed below, provide the applicable
criteria for such equipment. Because of
the addition of paragraph (c)(1), which
was not in the proposed rule,
paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (4) have been
renumbered from the proposal, where
they were paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3).
Paragraph (c)(2) of this section
requires that the employer maintain in
good condition originally-equipped
steps, handholds, ladders and
guardrails/railings/grabrails.97 The
failure to properly maintain such
devices could pose dangers to the
workers who use them. For example, a
grabrail would not be maintained in
good condition if it has become
weakened from rust. A weakened
guardrail could fail when an employee
uses it, which could cause the employee
to fall. Likewise, a railing would not be
maintained in good condition if all or
part of the railing is missing. A
manufacturer that integrated a railing
into its boom design may have relied on
the presence of the railing and provided
a walking surface that would otherwise
be too narrow to be safe.
Paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this
section require that equipment
manufactured more than one year after
the effective date of this standard be
equipped to provide safe access and
egress on equipment covered by this
subpart by the provision of devices such
as steps, handholds, ladders, and
guardrails/railings/grabrails. Tower
cranes must be equipped to provide safe
access and egress between the ground
and the cab, machinery platforms, and
tower (mast) (see below discussion of
paragraph (c)(4)). All other equipment
covered by this subpart must be
equipped to provide safe access and
egress between the ground and the
operator work station(s), including the
97 OSHA has changed the location of the words
‘‘in good condition’’ in § 1926.1423(b) to make it
clear that it applies to maintenance of all of the
listed items.

PO 00000

Frm 00096

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

forward and rear operator positions. As
discussed below, §§ 1926.1423(c)(3)(i)
and 1926.1423(c)(4)(i) require the steps,
handholds, ladders and guardrails/
railings/grabrails used to comply with
this section to meet updated design
criteria.
Prior to this final rule, former
§ 1926.550(a)(13)(i) in subpart N
required that guardrails, handholds, and
steps be provided on cranes for easy
access to the car and cab and specified
that these devices conform to ANSI
B30.5. The 1968 version of ANSI B30.5,
which was in effect at the time subpart
N was issued, specifies that the
construction of these devices must
conform to the 1946 U.S. Safety
Appliance Standard. C–DAC recognized
that many pieces of equipment now in
use would have been manufactured
with handholds and steps but was
concerned that the handholds and steps
may have been designed to meet
outdated criteria.
The Committee determined, and
OSHA agrees, that it would be unduly
burdensome to require all equipment to
be retrofitted with new steps,
handholds, and railings simply because
the existing design may vary from what
is required under the final rule.
Accordingly, § 1926.1423(c)(3) only
applies to equipment manufactured
more than one year after the effective
date of this standard. This gives
equipment manufacturers adequate time
to incorporate the requirements of
§ 1926.1423(c)(3)(i) into their new
products.98
Paragraph (c)(3)(i) requires that steps,
handholds, ladders and guardrails/
railings/grabrails meet the criteria of
SAE J185 (May 2003) or ISO 11660–
2:1994(E). As explained above in the
discussion of amendments to subpart X,
OSHA amended subpart X to clarify that
subpart X does not apply to integral
components of equipment covered by
subpart CC. The specifications in SAE
J185 (May 2003) are referenced in other
industry consensus standards, such as
ASME B30.5–2004, ‘‘Mobile and
Locomotive Cranes’’ and ASME B30.3–
2004, ‘‘Construction Tower Cranes,’’ and
crane manufacturers are familiar with
those requirements. Section
1926.1423(c)(3)(i) alternatively allows
compliance with ISO 11660–2 because
those provisions are sufficiently
protective and employers also use
equipment built by foreign
manufacturers who have been following
that standard.
98 OSHA had added the word ‘‘devices’’ in the last
sentence of paragraph (c)(3) for grammatical clarity.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
OSHA notes that proposed
§ 1926.1423(c)(2)(i) 99 inadvertently
omitted handholds from the listed
devices that must meet the criteria of
SAE J185 (May 2003) or ISO 11660–
2:1994(E). Accordingly, OSHA has
added handholds to the final rule in
§ 1926.1423(c)(3)(i). Additionally,
OSHA has replaced the word
‘‘requirements’’ in proposed
§ 1926.1423(c)(2)(i) with ‘‘criteria’’ in the
final § 1926.1423(c)(3)(i). The Agency
determines this change clarifies that the
listed devices must comply with the
design criteria contained in the
referenced standards and that, for the
purposes of § 1926.1423(c)(3)(i), other
provisions in the referenced standards
do not apply. To illustrate, both SAE
J185 (May 2003) and ISO 11660–
2:1994(E) contain provisions relating to
the scope of those standards. However,
§ 1926.1400 sets forth the scope of
equipment covered by subpart CC (see
discussion above of § 1926.1400, Scope).
Consequently, § 1926.1423(c)(3)(i)
requires that steps, handholds, ladders,
and guardrails/railings/grabrails on
equipment covered by subpart CC (other
than tower cranes) meet the criteria for
such devices in SAE J185 (May 2003) or
ISO 11660–2:1994(E), irrespective of the
scope provisions in those consensus
standards.
Paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section
requires that walking/stepping surfaces,
except for crawler treads, have slipresistant features/properties (such as
diamond plate metal, strategically
placed grip tape, expanded metal, or
slip-resistant paint). Former
§ 1926.550(a)(13)(iii) of subpart N
required platforms and walkways to
have anti-skid surfaces. C–DAC
recommended that OSHA retain this
requirement as a complement to the use
of guardrails, handholds, grabrails,
ladders and other engineered safety
features that are required by new
§ 1926.1423. OSHA concludes that
compliance with this provision will
minimize the number of slips and falls
for employees who must travel point to
point to access the operator
workstations on equipment covered by
this section.
Paragraph (c)(4) of this section applies
to fall protection on tower cranes. For
the same reasons explained above with
respect to § 1926.1423(c)(3),
§ 1926.1423(c)(4) likewise only applies
to tower cranes manufactured more than
one year after the effective date of this
standard. Such equipment must be
equipped so as to provide safe access
and egress between the ground and the
99 Proposed § 1926.1423(c)(2)(i) corresponds with
§ 1926.1423(c)(3)(i) in the final rule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

cab, machinery platforms, and tower
(mast), by the provision of devices such
as steps, handholds, ladders, and
guardrails/railings/grabrails. In the
preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA
stated the Agency’s intent to include a
requirement to provide safe access and
egress on tower cranes, similar to the
requirement in final paragraph (c)(3) to
provide safe access and egress on other
equipment covered by subpart CC, and
requested public comment on the issue
(73 FR 59800, Oct. 9, 2008).
Three commenters responded, all
stating that the final rule should include
the requirement to provide safe access
and egress on tower cranes. (ID–0182.1;
–0205.1; –0213.1.) Accordingly, OSHA
has added paragraph (c)(4) to the final
rule.
Paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section
requires steps, handholds, ladders, and
guardrails/railings/grabrails on these
tower cranes to meet the criteria of ISO
11660–1:2008(E) and ISO 11660–
3:2008(E), or SAE J185 (May 2003),
except where infeasible. For the same
reasoning discussed above with respect
to § 1926.1423(c)(3)(i), paragraph
(c)(4)(i) allows employers to use
equipment designed to the
specifications of SAE J185 (May 2003)
or, alternatively, ISO 11660–1:2008(E)
and ISO 11660–3:2008(E).
The Agency notes that ISO 11660–
1:2008(E) provides criteria applicable to
cranes in general while ISO 11660–
3:2008(E) provides criteria particular to
tower cranes. The Agency reads the
particular criteria in ISO 11660–
3:2008(E) as supplementing the general
criteria in ISO 11660–1:2008(E).100
Therefore, paragraph (c)(4)(i) would
only be satisfied under this alternative
if the steps, handholds, ladders and
guardrails/railings/grabrails on the
tower crane meet the criteria in both
ISO 11660–1:2008(E) and ISO 11660–
3:2008(E).
Paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section
requires walking/stepping surfaces on
tower cranes to have slip-resistant
features/properties, such as diamond
plate metal, strategically placed grip
tape, expanded metal, or slip-resistant
paint. Similar to paragraph (c)(3)(ii) (see
above discussion of paragraph (c)(3)(ii)),
paragraph (c)(4)(ii) carries forward the
anti-skid protections from former
§ 1926.550(a)(13)(iii).
100 The Agency notes that the approach for the
2008 editions of ISO 11660–1 and ISO 11660–3
appears to differ from that of the ISO 11660–
2:1994(E). The Agency interprets ISO 11660–
2:1994(E) as addressing steps, handholds, ladders
and guardrails/railings/grabrails independent of
ISO 11660–1:2008(E).

PO 00000

Frm 00097

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48001

Paragraph (d) Personal Fall Arrest and
Fall Restraint Systems
Paragraph (d) of this section addresses
personal fall arrest systems and fall
restraint systems used to satisfy the
requirements under subpart CC to
provide fall protection.
Paragraph (d) was not in the proposed
rule but has been added to the final rule
to make clear that certain appropriate
requirements of subpart M apply to
subpart CC. Paragraph (d) requires the
use of personal fall arrest system
components in personal fall arrest and
fall restraint systems required by
subpart CC. These systems must
conform to all of the criteria in
§ 1926.502 of subpart M, except
§ 1926.502(d)(15). Section
1926.502(d)(15) provides general criteria
for anchorages for personal fall arrest
systems, but OSHA is choosing to apply
the anchorage criteria in
§ 1926.1423(g)(3) rather than the criteria
in § 1925.502(d)(15). This approach is
consistent with the approach to
requirements for personal fall arrest and
fall restraint systems provided in
§ 1926.760(d)(2) of subpart R, except for
the exclusion of § 1926.502(d)(15).
Paragraph (e) Fall Protection
Requirements for Non-Assembly/
Disassembly Work
Paragraph (e) of this section addresses
fall protection requirements for
employees engaged in work other than
assembly/disassembly work (‘‘non-A/D’’
work). For such work, in certain
circumstances, employers are required
to provide and ensure the use of fall
protection equipment for employees
who are on a walking/working surface
with an unprotected side or edge more
than 6 feet above a lower level.
C–DAC discussed different trigger
heights for fall protection requirements
for particular types of cranes and
derricks. Ultimately, C–DAC concluded
that the requirements for fall protection
should remain consistent with 29 CFR
part 1926 subpart M, which generally
requires fall protection at heights at and
above 6 feet, as much as possible. (As
discussed below, for assembly/
disassembly (A/D) work, the Committee
recommended fall protection beginning
at 15 feet.) C–DAC also determined that
operators do not need to be tied off
while moving to and from their cabs,
and paragraph (e)(1) of this section,
discussed below, therefore requires fall
protection equipment only when
employees are moving point-to-point on
booms or while at a work station (with
certain exceptions). The Committee
determined that the steps, handholds,
and railings required under

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48002

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

§ 1926.1423(c) protect operators moving
to and from their workstations and
eliminate the need for additional fall
protection equipment.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (e)(1) Non-Assembly/
Disassembly: Moving Point to Point
Paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section
requires employers to provide and
ensure the use of fall protection
equipment at 6 feet and above when an
employee is moving point to point on
non-lattice booms (whether horizontal
or not horizontal). Moving point to
point is defined in § 1926.1401 and
refers to when an employee is going to
or coming from a work station.
C–DAC determined that non-lattice
booms generally present more hazards
to workers who must walk them to
reach other work areas, devices, and
equipment attached to it than lattice
booms. Non-lattice booms are typically
of the extensible type. As a result, as
members noted, the walking/working
surfaces on these types of booms are
often oily (from the hydraulic
mechanisms). Also, since the boom
sections extend and retract, it is
typically infeasible to provide boom
walkways and other safety features.
Because they tend to be slippery from
oil, the Committee concluded that they
are especially hazardous to move across
even when horizontal. Therefore, where
an employee is required to move point
to point on a non-lattice boom, the
Agency decided to remain consistent
with the requirements in 29 CFR part
1926 subpart M to require fall protection
at heights at or above 6 feet and the final
rule requires fall protection when the
fall distance is greater than 6 feet.
Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) applies the same
fall protection requirements to point to
point movement on lattice booms that
are not in a horizontal position. The
Committee found that in non-A/D work,
an employee may, for example, need to
move point-to-point on a lattice boom to
inspect a part that is suspected to need
repair, or to make a repair (such as
replacing a broken or missing cotter
pin). In many of these situations, the
boom will not be horizontal, since space
limitations often make it difficult to
lower the boom to do this work.
The Committee determined that it is
both necessary and feasible for fall
protection to be used in such instances.
Typically, the fall protection that would
be used would consist of a doublelanyard or similar personal fall arrest
system. Since the boom in these
instances would be elevated, there
would usually be a point on the boom
above the level of the employee’s feet to
which the lanyard could be attached.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

In contrast, it is uncommon for an
employee to need to move point-topoint on a horizontal lattice boom for
non-A/D work. If work does need to be
done, such as making an inspection or
repair as discussed above, the employee
would usually get access to their work
station with a ladder. In those instances
when the employee must traverse the
boom itself, the Committee concluded
that it would be inappropriate to require
fall protection for the reasons discussed
below.
The key difficulty in providing fall
protection in such instances stems from
the lack of a tie-off point above the level
of the employee’s feet. The Committee
discussed that most lattice booms when
horizontal would be less than 15 feet
above the next lower level. At heights
below 15 feet, a personal fall arrest
system tied off at the level of the
employee’s feet, with a lanyard long
enough to afford the employee the range
of movement necessary for this work,
might not prevent the employee from
falling to the next lower level.
In construction work the problem of
providing personal fall protection in
this height range, when there is no
higher tie-off point, is usually solved in
one of three ways (apart from the use of
ladders, scaffolds, aerial lifts, and
similar devices). One way is to use a
restraint system, which is anchored at a
point that prevents the employee from
moving past an edge. The Committee
discussed that this type of system could
not be used while on a boom because
the boom is too narrow. Another
method is to set up a personal fall arrest
system that would arrest the employee’s
fall before hitting the next lower level
by using stanchions to support an
elevated, horizontal life-line. However,
such stanchions must be securely
fastened and whatever they are fastened
to must be able to withstand
considerable forces in an arrested fall.
On a crane’s lattice boom, the
stanchions would have to be attached
either to the chords or the lacings.
The chords and lacings are engineered
to be as light as possible, and an
engineering analysis would be needed
in each case to determine if the
attachment point was sufficiently strong
to withstand those forces. Also, the
Agency determines that manufacturers
would be unlikely to approve clamp-on
type systems because of the likelihood
of the clamping forces damaging these
critical structural components.
Similarly, the Agency determines that
manufacturers would not approve the
repeated weld/removal/re-weld cycles
that would be involved in attaching and
removing stanchions because this could

PO 00000

Frm 00098

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

adversely affect the boom’s structural
components.
The third method commonly used in
construction work is a temporary
guardrail system, but that also would
require attaching stanchions to the
boom, which would be infeasible for
these same reasons.
The Committee concluded that, in
light of such factors, it would not be
appropriate to require fall protection
when an employee moves point-to-point
on horizontal lattice booms. However,
in the preamble to the proposed rule,
the Agency noted that, although it may
rarely be necessary for an employee
moving point-to-point on a horizontal
lattice boom to be 15 feet or more above
the next lower level, there is the
possibility of such an occurrence, such
as where a horizontal boom spans a
large gap in the ground surface. At such
heights a personal fall arrest system tied
off at the level of the employee’s feet
would allow sufficient room for the
arrest system to operate without
allowing the employee to strike the next
lower level. Therefore, the Agency
requested public comment on whether
proposed § 1926.1423(d)(1)(ii) 101
should be expanded to require fall
protection when an employee, engaged
in non-A/D work, is moving point-topoint on a boom that is horizontal and
the fall distance is 15 feet or more.
OSHA received three comments on
this issue. (ID–0182.1; –0205.1;
–0213.1.) These commenters stated that
the final rule should require fall
protection when an employee, engaged
in non-A/D work, is moving point-topoint on a boom that is horizontal and
the fall distance is 15 feet or more.
Accordingly, the Agency has added
paragraph (e)(1)(iii) to the final rule to
require fall protection under these
circumstances. No comments were
received on proposed paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) and (ii), and they are included
in the final rule without change as
paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii).
Paragraph (e)(2) Non-Assembly/
Disassembly: While at a Work Station
Paragraph (e)(2) of this section
requires employers to provide and
ensure the use of fall protection while
an employee is at a work station on any
part of the equipment (including the
boom, of any type), except when the
employee is at or near draw-works
(when the equipment is running), in the
cab, or on the deck (see the discussion
of this in the preamble of the proposed
rule, where this paragraph was
denominated as § 1926.1423(d)(2); 73
101 Proposed § 1926.1423(d)(1)(ii) corresponds
with final § 1926.1423(e)(1)(ii).

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
FR 59802, Oct. 9, 2008). No comments
were received on this paragraph; it is
included in the final rule without
change other than its redesignation.
Paragraph (f) Assembly/Disassembly
Paragraph (f) of this section requires
the employer to provide and ensure the
use of fall protection equipment during
assembly and disassembly (A/D) work
for employees who are on a walking/
working surface with an unprotected
side or edge more than 15 feet above a
lower level, except when the employee
is at or near draw-works (when the
equipment is running), in the cab, or on
the deck (see the discussion of this in
the preamble of the proposed rule,
where this paragraph was denominated
as § 1926.1423(e); 73 FR 59802, Oct. 9,
2008). No comments were received on
this paragraph; it is included in the final
rule without change other than its
redesignation.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (g) Anchorage Criteria
Paragraph (g) of this section requires
the use of, and specifies criteria for,
anchorage points in personal fall arrest
systems, positioning device systems,
and fall restraint systems.102 Paragraph
(g)(1) provides that §§ 1926.502(d)(15)
and 1926.502(e)(2) of subpart M apply
to equipment covered by subpart CC
only to the extent delineated in
paragraph (g)(2). Sections
1926.502(d)(15) and 1926.502(e)(2)
provide, respectively, anchorage criteria
for personal fall arrest systems and
positioning device systems. As
discussed below with respect to
paragraph (g)(2), C–DAC determined
that the particular circumstances
associated with the use of personal fall
arrest systems and positioning device
systems on equipment covered by
subpart CC necessitate specific criteria
for the anchorages of such systems.
Therefore, OSHA added paragraph (g)(1)
to this section of the final rule to make
clear that the general anchorage criteria
in § 1926.502 apply to equipment
covered by subpart CC only as
delineated in paragraph (g)(2), discussed
below (see also discussion above of
§ 1926.500).
Paragraph (g)(2) of this section,
Anchorages for personal fall arrest and
positioning device systems, contains
requirements for anchorage points used
in personal fall arrest and positioning
102 ‘‘Personal fall arrest system’’ and ‘‘Positioning
device system’’ are defined in § 1926.1401. These
definitions parallel those in § 1926.500(b) of subpart
M. ‘‘Fall restraint system’’ is also defined in
§ 1926.1401. This definition parallels the one in
§ 1926.751 of subpart R. As with other definitions
applicable to this section, C–DAC endeavored, to
the extent possible and appropriate, to use
terminology that is familiar to the industry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

device systems (this was denominated
paragraph (f) in the proposed rule).
Sections 1926.1423(g)(2)(i) and
1926.1423(g)(2)(ii) permit personal fall
arrest systems and positioning systems
to be anchored to any apparently
substantial part of the equipment unless
a competent person, from a visual
inspection, without an engineering
analysis, would conclude that the
applicable criteria in § 1926.502 of
subpart M of this part would not be met.
An apparently substantial part of the
equipment is a part that would appear
substantial to a reasonable competent
person. The subpart M criteria include,
for personal fall arrest systems, 5,000
pounds per employee or twice the
potential impact load of an employee’s
fall (in addition to other requirements)
(§ 1926.502(d)(15)); for a positioning
device, 3,000 pounds or twice the
potential impact load of an employee’s
fall, whichever is greater (in addition to
other requirements) (§ 1926.502(e)(2)).
Most of the equipment covered by the
standard is designed to lift and support
weights much heavier than these.
Apparently substantial parts of the
equipment are, therefore, typically
capable of meeting the subpart M
capacities. Consequently, C–DAC
determined that the criteria in
§§ 1926.1423(g)(2)(i) and
1926.1423(g)(2)(ii) are appropriate and
would avoid burdening employers with
what it considered to be the
unnecessary expense of obtaining
engineering analyses for each part that
would serve as an anchor. (See the
discussion of these provisions in the
preamble of the proposed rule under
proposed rule paragraph (f) of this
section, 73 FR 59802, Oct. 9, 2008.)
One commenter suggested revising
the provision to require a competent
person to supervise the selection, use,
and inspection of fall arrest and
positioning anchorages. (ID–0178.1.)
This commenter suggested that this
revision was needed to avoid
compatibility issues and to emphasize
the competent person’s planning role.
OSHA declines to adopt the
commenter’s suggestion. As explained
above, this provision is included
because the suitability of substantial
parts of the equipment for anchoring fall
arrest and positioning device systems
will often be readily apparent, and the
employer will only need to seek a
competent person’s judgment if there is
some question as to the anchorage’s
suitability. The revision suggested by
the commenter would contravene this
intent.
Paragraph (g)(2)(iii) requires that
attachable anchor devices (portable
anchor devices that are attached to the

PO 00000

Frm 00099

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48003

equipment) meet the applicable
anchorage criteria in § 1926.502(d)(15)
for personal fall arrest systems and
§ 1926.502(e)(2) for positioning device
systems. These criteria are the same as
those discussed with respect to
paragraph (g)(2) for personal fall arrest
and positioning device systems.
Paragraph (g)(3), Anchorages for fall
restraint systems, requires fall restraint
systems to be anchored to any part of
the equipment that is capable of
withstanding twice the maximum load
that a worker may impose on it during
reasonably anticipated conditions of
use. Since fall restraint systems do not
arrest a worker’s fall (instead they
prevent a fall from occurring), the
anchorage does not need to be able to
support the significantly greater force
generated during an arrested fall. OSHA
relies on C–DAC’s determination that
having the anchorage support twice the
maximum anticipated load provides an
adequate margin of safety when a fall
restraint system is used.
The Agency made several changes to
text originally proposed as paragraph (f)
of this section, and now designated as
final paragraph (g) for the purposes of
clarity and consistency. OSHA devoted
final paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) to
personal fall arrest systems and
positioning device systems,
respectively, and added references to
§§ 1926.502(d)(15) and 1926.502(e)(2) to
specify which of the criteria in
§ 1926.502 of subpart M are applicable
to anchorages used to comply with this
section. OSHA concludes these changes
improve the clarity of the final rule. In
addition, final paragraph (g) uses the
terms ‘‘personal fall arrest’’ instead of
‘‘fall arrest’’ and ‘‘fall restraint systems’’
instead of ‘‘restraint systems’’ to use the
defined terms from § 1926.1401 and
maintain consistency with other
construction standards.
Paragraph (h) Tower Cranes
Paragraph (h) of this section specifies
fall protection requirements specific to
tower cranes. Note that the final rule
uses the terminology ‘‘erecting,
climbing, and dismantling’’ with regard
to tower cranes rather than ‘‘assembly’’
and ‘‘disassembly;’’ or the term
‘‘erecting/dismantling’’ used in the
proposed rule, because this terminology
reflects the industry’s use of these
terms.
Paragraph (h)(1) Work Other Than
Erecting, Climbing, and Dismantling
Paragraph (h)(1) of this section
addresses fall protection requirements
for work other than erecting, climbing,
and dismantling. The employer is
required to provide and ensure the use

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48004

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

of fall protection equipment for
employees who are on a walking/
working surface with an unprotected
side or edge more than 6 feet above a
lower level. The exceptions to this
requirement would be when the
employee is at or near draw-works
(when the equipment is running), in the
cab, or on the deck. (See the discussion
of this provision in the preamble of the
proposed rule at 73 FR 59803, Oct. 9,
2008, where it was designated as
paragraph (g)(1)). No comments were
received on this paragraph; it is
included in the final rule without
change other than its revised heading
and redesignation from paragraph (g)(1)
in the proposed rule to (h)(1) in the final
rule.
Paragraph (h)(2) Erecting, Climbing,
and Dismantling

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Proposed § 1926.1423(g)(2)
(redesignated § 1926.1423(h)(2) in the
final rule) specified that, for erecting/
dismantling work, employers must
provide, and ensure the use of, fall
protection equipment for employees
who are on a walking/working surface
with an unprotected side or edge more
than 15 feet above a lower level. (See
the discussion of that provision in 73 FR
59803, Oct. 9, 2008.) OSHA noted in the
proposed rule that C–DAC did not
include the exceptions that were
included in proposed § 1926.1423(g)(1)
for when the employee is at or near
draw-works (when the equipment is
running), in the cab, or on the deck. The
Agency stated that it was unaware of
any reason why those exceptions would
not be equally applicable for
§ 1926.1423(g)(2), and asked for public
comment on this issue (see 73 FR 59803,
Oct. 9, 2008).
OSHA received responses from three
commenters, all of whom stated that
this exception should be added to the
final rule. (ID–0187.1; –0205.1;
–0213.1.) Accordingly, OSHA has
included the exception in
§ 1926.1423(h)(2) of the final rule.
Paragraph (i)

[Reserved.]

Paragraph (j)
Line

Anchoring to the Load

Paragraph (j) of this section permits
an employer, under prescribed
conditions, to anchor a fall arrest system
to the hook or other part of a load line
of a crane or derrick. Previously,
§ 1926.502(d)(23) of subpart M
prohibited personal fall arrest systems
to be attached to ‘‘hoists except as
specified in other subparts of this part.’’
Former § 1926.550 in subpart N did not
contain any provisions specifically
addressing this issue. Therefore, since

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

the hook or other part of a load line is
connected to a hoist in the crane or for
the derrick, attaching a personal fall
arrest system in this manner had been
prohibited by subpart M.
Prior to this rulemaking, OSHA
received inquiries asking whether a
crane’s hook or load line may be used
as an anchorage point for fall protection.
Using a crane for such purpose would
be particularly useful in many
situations, especially where establishing
a suitable anchor point would be
otherwise very difficult. OSHA asked C–
DAC to consider whether there is any
reason to prohibit using a crane or
derrick for such purpose. C–DAC
determined that the hook or load line of
a crane could be used safely as an
anchor point under the conditions set
forth in paragraph (j).103
Paragraph (j)(1) allows the hook or
load line to be used as an anchorage
point when a qualified person has
determined that the set-up and rated
capacity of the crane/derrick (including
the hook, load line and rigging) meets or
exceeds the requirements in
§ 1926.502(d)(15). C–DAC concluded
that, as long as the crane or derrick has
sufficient capacity to meet those criteria,
there is no reason to prohibit its use for
this purpose.
C–DAC did conclude, however, that
the expertise of a qualified person is
required to determine whether specific
criteria are met when anchoring to the
hook or load line. The criteria in
§ 1926.502(d)(15) were developed to
ensure that fall protection anchorages
provide adequate employee protection.
Anchorages used for personal fall arrest
systems must be capable of supporting
at least 5,000 pounds or designed,
installed, and used as part of a complete
personal fall arrest system which
maintains a safety factor of at least two.
A number of factors related to the
crane’s capacity in the particular
configuration and set-up involved
would need to be considered, including,
in some cases, the angle of the fall arrest
lanyard to the boom if a fall were to
occur. In addition, the qualified person
would need to determine whether the
set-up is such that it would not cause an
equipment failure, such as a broken
cable or chain, for the load line to serve
as an anchorage for a personal fall arrest
system. These determinations
necessarily would include consideration
of the characteristics of the particular
103 OSHA modified the language from the
proposed rule so that final paragraph (j) of this
section refers to a ‘‘personal fall arrest system’’
rather than a ‘‘fall arrest system.’’ This modification
was made for the purpose of clarity to use the terms
defined in § 1926.1401, Definitions, and to maintain
consistency in the construction standards.

PO 00000

Frm 00100

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

equipment involved and the limitations
of its operation. OSHA agrees that a
qualified person must determine
whether the criteria are met, and has
included that requirement in paragraph
(j)(1).
Paragraph (j)(2) requires that the
equipment operator be at the work site
and informed that the equipment is
being used to anchor a personal fall
arrest system. This would ensure that
the operator is available to make any
necessary adjustments, such as moving
the boom or load lines. Further, in the
event of an emergency that results in a
tied-off employee being suspended from
the hook or load line, the operator
would be available to bring the worker
to the ground safely.
OSHA received three comments on
the provisions relating to anchoring to
the load line, and one member of the
public submitted written testimony on
the provisions prior to the hearing on
the proposed rule. Two of the
commenters responded positively to the
provisions (ID–0155.1; –0203.1) and one
commenter stated the provisions were a
necessary improvement that would
allow employers to provide fall
protection in the narrow circumstances
where there are no viable options other
than the crane hook (ID–0203.1).
The third commenter was opposed to
the provisions and stated that anchoring
to the load line should be prohibited.
(ID–0178.1.) This commenter stated that
cranes are only engineered to lift
straight up and straight down and that
retracting a hook at any other angle may
jam or break the cable or chain, which
would result in a dropped load. OSHA
concludes paragraph (j) addresses this
concern for the reasons discussed
below.
Written testimony submitted prior to
the hearing expressed the concern that,
under § 1926.1417(e), which allows a
suspended load to be left unattended by
the equipment operator under certain
conditions, an employee’s personal fall
arrest system could be anchored to a
load line at the same time a load is
unattended. (ID–0333.2.) This party
suggested that the rule make clear that
fall protection should never be anchored
to the load line when the load is
unattended.
OSHA disagrees. In fact, the intent of
§ 1926.1423(j) is to allow an employee’s
personal fall arrest system to be
anchored to the load line only when
there is no load suspended from the
line. This is implicit in the requirement
of paragraph (j)(1) that the qualified
person determine that the set-up and
rated capacity (including the hook, load
line, and rigging) meets or exceeds the
requirements of § 1926.502(d)(15). If it

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
were permissible for there to be a
suspended load, the parenthetical
would include the word ‘‘load,’’ for the
weight of any load would certainly
affect the ability of the hook or load line
to serve as a fall protection anchorage.
To make the rule’s intent clear, OSHA
is adding paragraph (j)(3), which states
that no load may be suspended from the
load line, as an additional condition
that must be met when anchoring a
personal fall arrest system to the hook
or load line.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (k) Training
In the preamble to the proposed rule,
the Agency requested comments on its
proposed training requirements. One
commenter pointed out that a
requirement for fall protection training
had not been included in the proposed
rule and is needed. (ID–0178.1.) While
training is already required under
§ 1926.21(b)(2),104 OSHA has
determined that including a more
specific training requirement regarding
fall protection in subpart CC will
highlight the requirement and facilitate
compliance.
Therefore, in the final rule, paragraph
(k) has been added to this section. It
requires employers to ensure that each
employee who may be exposed to a fall
hazard while on, or hoisted by,
equipment covered by this subpart is
trained on the requirements in subpart
CC that address fall protection and the
applicable requirements of §§ 1926.500
and 1926.502 in subpart M. This
provision supplements other applicable
training provisions in § 1926.1430 (see
discussion below of § 1926.1430,
Training). As noted above, OSHA has
made a conforming amendment to
§ 1926.500(a)(4) to make clear that the
fall protection training requirements in
§ 1926.503 of subpart M do not apply to
fall protection systems used to comply
with subpart CC. As a result, the
training requirements applicable to
§ 1926.1423 are found exclusively in
§ 1926.1423(k).
General Comment
OSHA received a comment from a
safety association generally objecting to
the adequacy of the fall protection
required under this section. (ID–0178.1.)
The commenter stated that OSHA
should reference certain ANSI/ASSE
standards addressing fall protection in
construction work, including: ANSI/
ASSE A10.32—2004, Fall Protection
104 That provision states: ‘‘The employer shall
instruct each employee in the recognition and
avoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations
applicable to his work environment to control or
eliminate any hazards or other exposure to illness
or injury.’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Systems for Construction and
Demolition Operations; ANSI/ASSE
A10.18—2007, Safety Requirements for
Temporary Roof and Floor Holes, Wall
Openings, Stairways, and Other
Unprotected Edges; and ANSI/ASSE
A10.28—1998 (R 2004), Safety
Requirements for Work Platforms
Suspended from Cranes or Derricks.
However, the commenter has not
pointed to which particular provisions
of these consensus standards it believes
are appropriately included in this rule
or that it believes would better
effectuate the purpose of this section
than those developed by C–DAC.
As discussed above, C–DAC
determined that fall protection from
cranes and derricks presented unique
problems and that this section should
address those problems while only
incorporating limited provisions of
OSHA’s general fall protection standard
in subpart M. Upon reviewing the
record, including the comments
submitted by the commenter and others
on the specific provisions contained in
the proposal, OSHA continues to
conclude this approach is appropriate.
Absent additional information as to why
OSHA should adopt or reference
provisions in the standard the
commenter has cited, OSHA is unable to
assess whether any such provisions
would better address fall protection
issues than the provisions of this final
rule.
Section 1926.1424 Work Area Control
Section 1926.1424(a) addresses the
hazard of employees being struck,
pinched or crushed within the swing
radius of the equipment’s rotating
superstructure. Paragraph (a)(1) states
that the precautions in paragraph (a)(2)
must be taken when there are accessible
areas in which the equipment’s rotating
superstructure (whether permanently or
temporarily mounted) poses a
reasonably foreseeable risk of either: (i)
striking and injuring an employee; or (ii)
pinching/crushing an employee against
another part of the equipment or
another object. Paragraph (a)(1) is
adopted as proposed.
Included in § 1926.1401, Definitions
of this rule is the definition for
‘‘upperworks’’, which C–DAC identified
as a synonym for the term
‘‘superstructure’’, used in the regulatory
text of paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
as well as the term ‘‘upperstructure’’.
However, two commenters noted that
the proposed definition for
‘‘upperworks’’ did not take into
consideration the fact that many roughterrain cranes have the engine mounted
in the carrier, or lower carriage of the
crane, instead of the superstructure.

PO 00000

Frm 00101

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48005

(ID–0292.1; –0131.1.) In response,
OSHA modified the definition of
‘‘upperworks’’ to acknowledge that the
presence of an engine is not always a
defining characteristic of that portion of
the crane.
Under paragraph (a)(2), the employer
is required to institute two measures to
prevent employees from entering these
hazard areas. Specifically, under
paragraph (a)(2)(i), the employer must
train employees assigned to work on or
near the equipment in how to recognize
these areas.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) requires the
employer to erect and maintain control
lines, warning lines, railings, or similar
barriers to mark the boundaries of the
hazard areas, but contains an exception
when such a precaution is infeasible. If
it is neither feasible to erect such
barriers on the ground nor on the
equipment, the employer is required to
mark the danger zone with a
combination of warning signs and high
visibility markings on the equipment
that identify the hazard areas. In
addition, the employer must train
employees to understand what those
markings signify.
OSHA received comments advocating
an exemption for cranes used in the
railroad industry, especially cranes
moving along a track. (ID–0170.1;
–0176.1; –0342.) One commenter
suggested that the requirement for
barriers was impractical for cranes
moving along a track, as the barriers
would have to be continually reset.
These objections to the requirement
for barriers are not persuasive. First, the
requirement for barriers is not a new
requirement. Former § 1926.550(a)(9)
required barricades to prevent
employees from being struck or crushed
by the crane, including the swing radius
of the rear of the rotating superstructure.
The railroad employers did not provide
any evidence that they were unable to
comply with the previous requirement.
Second, the rule already anticipates
that for certain equipment a traditional
type of barrier might not be practical
and instead permits the use of a barrier
that attaches directly to, and will move
with, the equipment.
Finally, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
section permits the employer to identify
these hazard areas with warning signs
and high visibility markings on the
equipment when it is not feasible to
erect a barrier on the ground or the
equipment.
Therefore, paragraph (a)(2) is being
promulgated as proposed.
To prevent struck-by and crushed-by
injuries and fatalities, paragraph (a)(3) is
designed to help protect employees who
must sometimes enter the hazard area to

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48006

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

perform work, by ensuring that there is
adequate communication and
coordination between the operator and
the employee in the danger area.
Under paragraph (a)(3)(i), before an
employee goes in that area the employee
(or someone instructed by the
employee) has to ensure that the
operator is informed that the employee
is going to that location. This is an
essential first step in preventing the
operator from moving the superstructure
and causing injury to that employee.
This provision is adopted without
change from the proposal.
Paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) of this section
of the proposed rule stated that the
operator was prohibited from rotating
the superstructure unless and until he/
she gave a warning that the employee in
the hazard area understood as a signal
that the superstructure was about to be
rotated. This was intended to give the
employee time to get to a safe area.
Alternatively, under proposed
paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B), the operator
could rotate the superstructure if he/she
was informed, in accordance with a
prearranged system of communication,
that the employee who was in the
hazard area had moved to a safe
position.
Several commenters suggested that
the compliance option in proposed
paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) was insufficient
to guarantee the safety of the employee
in the hazard area. (See, e.g., ID–0122.0.)
A similar issue was discussed in
connection with § 1926.1404(e) of the
final rule. Section 1926.1404(e)
addresses employees in the swing
radius area or crush/caught-in-between
zone during the assembly/disassembly
process. (See discussion of
§ 1926.1404(e) for additional
information.)
For the reasons discussed with regard
to the issue raised under § 1926.1404(e),
OSHA has removed proposed paragraph
(a)(3)(ii)(A) from this section, revised
proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B), and
renumbered it paragraph (a)(3)(ii).
Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) requires the
operator to get information that the
employee has cleared the hazard area
before rotating the superstructure. The
method of communication must be one
that is pre-arranged. Examples of such a
system are provided in the discussion of
§ 1926.1404(e) above.
For a full discussion of C–DAC’s
rationale for the provisions in paragraph
(a), see the preamble to the proposed
rule (73 FR 59803–59804, Oct. 9, 2008).
Proposed paragraph (b) of this section
addressed situations where multiple
pieces of equipment are located in such
proximity that their working radii
overlap. Such situations pose the danger

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

of employees being pinched/crushed
between the equipment and being
injured as a result of unintended
movement or collapse when pieces of
equipment collide. To prevent such
accidents, the proposal required the
controlling entity to coordinate the
operations of these pieces of equipment.
In the event that there was no
controlling entity, the proposal required
the employers operating the equipment
to institute a coordination system.
A commenter asked that
§ 1926.1424(b) be deleted, or
alternatively, that an exemption be
created for employers in the home
building industry. (ID–0232.1.)
However, this commenter did not
provide evidence that equipment
coordination is any less necessary on a
residential job site than it is on other
construction job sites. Another
representative of the building industry
also objected to imposing obligations on
a ‘‘controlling entity,’’ but did not
dispute the necessity of equipment
coordination on construction job sites.
(ID–0214.1.) C–DAC concluded that the
controlling entity, to the extent there is
one, is in the best position to take
responsibility for the coordination
required by paragraph (b). OSHA has
not been persuaded otherwise.
Both commenters nominated
members which served on the
negotiated rulemaking committee.
Neither of their respective nominees
dissented on these provisions during the
negotiated rulemaking meetings and
neither organization has explained why
its position is different from that of its
nominated member. In light of this
inconsistency, OSHA has given
diminished weight to these comments.
The C–DAC language for proposed
paragraph (b) did not address a situation
in which only one employer is
responsible for the operation of multiple
pieces of equipment. OSHA requested
comment about revising the C–DAC
language to make clear that such an
employer would be required to institute
a coordination system. No comments
were received on this issue. OSHA has
therefore revised paragraph (b) to
address situations where one employer
is operating multiple pieces of
equipment, without a controlling entity
at the jobsite.
Section 1926.1425 Keeping Clear of
the Load
This section addresses the hazards
posed to employees from being struck or
crushed by the load. (See the preamble
to the proposed rule for a full discussion
of C–DAC’s rationale for the provisions
in this section (73 FR at 59805–59806,
Oct. 9, 2008).)

PO 00000

Frm 00102

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Paragraph (a)
Paragraph (a) of this section requires
the employer to use available hoisting
routes that minimize employee
exposure to hoisted loads to the extent
consistent with public safety. No
comments were received on this
provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (b)
Paragraph (b) of this section specifies
that employees cannot be in the fall
zone when the equipment operator is
not moving a suspended load, with
limited exceptions as described in
paragraphs (b)(1)–(3).
Fall zone is defined in § 1926.1401 as
‘‘the area (including but not limited to
the area directly beneath the load) in
which it is reasonably foreseeable that
partially or completely suspended
materials could fall in the event of an
accident.’’ The fall zone thus includes
both the area directly under the load as
well as other areas into which it is
reasonably foreseeable that suspended
materials could fall. For example, if
wind is causing the load to swing, the
employer would need to consider the
extent to which the load is swinging or
may swing in determining the extent of
the fall zone. Another example is where
a bundle of materials is suspended, and
some loose materials at the top of the
bundle may slide off sideways. In such
a case those materials would foreseeably
fall outside the area directly beneath the
load.
Paragraph (b)(1) permits employees
engaged in hooking, unhooking or
guiding a load to be within the fall zone
while engaged in these activities. No
comments were received on this
paragraph; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (b)(2) permits employees
engaged in the initial attachment of the
load to a component or structure to be
within the fall zone. One example of
this activity is: A subassembly of steel
members is hoisted for attachment to a
structure. When initially attaching the
lower portion of that subassembly, an
employee is within the fall zone of the
load. In this example, the employee
engaged in the initial attachment of the
subassembly to the structure would be
permitted to be within the fall zone; that
work cannot be done otherwise. No
comments were received on this
paragraph; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (b)(3) allows workers to be
present in the fall zone when operating
a concrete hopper or concrete bucket.
The employee operating the hopper or
bucket is necessarily in the fall zone

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

since the hopper or bucket is suspended
while the employee operates the
releasing mechanism.
One commenter suggested adding a
requirement that there be a competent
supervisor for these operations and a
requirement for employee training for
activities covered by paragraph (b)(3).
(ID–0120.1.) However, that commenter
did not provide an explanation of how
this would increase safety for the
employee or any support for such
additional requirements. Nor did the
commenter identify any reason why the
activities covered by paragraph (b)(3)
would require different or additional
supervision or training requirements
than the activities covered by
paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2). C–DAC did
not recommend any additional
supervision or training requirements for
paragraph (b)(3), and OSHA is not
persuaded that there is a safety
justification for deviating from C–DAC’s
determination. Therefore, this paragraph
is promulgated as proposed.
A representative of the building
industry suggested in its comment that
an exception should be added for
dedicated spotters and fall monitors.
(ID–0232.1.) This marks a change from
the position of that organization’s
nominated representative during the
negotiated rulemaking. (See discussion
of this organization’s comments under
paragraph (c) of this section.) C–DAC
did not conclude that an exception for
spotters and fall monitors was
warranted, and the NAHB did not
present evidence to persuade OSHA
otherwise. OSHA defers to the expertise
of the Committee and this paragraph is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c)
Paragraph (c) of this section deals
with the work activities addressed in
§§ 1926.1425(b)(1) and (b)(2). These
requirements were necessary to ensure
employee safety, given the additional
risks posed while employees are
performing those tasks in the fall zone.
Paragraph (c)(1) requires that the load
be rigged to prevent unintentional
displacement, so that workers in the fall
zone are less likely to be struck by
shifting materials. No comments were
received on this paragraph; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c)(2) requires the use of
hooks with self-closing latches or their
equivalent, to prevent accidental failure
of the hooks. However, the use of ‘‘J’’
type hooks is permitted for setting
wooden trusses. This exception is
designed to enable the truss to be
unhooked without the need for an
employee to go out on the truss. This
avoids the additional exposure to fall

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

hazards that would otherwise occur
from going out on the truss to release a
latched hook.
OSHA received a comment from the
building industry requesting that the
exception permitting the use of J-hooks
when lifting trusses be extended to
lifting wall panels as well; it asserts that
the same additional exposure to fall
hazards would be present. (ID–0232.1.)
This commenter nominated a member
who served on the negotiated
rulemaking committee. The member did
not dissent during the negotiated
rulemaking to this provision. The
commenter has not explained why it has
changed its position on this issue or
why its current position differs from
that of its nominated member. In light
of this inconsistency, OSHA has given
diminished weight to its comment.105
In addition, OSHA notes that there are
two important distinctions between
setting roof trusses and setting wall
panels. First, there is no need for a
worker to be exposed to a fall hazard to
detach a hook with a self-closing latch
from a wall panel. Once the wall panel
has been set, a worker can readily reach
the hook from a ladder on the interior
side of the panel. Second, wall panels
typically often weigh more than wooden
roof trusses; they pose both struck-by
and crushed-by risks to workers if the
hook becomes prematurely detached
from the load. Such unintended
detachment is more likely to occur with
a J-hook because it lacks a hook gate.
One commenter suggested that the
exception for J-hooks should include
requirements for training and rigging.
(ID–0218.1.) This commenter
acknowledged that the use of J-hooks is
prevalent in the industry, and indicated
that the specialized training and rigging
requirements it was proposing were
intended to protect the component
being lifted. The commenter did not
suggest that its proposed requirements
would enhance employee safety.
105 A further basis for according diminished
weight to this comment is that this commenter had
a direct channel for presenting its interests to the
committee—its nominee member—and a
presumptive ability to direct its member’s
negotiating position. When such an organization
submits negative comments to the proposed rule
opposing both its own member’s negotiating
position and the committee’s consensus, it
undermines the negotiating process in a similar
manner as when a member contravenes the ground
rules. The integrity of the negotiating process is
central to effectuating the purpose of the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act of 1990.
The Agency also notes that, in future negotiated
rulemakings, one of the factors that it plans to
consider in assessing nominations submitted by
organizations is whether the nominee can
demonstrate that he/she has documented authority
to bind the organization to agreements and the
position the nominee takes in such negotiated
rulemaking.

PO 00000

Frm 00103

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48007

Therefore, this paragraph is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c)(3) requires the use of a
qualified rigger 106 in the rigging of
materials in the situations addressed by
paragraph (c). Proper rigging reduces the
risk for workers who must perform work
in the fall zone. No comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)

Receiving a Load

Paragraph (d) prohibits all employees
except those needed to receive a load
from being in the fall zone when it is
being landed. No comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (e)
Paragraph (e) concerns tilt-up and tiltdown operations. In these operations,
one end of a component, such as a
precast panel, is either raised, tilting the
component up, usually from a
horizontal position (often on the
ground) to a vertical position; or
lowered, tilting the component down,
usually from a vertical position to a
horizontal position on the ground or
other surface. Note that the
requirements in this paragraph do not
apply when receiving a load.
As with any other suspended load, it
is dangerous to be directly beneath the
load because of the possibility of a
failure or error that would cause the
load to fall or be accidentally lowered
onto an employee. To minimize the risk
of such accidents, paragraph (e)(1) of
this section provides that no employee
must be directly under the load during
a tilt-up or tilt-down operation. Section
1926.1401 defines ‘‘directly under the
load’’ to mean ‘‘a part or all of an
employee is directly beneath the load.’’
No comments concerning this provision
were received; therefore, it is
promulgated as proposed.
While paragraph (e)(1) prohibits
employees directly under the load,
paragraph (e)(2) of this section provides
an allowance for employees to be in the
fall zone (but not directly under the
load), when those employees are
‘‘essential to the operation’’ during a tilt
up or tilt down operation.
In the preamble to the proposed rule,
the Agency provided a list of activities
it determined to typically be infeasible
to do outside the fall zone and therefore
an employee would be in the fall zone
for these activities. The Agency
requested public comment on whether
there were additional activities that
106 Section 1926.1401 defines a ‘‘qualified rigger’’
as a rigger who meets the criteria for a qualified
person.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

would be infeasible to do from outside
the fall zone, and whether it would be
appropriate to add a definition of
‘‘essential to the operation’’ to the
standard.
One commenter responded, asserting
that the phrase ‘‘essential to the
operation’’ does not need to be defined.
(ID–0205.1.)
No commenters disagreed with the
three scenarios listed in the preamble to
the proposed rule describing instances
where an employee is ‘‘essential to the
operation’’ and must be within the fall
zone. However, one commenter
suggested adding to the list the activities
of making initial connections and
securing bracing. (ID–0205.1.)
OSHA believes that those two
additional tasks—making initial
connections and securing bracing—fall
within part of the third scenario listed
in the proposed rule preamble (i.e., to
‘‘* * * initially attach [the load] to
another component or structure’’).
For clarity, OSHA has decided to
modify paragraph (e)(2) by adding the
operations listed in the proposed rule
and including the recommendation of
the commenter.
One comment suggested that there
might be some conflict between the
NOTE in this section, § 1926.1426, and
§ 1926.1433(b)(4). The discussion of that
comment may be found in the portion
of the preamble addressing § 1926.1426
of the final rule.

Section 1926.1426 Free Fall and
Controlled Load Lowering

Under paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
the use of equipment in which the boom
is designed to free fall is prohibited
under six specified conditions.

Paragraph (a)(1)(i) prohibits the use of
a live boom when an employee is in the
fall zone of the boom or load (see the
explanation of ‘‘fall zone’’ in the
discussion above of § 1926.1425(b)).
Section 1926.1425, Keeping clear of the
load, of this standard recognizes that
there are some situations in which
certain employees need to be positioned
in the fall zone to perform their assigned
duties. However, when equipment with
a live boom is in use, the likelihood that
an employee would sustain a serious
injury or be killed by a free fall is very
high when an employee is in the fall
zone of the boom or load.
Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) prohibits use of a
live boom when an employee is being
hoisted by equipment. If a hoisted
employee was dropped in an
uncontrolled fall, the likelihood of a
serious injury would be high.
No comments were received for
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii); they are
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) as set forth in the
proposed rule, would have prohibited
the use of a live boom where the load
or boom is directly over a power line,
or over any part of the area extending
the Table A of proposed § 1926.1408
clearance distance to each side of the
power line. The diagram below
illustrates a situation in which a load on
a live boom is over the area extending
the Table A clearance distance to each
side of the power line:

As discussed above in relation to
§§ 1926.1407 through 1926.1411,
equipment making electrical contact
with power lines is one of the primary
causes of equipment-related deaths on
construction sites and, to prevent such

contact, those sections would require
equipment to maintain minimum
distances from power lines.
In the proposed rule, OSHA
determines that there are circumstances
where neither the boom nor the load are

directly over the power line or Table A
clearance distance, but where the power
line or the Table A clearance distance is
within the fall path of the boom or load.
This circumstance is depicted in the
following illustrations:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

This section addresses the hazards
that can arise from free fall of the boom
(live boom) during lifts. Live booms are
those in which the rate of lowering can
be controlled only by a brake; a failure
of the brake will result in a free fall (i.e.,
unrestricted lowering) of the boom. In
contrast, for equipment that has a boom
that is not ‘‘live,’’ there is a mechanism
or device other than the brake which
slows the boom’s lowering speed.
The uncontrolled lowering of a boom
could result in an accident which could
injure or kill workers in proximity to the
load or hoisting equipment. This section
prohibits use of live booms in most
circumstances. An exception is
provided in limited conditions that do
not pose hazards for employees with
respect to the use of older equipment
manufactured before October 31, 1984.
See discussion in § 1926.1426(a)(2)(i)
below.
Additionally, this section specifies
the circumstances under which free fall
of the load line is prohibited at
§ 1926.1426(d).
Paragraph (a)
Prohibitions

PO 00000

Frm 00104

Boom Free Fall

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

ER09AU10.000

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48008

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(live boom) where the power line or the
Table A clearance distance is within the
fall path of the boom or the load.
Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) prohibits use of a
live boom where the load is over a shaft.
Employees in a shaft receiving a load
are at high risk of death or injury from
a free falling boom as the shaft severely
limits the ability to avoid the falling
boom. Because this hazard only exists
when there is an employee in the shaft,
OSHA has specified in
§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(iv) of the final rule
that the live boom prohibition only
applies when at least one employee is
in the shaft. This language is different
from the language of
§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(v), regarding
cofferdams, because a shaft is typically
a smaller work space than a cofferdam,
thus, a shaft under a load is necessarily
in the fall zone of the boom or the load.
Paragraph (a)(1)(v) prohibits free fall
of a boom when the load is over a
cofferdam, except where there are no
employees in the fall zone of the boom
or load. Much like employees who must
receive a suspended load in a shaft,

PO 00000

Frm 00105

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

employees have limited ability to escape
a free falling boom or load in a
cofferdam. However, cofferdams are
typically much larger work spaces than
shafts, the fall zone of a falling boom or
load may only affect one part of the
cofferdam. Therefore, this provision
only applies when employees are in the
fall zone of the boom or load.
OSHA noted an ambiguity in
proposed § 1926.1426(a)(1)(v). The
exception referred only to ‘‘the fall
zone’’; OSHA determines that—to make
this provision consistent with
§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(i) (prohibiting the use
of live booms when an employee is in
the fall zone of the boom or the load)—
the words ‘‘of the boom or load’’ should
be added to the language proposed for
§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(v).
Paragraph (a)(1)(vi) prohibits use of a
live boom for lifting operations in a
refinery or tank farm. A free falling
boom could strike pipes or a tank in a
refinery or tank farm. Such accidental
impact could cause a release of toxic
materials or conflagration. No comments

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

ER09AU10.002

In Illustration A, neither the boom nor
the load is above the power line or any
part of the Table A zone. However, if the
boom were to fall, the boom would cross
into the Table A zone. In Illustration B,
neither the boom nor load is above the
power line or any part of the Table A
zone. However, if the boom were to fall,
the load would cross into the Table A
zone.
OSHA requested comment in the
proposed rule as to whether
§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(iii) should be
modified to also prohibit the equipment
from being positioned such that the fall
path of the boom or load would breach
the Table A of § 1926.1408 clearance
distance. This requirement was
proposed to prevent the boom, hoist
line, or load from contacting an
energized power line and carrying the
electric current back through the
equipment. One commenter, in two
comments, agreed with the proposed
change. (ID–0052.0; –0092.1.) No
commenters disagreed.
Therefore, OSHA has modified
§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(iii) to prohibit free fall

48009

ER09AU10.001

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48010

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

were received for this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (a)(2) of this section is the
exclusive list of conditions under which
the use of cranes with live booms is
permitted. C–DAC found that cranes
with live booms can be used safely
under some circumstances and did not
determine that the cost of replacing or
retrofitting all such equipment is
justified as long as the use of live boom
equipment is limited to these
conditions. However, none of the
conditions outlined in § 1926.1426(a)(1)
may be present.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i) allows the use of
equipment with a live boom if that
equipment was manufactured prior to
October 31, 1984, and none of the
circumstances listed in
§ 1926.1426(a)(1) are present. ANSI
B30.5 first prohibited live booms in the
1972 version and reiterated the
prohibition in the 1982 edition, which
was published on October 31, 1983, and
became effective on October 31, 1984.
OSHA concludes that manufacturers
would have begun to phase out liveboom equipment when ANSI first
prohibited its use in 1972 and that few,
if any, live boom equipment would have
been manufactured after October 31,
1984. Moreover, during this period,
hydraulic hoisting equipment, the
design of which typically precluded
boom free fall even in its early designs,
became more prevalent.
In light of these factors, the Agency
concludes that most equipment
manufactured after October 31, 1984,
would not have live booms. Section
1926.1426(a)(2) thus allows the older
live boom equipment to be phased out
safely by restricting its use to situations
in which none of the circumstances
listed in § 1926.1426(a)(1) are present.
However, OSHA added a new provision
to this paragraph that considers liveboom equipment manufactured on or
after October 31, 1984, and meeting the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section, not to be subject to the
limitations of paragraph (a) of this
section. OSHA considers such
equipment, when so modified, to be as
safe as any equipment modified under
the requirements of paragraph (b).
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) allows use of a live
boom if the equipment is a floating
crane/derrick or is a land crane/derrick
on a vessel/flotation device and none of
the circumstances listed in
§ 1926.1426(a)(1) are present. The
Committee found, and OSHA agrees,
that equipment used on the water
commonly has a live boom because the
dynamics of load transfer while on
water (from side to side), as well as
unexpected wave action can cause rapid

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

changes in list and trim, which
sometimes necessitates that the operator
have a free fall boom system to
compensate for these effects. Non-live
systems are not fast enough for this
purpose. At the public hearing, a
witness from the maritime industry said
that the ‘‘unique tasks [associated with
operating cranes on the water] have
often required and will continue to
require a modification of existing cranes
and derricks so that they can safely
accomplish these specialized
applications.’’ (ID–0345.41.)
As a result, the Agency concludes that
there is no need to modify this
provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.
One commenter suggested there is a
conflict between the § 1926.1426(a)
allowance for the limited use of free
falling booms and § 1926.1433(b)(4)
incorporation of the ASME standard
prohibition on the use of free falling
booms. (ID–0053.1.)
Section 5–1.3.1 of ASME B30.5–2004
has a paragraph (b), which contains its
own text, as well as two subsidiary
paragraphs, enumerated (1) and (2),
each of which also contains text. The
ASME prohibition against live booms is
in the text of paragraph (b) of ASME
B30.5–2004 sec. 5–1.3.1. Free fall is not
mentioned in subsidiary paragraphs
(b)(1) or (b)(2) of ASME B30.5–2004 sec.
5–1.3.1.
Section 1926.1433 incorporates the
concepts in only subsidiary paragraphs
(b)(1) or (b)(2) of ASME B30.5–2004 sec.
5–1.3.1; it does not incorporate the
portions of paragraph (b) of ASME
B30.5–2004 sec. 5–1.3.1 that would
conflict with § 1926.1433. There is,
therefore, no conflict between
§§ 1926.1426(a) and 1926.1433(b)(4).
Paragraph § 1926.1426(a)(2) is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (b) Preventing Boom Free
Fall
Paragraph (b) of this section
establishes criteria for the boom hoist on
equipment with a boom designed to free
fall. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4)
specify the mechanisms or devices that
a boom hoist can utilize as a secondary
means to prevent boom free fall when
the primary system fails. C–DAC
determined that each of these were
effective means of preventing boom free
fall, and OSHA agrees. The addition of
a listed secondary mechanism or device
to prevent the fall of the boom changes
the characteristics of equipment
designed with a live boom, decreasing
the risk of injury to employees.
Therefore, if equipment has a boom
hoist with a secondary mechanism or
device listed in paragraphs (b)(1)

PO 00000

Frm 00106

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

through (4), it is not considered a live
boom for purposes of the limitations of
(a) of this section. No comments were
received on these provisions; they are
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c) Preventing Uncontrolled
Retraction
Paragraph (c) of this section requires
hydraulic telescoping booms (which are
also referred to as hydraulic extensible
booms) to have an integrally mounted
holding device to prevent the boom
from retracting in the event of hydraulic
failure.
The C–DAC draft of this provision
stated that the purpose of this device
was ‘‘to prevent boom movement in the
event of hydraulic failure.’’ OSHA
determines that this language was
unintentionally broad in that it refers to
any ‘‘boom movement.’’ In the proposed
rule, OSHA modified the language to
state that the purpose of the integrally
mounted holding device is ‘‘to prevent
the boom from retracting’’ in the event
of hydraulic failure and requested
public comment on this change.
Two commenters agreed with the
modification and no commenters
disagreed. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1.) The
text of § 1926.1426(c) is therefore
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d) Load Line Free Fall
Paragraph (d) of this section lists the
circumstances under which free fall of
the load line hoist is prohibited, and
controlled load lowering must be used.
‘‘Free fall (of the load line)’’ is defined
in § 1926.1401 to mean ‘‘where only the
brake is used to regulate the descent of
the load line (the drive mechanism is
not used to drive the load down faster
or retard its lowering).’’ ‘‘Free fall’’ is
contrasted with ‘‘controlled load
lowering,’’ which § 1926.1401 defines as
‘‘lowering a load by means of a
mechanical hoist drum device that
allows a hoisted load to be lowered with
maximum control using the gear train or
hydraulic components of the hoist
mechanism. Controlled load lowering
requires the use of the hoist drive motor,
rather than the load hoist brake, to
lower the load.’’
As with free fall of the boom, free fall
of the load line hoist presents a struckby hazard to employees. One difference
is that free fall of the load line
endangers a smaller area than boom free
fall. When a boom free falls, its tip (and
any attached load) moves both
downward and outward. Because the
load will be moving in at least two
directions simultaneously, the area that
will be affected by the fall is larger than
the affected area from a load line free
fall.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
In contrast, if a load line free falls, the
load will tend to fall in a relatively
straight path downward (as long as the
boom is not being moved and the load
is not significantly affected by winds).
Thus the area affected will typically be
smaller. As a result the prohibitions for
load line free fall are less than those
affiliated with boom free fall. No
comments were received on paragraphs
(d)(1) or (d)(2); they are promulgated as
proposed.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) stated that
the use of load line hoist free fall is
prohibited when the load is directly
over a power line, or over any part of
the area extending the Table A clearance
distance to each side of the power line.
OSHA requested comment on whether
proposed § 1926.1426(d)(3) should be
modified to also prohibit the equipment
from being positioned where the fall
path of the load would breach the Table
A clearance distance. One commenter,
in two comments agreed with the
change and no commenters disagreed.
(ID–0052.0; –0092.1.)
Since this modification is consistent
with the purpose of the provision,
OSHA has included this revised
language in the final rule;
§ 1926.1426(d)(3) to prohibit load line
free fall where the power line or the
Table A clearance distance is within the
fall path of the load.
Proposed paragraph (d)(4) stated that
load line free fall is prohibited when the
load is over a shaft or cofferdam. OSHA
noted that, unlike the prohibition
against live booms in
§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(v), proposed
paragraph (d)(4) contained no exception
regarding cofferdams in which there are
no employees in the fall zone. OSHA
requested comment on whether
proposed § 1926.1426(d)(4) should
include the same exception included in
§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(v). Two commenters
agreed with the modification and no
commenters disagreed. (ID–0205;
–0213.) Because the fall zone of a free
falling load line is typically a smaller
area than the fall zone of a free falling
boom, the Agency is unaware of any
reason to include the exception in
§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(v) for live booms but
omit it for load free fall. Therefore, in
the final rule, OSHA has modified the
language in proposed § 1926.1426(d) by
separately addressing shafts and
cofferdams, and adding an exception for
the latter.
Section 1926.1427 Operator
Qualification and Certification
Introduction
Section 1926.1427 addresses the
safety problems that result if equipment
operators lack the knowledge and skills

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

necessary to perform their duties safely.
In C–DAC’s collective experience,
operator error plays a role in a
significant percentage of fatal and other
serious crane accidents because
operators are not familiar with the
precautions needed to protect against
hazards such as power line contact,
crane overloading and collapse, and loss
of control of the load. C–DAC concluded
that a verified testing process is
essential for ensuring that crane
operators have the requisite knowledge
and skills and that requiring crane
operators to successfully complete such
a process would be an effective and
efficient way to reduce crane-related
accidents.
In the proposed rule, OSHA noted
that C–DAC’s finding in this regard was
supported by a study conducted over a
34-year period (1969–2002) by the
Construction Safety Association of
Ontario that showed a substantial
decrease in crane and rigging fatalities
in Ontario beginning in 1979, when
mandatory training and certification
requirements for Ontario crane
operators went into effect. (ID–0009.) In
the ten-year period from 1969 through
1978, before Ontario’s requirements
went into effect, 85 Ontario construction
workers suffered crane and rigging
fatalities, amounting to 8.5 per year, or
19.8% of all construction fatalities in
Ontario. In the 24-year period from 1979
through 2002, there were 51 crane and
rigging fatalities, or slightly more than
two per year. For this period, crane and
rigging fatalities equaled 9.6% of all
Ontario construction fatalities. In the
12-year period from 1991 through 2002,
the total number of crane and rigging
fatalities was 9, or fewer than one per
year. During this period, crane and
rigging fatalities amounted to 4.1% of
total construction fatalities. This study
supports C–DAC’s conclusion that thirdparty certification is an effective means
of promoting safe crane operations.107
107 The Ontario system requires prospective or
current crane operators (referred to in Ontario as
‘‘hoisting engineers’’) to either successfully
complete an apprenticeship program or
demonstrate sufficient previous experience before
seeking certification as a hoisting engineer. The
apprenticeship program includes in-school training
in a number of topics determined by the Ministry
of Education, a practical examination administered
at Ministry-designated sites, and a written
examination administered by the Ministry. Upon
passing this examination and proving completion of
the requisite work hours, an apprentice receives a
certificate of qualification as one of three types of
hoisting engineer from the Ministry. (ID–0010.)
Hoisting engineers already qualified elsewhere
must also obtain a certification from the Ministry
to operate cranes in the province. These candidates
must sit for the written examination and complete
the practical skills assessment required for
qualification of apprentices, but may demonstrate
sufficient previous experience instead of

PO 00000

Frm 00107

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48011

The rulemaking record contains
additional support for C–DAC’s
conclusion. A study of crane accidents
in California both before and after that
State adopted a mandatory certification
requirement shows a significant drop in
crane-related fatalities and injuries after
the certification requirement went into
effect on May 31, 2005. (ID–0205.1.) For
the three years prior to that date,
California experienced ten fatal
accidents, while in the next three years,
only two fatal accidents occurred. The
number of injury cases declined from 30
to 13 over the same two periods. The
California data supports that from
Ontario and demonstrates that
significant safety benefits can be
expected from a requirement for thirdparty certification.
The rulemaking record also contains
substantial evidence regarding the need
for continued application of State and
local laws. As several commenters
explained, State and local licensing
requirements are backed by the police
power of that government. For example,
New York law states that the operation
of a crane without a valid license in
New York City is a misdemeanor
punishable by fines and imprisonment.
(NYC Administrative Code §§ 28–405.1;
28–203.1.) Moreover, states have the
power to revoke previously issued
licenses under appropriate
circumstances. (ID–0171.1.) In contrast,
OSHA’s enforcement of certification or
other qualification requirements would
be limited in most cases to a citation to
an employer. Based on the record as a
whole, the Agency concludes that
cooperative Federal-State enforcement
will increase the effectiveness of the
new standard. See also discussion of
federalism in section V.D of this
preamble.
The certification requirements in the
final rule are therefore designed to work
in conjunction with State and local
laws, and to afford employers several
options for ensuring operator abilities in
areas where there are no State or local
operator licensing requirements. For
operation of equipment within
jurisdictions where a State or locality
licenses crane operators, and the
government entity’s licensing program
meets certain criteria, OSHA is
requiring operators (with the exception
of operators that are employees of and
operating equipment for the U.S.
military) to be licensed by that
government entity. For operation in
other areas, employers will have three
completing the number of work/training hours
required by the apprenticeship program, to receive
a certificate of qualification from the Ministry in
one of the three hoisting engineer categories. (ID–
0011.)

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48012

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

options for certification or qualification
of their operators. Each of these options
will be explained and discussed in
detail below. They are:
1. Be certified by passing an
examination administered by an
accredited testing organization.
2. Be qualified through the employer’s
in-house, but independently audited,
testing program.
3. Be qualified by the United States
military.
While OSHA is requiring compliance
with State and local licensing laws
immediately upon the effective date of
this standard in recognition of the
existing force and effect of those laws,
OSHA is not requiring certification or
qualification under the three options
listed above until four years from the
effective date of this standard.
Moreover, there are limited exceptions
to all of the licensing and certification
requirements, as specified in
§ 1926.1427(a). Even after the four-year
phase-in period of the general
certification requirements, OSHA will
continue to allow non-certified
operators to operate the equipment as
operators-in-training in accordance with
§ 1926.1427(f), discussed below.
Of the three options available in the
absence of State or local licensing laws,
Option (3) of this section is available
only to the United States military for
qualification of its employees. Further,
as discussed below, a number of
commenters stated that Option (2) of
this section was not viable for many
employers. However, Option (1) of this
section is available to all employers and
will be the one that is most widely used.
Therefore, most of the public comments
and evidence presented at the hearing
addressed Option (1).
At the hearing, a witness for an
accredited testing organization testified
that the certification process embodied
in Option (1) originated in the 1990s
when private industry groups began an
effort to improve crane safety. The
witness explained that the industry
representatives involved with the
organization are drawn from such
groups as contractors, crane rental firms,
labor unions, owners, steel erectors,
manufacturers, construction firms,
training consultants, and insurance
companies. (ID–0343.) The witness also
explained that exam management
committees meet throughout the year to
ensure the continuing fairness and
integrity of the testing process. Finally,
the witness explained that certification
promotes safety by ensuring that the
training an individual has received has
succeeded in giving that individual the
knowledge and skills to operate a crane
safely. (ID–0343.)

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Many commenters and witnesses at
the public hearing expressed support for
the proposed rule’s approach of
requiring third party verification of an
operator’s qualifications and for the
range of options presented. A national
safety organization expressed support
for the provision to ensure qualification
and certification of operators. (ID–
0178.1.) A trade association stated that
third party oversight was critical to
create an effective and legitimate testing
process and to ensure that the training
portion did not have undue influence
on the testing process. (ID–0205.1.)
Similarly, another commenter
supported the proposed Q/C
requirements, emphasizing the
importance of independent certification
of an operator’s skill and knowledge by
an accredited nationally recognized
third-party entity or organization. (ID–
0169.1.) Similar views were expressed
by other commenters. (ID–0158.1;
–0160.1; –0173.1; –0192.1; –0196.0;
–0211.1; –0212.1; –0220.1; –0225.1;
–0228.1; –0241.1.)
A number of witnesses at the public
hearing also supported the proposed
requirement for third-party verification.
A representative from a crane rental
company said that, although they incur
additional cost to prove certification,
they consider that cost an investment in
the safety of their employees. (ID–0344.)
A major crane user observed both
certified and non-certified operators and
found that the certified operators
operated far more safely because of the
more comprehensive training required
to become certified. (ID–0344.)
An insurance company representative
and former crane operator stated that his
company believes that employers who
certify their operators have fewer
accidents and that, as a result, his firm
offers companies it insures a ten percent
discount if they have their operators
certified. (ID–0343.) The representative
believed that the cost of certification
was modest when compared to the cost
of accidents. (ID–0343.) A representative
from a crane rental company testified
that preparing for the certification
process allowed his company to
improve their operators’ knowledge and
ability to operate cranes safely. (ID–
0343.) A representative from a steel
erection company agreed that
certification is important to both
insurance companies and employers
because certification gives employers
peace of mind and reduces insurance
costs. (ID–0344.)
Some commenters and witnesses
opposed the proposed rule’s
requirement for qualification or
certification of operators. A trade
association commented that the

PO 00000

Frm 00108

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

requirements would not improve safety
more than having trained, qualified
operators because many of the operators
in recent accidents were certified. (ID–
0151.1.) The commenter also questioned
whether sufficient analysis had been
done to show that the proposed
requirements would improve the safety
of crane operations. This commenter
believed that the current requirement
(§ 1926.20(b)(4)) for equipment
operators to be qualified by training or
experience was sufficient. A witness
from a similar trade association
expressed a similar view, stating that
training, not certification, is the answer
to safe crane operations. (ID–0343.)
A representative of the building
industry thought the requirements were
too restrictive and stated that OSHA
failed to show that the limited
requirements would substantially
reduces the risk of accidents while other
alternatives would not. (ID–0232.1.) The
commenter asked that its members have
the option to self-evaluate their
operators after they have gone through
a specified training program in lieu of
the third-party certification that would
be required under proposed Option (1)
of this section for cranes of less than 35
ton capacity with a boom length no
greater than 120 feet. A witness who
appeared on behalf of the commenter
criticized the proposal for imposing the
same requirements on employers
engaged in residential construction as
those in commercial construction and
said training and certification
requirements should be crane and
industry specific. (ID–0341.)
Another trade association similarly
recommended that its members be given
the ability to self-certify their operators.
(ID–0218.1.) A small business
representative asked OSHA to assess
whether it is feasible to allow small
employers to ‘‘self-certify’’ that an
operator is trained and competent to
operate the equipment and perform the
tasks being conducted.108 (ID–0147.1.) A
trade association suggested that OSHA
consider the feasibility of allowing
small employers to ‘‘self-certify’’ that
their operators are trained and
competent to operate the equipment and
perform their assigned tasks. (ID–
0187.1.) Another trade association
believed that mandatory selfcertification was a feasible option for
operators of what it characterized as
‘‘light-duty’’ cranes used by its members.
(ID–0189.1.)
An energy association argued that
firms engaged in wind turbine
108 The commenter, however, also acknowledged
that there are small businesses that are in favor of
third-party certification. (ID–0147.1.)

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
construction should be permitted to
self-certify their crane operators.– (ID–
0329.1.) The commenter stated that
construction of wind turbines requires
the use of the largest and most complex
cranes available, and that some of its
members had found that some operators
certified by NCCCO were not truly
qualified to operate those cranes. It
therefore believed that firms in its
industry should be able to self-qualify
their crane operators, but objected to the
need for employers in its industry who
use Option (2) of this section to be
required to use the services of an
auditor. The commenter said it did not
believe that there would be properly
trained and qualified people available to
audit the wind industry. Instead of
requiring auditors, the commenter
suggested that OSHA add to the find
rule additional, detailed criteria that an
employer-sponsored program must
contain to be acceptable.
OSHA rejects the suggestions of the
commenters who argued that employers
should have the option of determining
that their operators are qualified
without any form of third-party
verification. Based on the rulemaking
record, OSHA is persuaded that the
third-party requirements in the
proposed rule are an essential element
in improving crane safety. The members
of C–DAC, who had vast collective
experience in all aspects of crane
operations, reached a consensus (with
two members dissenting) 109 that thirdparty verification was needed to reduce
the number of crane accidents and
fatalities in the construction industry.
Their consensus was supported by a
number of commenters, including some
employers who have already had their
operators certified through a third-party
process and have found certification to
be a useful and cost-effective means of
promoting safety.110 The reliance of the
insurance industry on third-party
verification as such an indicator of
reduced risk that it warrants reduced
premiums, is further evidence of its
value. Moreover, the fact that safetyconscious members of private industry
voluntarily helped to develop a thirdparty certification process before there
was a government mandate to do so is
further evidence that certification
promotes safety.
As discussed earlier, a number of
commenters urged OSHA to require
109 As explained in the Introduction, under C–
DAC ground rules, a ‘‘consensus’’ was reached on
an issue if there were no more than two non-Federal
dissenters.
110 It is also supported by the data from Ontario
and California showing that third-party certification
can significantly reduce crane-related fatalities and
injuries, discussed below.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

training rather than certification. But
training alone is insufficient without a
means of verifying that each operator
understands the training well enough to
operate safely and is sufficiently skilled
to implement what he/she has been
taught. As Graham Brent, Executive
Director of NCCCO put it at the hearing,
‘‘[c]ertification * * * is an employer’s,
as well as the general public’s, best
assurance that the required training has
not only been effective, but that learning
has taken place during the training
process.’’ (ID–0343.) OSHA’s current
training standard has not prevented the
high number of crane-related fatalities
and serious injuries that have been
occurring as a result of improper
operation.
OSHA acknowledges that many
employers have effective training
programs and highly competent crane
operators. However, the rulemaking
record shows that a training
requirement alone is insufficient to
ensure that crane operators have the
requisite level of competence. This was
the opinion of the members of C–DAC
and is shared by many of the members
of the public who commented on the
proposed rule and who testified at the
public hearing.
A representative of the building
industry objects to OSHA’s reliance on
the study by the Construction Safety
Association of Ontario, saying that it
does not meet statutory and regulatory
information quality standards, including
the Department of Labor’s Information
Quality Guidelines.111 (ID–0232.1.)
First, OSHA notes that the Ontario
study is only part of the record evidence
on which the Agency relies in
promulgating this standard. In the
preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA
stated that the Ontario study
‘‘buttressed’’ C–DAC’s experience and
conclusions regarding the need for
independent testing of operator ability
(see 73 FR 59810, Oct. 9, 2008). Second,
OSHA’s reliance on that study does
comply with the Department’s
guidelines. Appendix II of the
guidelines addresses the information
quality principles on which OSHA
relies in setting health and safety
standards. For safety standards, such as
this rule, OSHA must use ‘‘the best
available statistical data from surveys of
fatalities, injuries, and illnesses, and the
best available peer-reviewed science
and supporting studies that describe the
nature of the safety risks being
addressed.’’ OSHA determines that the
111 ‘‘Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the
Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by the Department of
Labor,’’ (Oct. 1, 2002), available on the Department
of Labor’s Web site.

PO 00000

Frm 00109

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48013

Ontario study, though not peerreviewed, is the ‘‘best available
statistical data’’ showing the efficacy of
third-party operator certification. The
California study is similarly supportive
of the C–DAC conclusions.
In other respects as well, OSHA has
complied with the Department of
Labor’s Information Quality Guidelines.
The guidelines state that ‘‘[t]he goal of
a safety risk analysis is to describe the
numbers, rates, and causal nature of
injuries related to the safety risks being
addressed.’’ To meet this goal, OSHA
historically has ‘‘relied on injury and
illness statistics from BLS, combined
with incident or accident reports from
enforcement activities, incident or
accident reports submitted to the record
from the private or public sectors,
testimony of experts who have
experience dealing with the safety risks
being addressed, and information and
data supplied by organizations that
develop consensus safety standards.’’
In developing the proposed rule, and
in issuing this final rule, OSHA has
relied on these types of evidence,
including studies based on BLS
statistics and OSHA enforcement
reports, as well as incident reports from
specific enforcement cases. (See 73 FR
59719–59723, Oct. 9, 2008.) On the
specific question of the need for thirdparty verification of a crane operator’s
qualifications, OSHA has relied
primarily on the opinions of experts
with vast experience in crane operations
and the hazards presented by crane use,
including the members of C–DAC and
construction industry employers who
appeared at the public hearing. OSHA is
persuaded that third-party verification
will significantly reduce the number of
crane-related injuries and is confident
that the information on which it relies
to set this standard is reliable, the best
available, and meets the Department’s
guidelines.
A trade association also questioned
OSHA’s reliance on the Ontario study,
suggesting that Ontario’s ability to issue
citations to employees is the likely
cause of Ontario’s decrease in fatal
crane accidents. (ID–0151.1.) OSHA
notes, however, that the Construction
Safety Association of Ontario attributed
the decrease to increased operator skill,
not employee citations. (ID–0009.)
OSHA determines that the Construction
Safety Association of Ontario was wellpositioned to evaluate why Ontario was
able to achieve a dramatic reduction in
crane-related fatalities and accepts its
opinion on the question. Moreover, the
employee citations permitted under
Section 66 of Ontario’s Occupational
Health and Safety Act did not take effect
until 1990. These employee citations

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48014

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

appear to function primarily as a
deterrent to non-compliance with
Ontario’s construction safety standards,
as opposed to the operator certification
requirements that are intended to verify
knowledge and skills necessary for safe
operation. In that regard, the civil fine
provisions are similar to the licensing
requirements (separate from
certification) that Ontario had required
prior to 1979. There is no indication in
the record that the fines provided a
greater level of deterrence than the
government’s pre-existing authority to
sanction an individual operator through
the revocation of an operator’s license.
The representative of the building
industry claimed that the rate of
accidents resulting from crane use in the
residential construction industry is too
low to justify requiring homebuilders to
comply with the qualification/
certification requirement in the
proposed rule. The commenter
conducted a study, using fatality data
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
which, according to the commenter,
showed that 13 out of 1385, or slightly
less than 1%, of fatalities in the
residential construction industry from
2003–2006 were crane-related. (ID–
0232.1.) Because this percentage is
substantially less than the more than
8% of all construction fatalities that
were found to be crane-related in the
Beavers study, the commenter suggests
the risk of serious injury from the
smaller truck mounted telescopic boom
cranes used in residential construction
is substantially less than the risk of
injury from large lattice boom and tower
cranes used in commercial/industrial
construction. The commenter stated that
a copy of its study was attached to its
comment and is available on its Web
site. (ID–0232.1.) In fact, a copy was not
attached to its comment. OSHA has
located a document on the commenter’s
Web site entitled ‘‘Residential
Construction Fatalities, 2003–2006’’ that
describes the causes of fatalities in
residential construction, but has found
nothing in that document to support the
commenter’s claim that only 13 of those
fatalities were crane-related.
Nevertheless, even if the commenter
could support its claim of 13 cranerelated fatalities, its conclusion that
cranes present little risk of serious
injury in residential construction does
not follow. First, OSHA determines that
13 crane-related fatalities in
homebuilding in a four year period is
significant and well worth trying to
reduce. Moreover, the commenter’s
comparison of percentages is not
persuasive. The fact that a smaller
percentage of fatalities are crane-related
in residential construction than in

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

resort to third-party verification. Others
suggested expanding the range of
options available to the employer, in
particular allowing accredited
educational institutions to certify
operators. These comments will be
discussed below in the sections of the
standard that address the issues raised
by the commenters.

commercial/industrial construction may
simply reflect lower crane usage in
residential construction. A witness who
appeared on behalf of the commenter at
the public hearing, testified that cranes
are typically used on a residential
construction project between two and
six hours to lift objects like roof and
floor trusses. (ID–0341.) The witness
noted that for commercial construction,
a crane might be on the job from six
months to two years. (ID–0341.) In light
of the brief percentage of time cranes are
used in residential construction
compared to the percentage of time they
are used in commercial construction, it
would be expected that the percentage
of accidents they cause will similarly be
lower even if, while they are on the job,
they present the same or even a higher
degree of risk.112
OSHA also rejects the commenter’s
suggestion that homebuilders should be
permitted to self-certify their crane
operators. The commenter states that the
vast majority of the building
association’s single-family home
builders are very small, with 61%
building ten homes or fewer. The
witness stated at the hearing that the
home building industry has many small
operations and a few very large players.
(ID–0341.) In OSHA’s experience, most
small construction firms would not have
the expertise to develop or administer
the types of tests necessary to reliably
assess operator ability (see the
discussion of the criteria applied by
nationally recognized accrediting
entities to accredit certification
organizations).
OSHA also does not conclude that
such companies typically possess the
expertise to establish and implement the
sophisticated type of training program
that the commenter suggests should be
required for employer self-certification.
(ID–0232.1.) The same problem exists
throughout the construction industry,
which includes numerous small firms.
Furthermore, as found by C–DAC,
independent testing is essential to
ensure that operators have in fact
attained the knowledge and ability the
training is supposed to impart.
A number of commenters suggested
that the proposed requirements should
be modified in various ways. Some
suggested exempting certain equipment
from the qualification/certification
requirement or requiring a form of
qualification/certification that the
employer could implement without

Paragraph (a)(1) Compliance With
State and Local Licensing Requirements
The proposed rule included a fourth
option to satisfy the operator
certification/qualification requirements
of § 1926.1427: qualification through a
government entity with a licensing
program meeting certain criteria.
Several states submitted comments on
the proposed rule urging the Agency to
preserve State and local operator
licensing laws. Some of these concerns
are addressed in the discussion of
preemption under federalism in section
V.D of this preamble. Two of those
commenters, each with its own
statewide crane operator licensing
requirements, specifically requested that
OSHA mandate compliance with State
requirements for crane operations
within the jurisdiction of those states
(with the exception of operators who are
employees of the U.S. military). (ID–
0171.1; –0237.) Three State governments
argued persuasively that if government
licensing was presented merely as an
option, rather than required, many
employers would simply by-pass these

112 Mr. Behlman testified that overhead power
lines are ‘‘very seldom’’ found on residential sites.
(ID–0341.) However, the document on NAHB’s Web
site showing the causes of residential construction
fatalities from 2003 to 2006 attributes 76 fatalities
to ‘‘contact with overhead power lines.’’

113 These State and local licensing requirements
would remain in effect. See discussion of
preemption of State and local law under federalism
in section V.D of this preamble. OSHA is simply
choosing not to require compliance with any such
licensing requirements for that equipment.

PO 00000

Frm 00110

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Paragraph (a)
In the final rule, paragraph (a) of this
section specifies that the employer must
ensure that the operator of any
equipment covered under § 1926.1400,
with certain listed exceptions, is either
qualified or certified to operate the
equipment in accordance with the
provisions of this section or is operating
the equipment during a training period.
Paragraph (a)(1) requires compliance
with State and local operator licensing
laws. For areas where State or local
licensing is not required, paragraph
(a)(2) requires employers to use one of
the three options listed above to certify
or qualify their operators. Paragraph
(a)(3) provides exceptions from all of
§ 1926.1427’s certification and
qualification requirements for operators
of certain equipment, regardless of
whether State or local governments have
licensing requirements for operators of
that equipment.113

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

licensing requirements in favor of less
stringent, portable private certification
options. (ID–0171.1.) One State
government also noted that some states
have proven, reliable licensing
procedures already in place. Where
State and local licensing departments or
offices are already well established and
staffed, and are already preventing
deaths or serious injuries through the
use of effective licensing procedure,
there is little support in the record for
disturbing them.
In light of the commenter’s
compelling arguments and the policy
considerations noted above, the Agency
is convinced that the governmental
licensing requirements should be
mandatory, rather than optional. In
response, the Agency is revising
paragraphs (a) and (e) of § 1926.1427 to
mandate compliance with State and
local operator licensing laws that meet
a ‘‘Federal floor’’ established in
paragraphs (e)(2) and (j) of this
section.114
This mandatory compliance is set
forth in the introductory text of
§ 1926.1427(a)(1) and paragraph (a)(1)(i).
OSHA has added § 1926.1427(a)(1)(ii) to
clarify that employees of the U.S.
military who have been certified or
qualified to operate equipment pursuant
to § 1926.1427(d) would not also be
required to obtain an operator’s license
from a State or local government for
construction work on behalf of the
military employer. By requiring
compliance with State and local laws,
the Agency is also complying with
Executive Order 13132, which urges
agencies to preserve the full force and
effect to State and local laws. (See 64 FR
43225, Aug. 10, 1999.)
This decision is a logical outgrowth of
the proposal. The proposal identified a
significant safety risk from improper
operation of equipment and proposed
certification requirements as a means of
addressing that risk. Governmental
licensing of crane operators has existed
alongside OSHA’s prior crane rules at
former § 1926.550 for many years, and
C–DAC made them a significant
component of the proposal without any
indication that the new standard would
exempt employers from compliance
with those laws. The government
licensing provision was the subject of a
number of comments, and was
114 This ‘‘Federal floor’’ refers to the minimum
requirements for license tests in § 1926.1427(e)(2),
and the minimum knowledge and skills that must
be tested as set forth in § 1926.1427(j)(1) and (j)(2).
Employers would not be required by OSHA to
comply with State or local government entity
licensing requirements that do not meet this
‘‘Federal floor,’’ but States and local governments
could still seek to enforce their own laws.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

discussed during the hearing in the
context of comments requesting OSHA
to make the government licensing
mandatory.
The preamble to the proposed rule
noted C–DAC’s opinion that some States
have ‘‘effective, reliable, licensing
procedures’’ (73 FR 59814, Oct. 9, 2008).
The preamble to the proposed rule also
specifically cited the Department of
Transportation’s requirement that
commercial drivers also carry State
drivers licenses issued in accordance
with Federal standards (73 FR 59810).
The DOT licensing was provided as an
example of how State licensing, when
required as part of a general Federal
compliance scheme, has been ‘‘used in
the past to prevent fatal and other
serious accidents that result when
operators lack the knowledge and skills
needed to operate safely.’’ Id. The only
other example of successful third-party
certification provided as a basis for the
certification requirement was another
government licensing requirement:
Ontario’s licensing requirements for
crane operators. Id. The combination of
OSHA’s exclusive reliance on these
examples and the government licensing
provision in proposed § 1926.1427(e)
provided clear notice that the
government licensing provision might
develop along the lines of the examples.
While several commenters submitted
comments supporting mandatory
compliance with government licenses,
thereby indicating that at least these
parties viewed the mandatory
compliance as a possible outcome of the
rulemaking, none of the commenters
objected to the government licensing
provision or questioned the validity of
their tests. The Agency’s choice to make
compliance with paragraph (e)
mandatory, rather than optional, flows
logically from the proposal, the
comments, and the discussion at
hearing. See National Mining Ass’n v.
Mine Safety and Health Admin., 512
F.3d 696, 699 (DC Cir. 2008) (noting that
the logical outgrowth test takes into
account the comments, statements and
proposals made during the notice-andcomment period).
The Agency’s decision to mandate
compliance with State and local laws is
not new. OSHA already relies on State
licensing requirements in its respirator
standard when it provided for ‘‘a
licensed health care professional’’ to
perform a medical evaluation of an
employee’s ability to use a respiratory
(see § 1910.134(e)). This portion of the
standard was challenged and upheld in
American Iron Steel and Steel Institute
v. OSHA, 182 F.3d 1261, 1278 (11th Cir.
1999). OSHA’s choice to mandate
compliance with State or local law is

PO 00000

Frm 00111

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48015

also consistent with the approach of
other agencies. (See, e.g., Department of
Transportation regulations requiring
State licensing of commercial drivers,
discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule at 73 FR 59810, Oct. 9,
2008.)
Paragraph (a)(2) Options for
Certification or Qualification Where
License Not Required by a Government
Entity
As noted above, where a State or local
license is not required, employers have
three choices for certification of
operators. Those choices are set out in
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section and discussed in detail below. It
is important to note that these options
will not satisfy the requirements of
§ 1926.1427 for operation of equipment
within a State or local government’s
jurisdiction when that government
entity has it’s own licensing
requirements that satisfy the criteria in
paragraphs (e) and (j) of this section.
Paragraph (a)(3) Exceptions
The exceptions in the proposed rule
were for types of equipment that are
specifically excluded from the
qualification/certification requirement
under sections of this standard that
pertain to that equipment, including
derricks (see § 1926.1436), sideboom
cranes (see § 1926.1440), and equipment
with a rated hoisting/lifting capacity of
2,000 pounds or less (see § 1926.1441).
A labor representative pointed out
that the exception in § 1926.1441
applies to equipment with a ‘‘maximum
manufacturer-rated’’ hoisting/lifting
capacity of 2,000 pounds or less, and it
asked that this same language be used
in § 1926.1427(a) to avoid suggesting
that the exception might apply to larger
equipment when it is configured to have
a rated capacity of 2,000 pounds or less.
(ID–0341.) OSHA agrees that the
suggested change better reflects the
intent of the provision and has modified
the language of § 1926.1427(a) in the
final rule by replacing the word ‘‘rated’’
with ‘‘maximum rated.’’ OSHA notes
that this change does not change the
substantive requirements of the rule in
any manner.
A number of commenters asked that
additional types of equipment or
activities be exempted from
§ 1926.1427’s qualification/certification
requirement.
A utility company recommended that
cranes of 10,000 pound capacity or less
be excluded on the basis that most uses
of these cranes are highly repetitive and
predictable. (ID–0144.1.) A trade
association suggested exempting cranes
rated at less than 10 or 15 tons from the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48016

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

requirement. (ID–0191.1.) It said that
these types of cranes are often used to
deliver products to a jobsite or to place
small rooftop HVAC units on low rise
buildings, and that they are used for
simple lifts of relatively light loads. This
commenter also requested that OSHA
add a less restrictive certification level
for cranes rated less than 30 tons, which
it said are less complicated to assemble
and set up and are used during ‘‘low
risk’’ lifts.
Another trade association suggested
that the threshold for requiring
qualification/certification should
exclude the 5,000 to 10,000 pound
capacity cranes that its members
typically use. (ID–0189.1.) It said that
this equipment is relatively simple to
operate, that the signs its members
install rarely exceed 2,000 pounds, and
that the equipment is used
intermittently on the job and only for
brief periods of time.
A third trade association believes that
the size and scope of the lifts its
members make do not justify the
qualification/certification requirements
in the proposed rule and suggested
alternative requirements for its members
when they operate cranes of less than 35
ton capacity with a boom length no
greater than 120 feet. (ID–0218.1.) They
ask that their members have the option
to self-evaluate their operators after they
have gone through a specified training
program instead of the third-party
certification that would be required
under proposed Option (1). A
representative of the building industry
made a similar recommendation for
cranes of less than 35 ton capacity with
a boom length no greater than 120 feet.
(ID–0232.1.) A small business
representative suggested that OSHA
consider exempting some small cranes
(based on vehicle weight or boom
length) or routine lifts. (ID–0147.1.)
A witness for a labor representative
testified in opposition to excluding
equipment rated over 2,000 pounds by
the manufacturer. He stated that some
low-capacity cranes have long booms
and are used to lift loads to great
heights, particularly when there is not
sufficient space for a larger crane. (ID–
0341.) According to the witness, safety
concerns presented by low capacity
cranes with a long boom are as serious
as the concerns presented by high
capacity cranes. (ID–0341.) He added
that the danger of power line contact
was present regardless of the capacity of
the crane.
A representative from a crane rental
company also testified against
exempting low-capacity cranes from the
qualification/certification requirement.
His company had a fleet of cranes

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

ranging from 4 to 600 ton capacity, and
in his experience the majority of
accidents that his customers
experienced when they rented cranes
but provided their own operators
occurred with cranes rated 35 tons or
less. (ID–0344.) He was aware of
accidents on residential construction
sites that resulted from operating on
unsuitable ground, not setting the
outriggers properly, and lifting too
heavy a load for the crane’s
configuration, deficiencies that he
attributed to operators who did not
appreciate the hazards involved. (ID–
0344.)
OSHA has carefully considered the
comments asking for additional types of
equipment to be exempted from the
qualification/certification requirements
of § 1926.1427. For the following
reasons, OSHA declines to add such
exemptions to the final rule.
The members of C–DAC, who had
vast collective experience in all aspects
of crane operations, reached a
consensus that third-party verification
was needed to reduce the number of
crane accidents and fatalities in the
construction industry. They further
determined that such a requirement
should apply to virtually all hoisting
equipment, with only the limited
exceptions listed in the proposed rule.
In proposing to exempt equipment with
a rated capacity of 2,000 pounds or less,
the Committee considered whether to
establish a higher threshold for the
requirement but concluded that the
operators of higher-capacity cranes,
including those in the 5,000–35,000
pound range that the commenters ask to
be exempted, needed to be wellqualified to reduce the number of
accidents involving such cranes.
Ultimately, C–DAC included the 2,000
pound cutoff to parallel ANSI B30.5 in
this regard (see 73 FR 59841, Oct. 9,
2008).
The rulemaking record shows that
many of the same hazards presented by
larger cranes are present for cranes in
this capacity range, including operating
in proximity to power lines, the
potential for collapse if the crane is
overloaded, and the need for adequate
ground conditions to ensure the crane’s
stability during operation. As a labor
representative testified, these smaller
cranes may be used in tight spaces
where larger cranes cannot be used. An
operator’s loss of control of the load in
a tight space would present a serious
safety hazard, and the potential for
operating in tight spaces highlights the
need for operators of even relatively
low-capacity cranes to be highly skilled.
OSHA also rejects the suggestions by
some commenters that exemptions

PO 00000

Frm 00112

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

should be created for cranes that are
typically used for repetitive,
predictable, intermittent, or light use.
The principal difficulty with this
suggestion is that the underlying causes
of crane-related fatalities and injuries
are not necessarily diminished in such
situations. For example, the presence of
power lines presents an electrocution
hazard in all situations, irrespective of
how the equipment is used. Proper
ground conditions, which can change
during crane use, are also as necessary
for those types of uses as others, and all
cranes can be overloaded if operated
improperly. The knowledge and skill
needed for attaining operator
qualification/certification under this
section is a prerequisite for being able
to successfully address these and other
hazards.
Furthermore, while an employer may
initially plan to use a crane in a
repetitive or otherwise predictable
manner, or to handle light loads,
unforeseen circumstances can arise that
can alter those plans. Wind, which can
arise unexpectedly during a lift, can
dramatically decrease the capacity of a
crane and increase the difficulty in
properly handling the load; a previously
‘‘repetitive’’ lift can change
unexpectedly when rain causes the
ground supporting the crane to become
muddy and less able to support the
crane; a rigging problem may arise
during one of the ‘‘repetitive’’ lifts,
which could cause unexpected load
control problems during the lift; and
hoisting a ‘‘light’’ load at a low boom
angle can pose similar overturning
hazards to hoisting a heavy load at a
high boom angle. Nor are there fewer
crane-related hazards when a worker
operates a crane only intermittently. For
example, that operator on one of those
occasions may have to run the crane
near power lines, in the blind, with
uneven winds, or at a low boom angle;
in such cases (as in many others) he/she
needs to be as fully capable as an
operator who runs the crane regularly.
Paragraph (a)(4)
The Agency is adding this paragraph
to the final rule to clarify that operator
certification or qualification as required
under this section must be provided at
no cost to employees who are already
employed by the employer on
November 8, 2010. This clarification is
consistent with the Agency’s revision of
the training requirements throughout
subpart CC to expressly state that
employers must provide all training at
no cost to employees. The clarification
is consistent with the Agency’s
treatment of costs for operator
qualification and certification in the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

preliminary economic analysis provided
in the preamble of the proposed rule.
(See, e.g., 73 FR 59895, Oct. 9, 2008
(operator certification training treated as
cost to employer).)
Based on the testimony of several
witnesses at the hearing, OSHA
concludes that imposing the operator
qualification and certification costs on
the employer will not be overly
burdensome to the employer. At the
hearing, a representative from a crane
rental company said that, although his
company incurs additional cost to
provide certification, his company
considers that cost an investment in the
safety of their employees. (ID–0344.) An
insurance company representative and
former crane operator stated that the
cost of certification was modest when
compared to the cost of accidents. (ID–
0343.) This witness also stated that his
company believes that employers who
certify their operators have fewer
accidents and that, as a result, his firm
offers companies it insures a ten percent
discount if they have their operators
certified. (ID–0343.) A representative
from a steel erection company agreed
that certification is important to both
insurance companies and employers
because certification gives employers
peace of mind and reduces insurance
costs. (ID–0344.)
In light of the need for clarification
and witness support at the hearing,
OSHA is adding new paragraph (a)(4) to
this section of the final rule.
Paragraph (b) Option (1): Certification
by an Accredited Crane Operator
Testing Organization
As noted above, the proposed rule
provided four options for a crane
operator to be qualified or certified.
Option (1) of this section, in which the
employee becomes certified to operate
equipment of a certain type and
capacity by passing an examination
administered by an accredited testing
organization, is the most broadly
available option, and OSHA expects it
to be the one that most employers use
outside of jurisdictions with State or
local licensing requirements.
Under Option (1), a crane operator
becomes certified by a testing
organization that has itself been
accredited by a ‘‘nationally recognized
accrediting agency.’’ Section 1926.1401
defines ‘‘nationally recognized
accrediting agency’’ as ‘‘an organization
that, due to its independence and
expertise, is widely recognized as
competent to accredit testing
organizations.’’ The use of a nationally
recognized accrediting agency to
provide an independent, authoritative
assurance of a testing organization’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

competence is a well-established
practice. For example, for a number of
years, the National Commission for
Certifying Agencies (NCCA), the
accreditation body of the National
Organization for Competency Assurance
(NOCA), has accredited testing
organizations in a wide variety of fields,
including those that provide crane
operator certification. (ID–0021.) Also,
in 2003, the American National
Standards Institute began accrediting
personnel certification entities. (ID–
0022.)
Under § 1926.1427(b)(1)(i), for a
testing organization to become
accredited, the accrediting agency must
determine that the testing organization’s
written testing materials, practical
examinations, test administration,
grading, facilities/equipment and
personnel meet industry recognized
criteria. The accrediting agency must
determine that the written testing
materials and practical examinations are
well designed and sufficiently
comprehensive that an individual who
achieves a passing grade has
demonstrated the skills and knowledge
needed to operate the equipment safely.
The accrediting agency must also
determine that the testing organization’s
administration and grading ensure the
integrity of the test so that the
individual’s grade truly represents the
knowledge and skill level of that
individual.
A safety association believed that the
criteria for accrediting agencies in
proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1)(i) were not
sufficiently rigorous and suggested
replacing that paragraph with a
paragraph that required the nationally
recognized accrediting agency to use
certification criteria equal to or greater
than that of the National Commission of
Certifying Agencies (NCCA), the
Council of Engineering and Scientific
Specialty Boards (CESB), or ANSI/ISO/
IEC 17024, General Requirements for
Bodies Operating Certification Systems
of Persons. (ID–0178.1.) This commenter
expressed concern that, without this
more specific level of rigor, entities with
little experience in professional
certification will be able to establish
accrediting bodies for certifications that
do not adequately demonstrate
professional crane operator competence.
An operator certification organization
stated that NCCA and ANSI are
nationally recognized accrediting
agencies and that others should only be
designated as such by OSHA after a
comprehensive review of its accrediting
protocols. (ID–0382.1.) It suggested
changing the definition of ‘‘nationally
recognized accrediting agency’’ in
§ 1926.1401 to specify that the only

PO 00000

Frm 00113

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48017

accrediting agencies are ANSI, NCCA,
and any other organization designated
by OSHA as competent to accredit
testing organizations.
These commenters are concerned that
an organization that applies
insufficiently stringent accrediting
criteria might claim to be a ‘‘nationally
recognized accrediting agency’’ and
accredit testing organizations that are
less competent than those accredited by
NCCA and ANSI.
OSHA determines that the
commenters are correct in suggesting
that some additional specificity is
needed in the definition to ensure that
only entities using sufficiently stringent
accrediting criteria are included. In the
preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA
identified two organizations that it
determined were examples of a
‘‘nationally recognized accrediting
agency’’—the National Commission for
Certifying Agencies (NCCA) and the
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) (see 73 FR 59811, Oct. 9, 2008).
No commenters have suggested that
these are inappropriate examples of this
term. Therefore, to provide greater
specificity, OSHA has modified the
language used in the proposed rule’s
definition to include references to
NCCA and ANSI as examples of
organizations that meet the final rule
definition in § 1926.1401.
Section 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(A)
specifies that the written and practical
tests administered by the testing
organization must, at a minimum, assess
the knowledge and skills listed in
§§ 1926.1427(j)(1) and (2). Those
subjects are discussed below under
§ 1926.1427(j).
Paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) provides that
the testing organization must provide
different levels of certification based on
equipment capacity and type. This
requirement is designed to ensure that
a certified operator has the knowledge
and skill needed to safely operate
equipment of the type and capacity the
employee will actually be operating
while avoiding the need for employees
to know how to operate more complex
equipment.
In the proposed rule, OSHA gave
examples of what this provision means
in practice. It stated, as one example, an
employee who only operates a hydraulic
truck crane would not need to also have
the additional knowledge and skills
necessary to operate a lattice boom
crawler crane. As another, it said that an
employee who operates only a 22 ton
capacity hydraulic truck crane would
not need to also have the additional
knowledge and skills necessary to
operate a 300 ton hydraulic truck crane.
The Agency further stated that

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48018

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

certification on a more complex type of
equipment would typically qualify an
operator to operate lower-capacity
equipment of the same type, e.g.,
certification on a 300 ton hydraulic
crane would qualify an operator to
operate a 22 ton hydraulic crane.
None of the commenters opposed
allowing operators certified to operate at
a given capacity from also operating
lower-capacity equipment of the same
type. Two commenters recommended
that ‘‘type,’’ for purposes of paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(B), be defined for mobile
cranes as they are defined in ASME
B30.5. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1.) These
commenters also stated that
‘‘qualifications (and certification) should
be driven by the knowledge and skill
required to operate a piece of
equipment. When a body of knowledge
or a particular skill set for a particular
‘type’ of crane changes, then so should
the appropriate category of certification/
qualification.’’
The Agency concludes that a
descriptive definition of ‘‘type’’ that
addresses the point raised by these
commenters would better accomplish
the purpose of the term than tying it to
specific examples of existing
technology. Therefore, OSHA has added
a definition of the word ‘‘type’’ to
§ 1926.1401 of the final rule.
Examples of many of the various
types of cranes currently in use are
described in the ANSI B30 series (see,
for example, ASME B30.5–2004 for
mobile cranes and ASME B30.3–2004
for construction tower cranes). For
example, in this context, truck-mounted
telescoping boom cranes, truck-mounted
non-telescoping boom cranes, and
crawler cranes are three different
‘‘types,’’ since the specific bodies of
knowledge and skills needed for the safe
operation of each category is different
(although they are not completely
distinct—the knowledge and skill sets
overlap to some degree).
Commenters and witnesses from the
railroad industry believed that
certification based on ‘‘equipment
capacity and type’’ did not address
unique conditions in their industry
because current certification
examinations did not cover the types of
cranes they use or the circumstances
under which they use them. A railroad
company stated that certification tests
used by the two accredited testing
organizations require knowledge of
skills that do not apply in the railroad
industry. (ID–0176.1.) A railroad
association stated that railroads use
cranes in fundamentally different ways
than construction companies and that
neither [currently] accredited testing
organization has tests that address the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

use of cranes on railroads. (ID–0170.1.)
A representative from another railroad
company testified that some of the types
of cranes his railroad uses are
fundamentally different from the typical
cranes used in the construction
industry. Among the cranes that he said
are unique to the railroad industry are
locomotive cranes and rubber-tired
cranes that can either run on the ground
or travel on rails. (ID–0342.) The
representative stated that certification
tests on typical construction cranes
were not suited to the types of cranes
used in his industry and asked that the
rule offer the latitude for the industry to
train operators in a way that makes
sense for railroads. (ID–0342.)
The comments and testimony by the
railroad industry representatives suggest
the need for some flexibility in the
certification requirement to deal with
specialized types of cranes or newly
developed equipment for which
certification examinations might not be
available. Another aspect of this
problem was raised by an energy
association, which said that the cranes
used in erecting wind turbines are the
largest and most complex available, and
that certification for such equipment is
not currently available. (ID–0329.1.)
C–DAC addressed one example of a
type of equipment—dedicated pile
drivers—for which certification
examinations were not available.
Section 1926.1439(e) of the proposed
rule accommodated this problem by
providing that dedicated pile driver
operators can be certified either for
operation of dedicated pile drivers or for
equipment that is most similar to
dedicated pile drivers. OSHA concludes
a similar approach is appropriate for
any equipment for which a certification
is not available. Accordingly, OSHA is
adding § 1926.1427(b)(2) to the final
rule, which allows an operator to be
certified to operate a crane if he or she
is certified to operate a higher-capacity
version of that type of crane or, if no
accredited certification entities offer
certification for that particular crane, if
he or she is certified to operate the type
of crane most similar to the equipment
in question.
In light of this change, OSHA is
deleting § 1926.1439(e) from the final
rule as it is no longer necessary.
Paragraph (b)(2) will also facilitate
employers’ compliance with the
requirements of § 1926.1427 by making
it clear that the operator’s certificate
must indicate the particular type and
capacity of crane for which the operator
was certified.
As discussed in the proposed rule,
during the SBREFA process, several
small entity representatives suggested

PO 00000

Frm 00114

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

that basing certification on the type of
crane might result in some capable
operators being denied certification.
They described situations in which an
operator is knowledgeable and skillful
with respect to one particular model of
crane but might be unable to obtain
certification based on equipment
capacity and type. In response to this
concern, OSHA sought public comment
on whether there should be a
mechanism for an operator to become
certified on a particular model of crane.
Some commenters supported such a
mechanism. (ID–0145.1; –0151.1;
–0194.1; –0214.1.) Several commenters
who opposed the suggestion stated that
such certification would likely not be
available from testing organizations, that
employers who use Option (2) would
find it costly and impractical to develop
tests for each model of crane, and that
testing based on crane model was not
appropriate because the skill set and
knowledge required for safe operation
are not model-dependent. (ID–0175.2;
–0205.1; –0213.1.) Witnesses at the
hearing also opposed model-specific
certification. (ID–0341; –0343.)
OSHA has concluded that expansion
of the options to include certification on
a specific model of crane is not
necessary. The body of knowledge and
skills required to be qualified/certified
on a particular model of crane is not less
than that needed to be qualified/
certified for that model’s type and
capacity.
It may well be that an operator
seeking certification is confident about
operating the particular model of crane
he/she has been operating but is
concerned about being tested on another
model of the same type of crane. To the
extent this is a concern, OSHA notes
that at least one accredited testing
organization allows the practical test to
be administered at the employer’s
worksite using the employer’s own
equipment. (ID–0343.) With this type of
practical test available, operators who
feel confident that they can become
certified on a particular model can be
tested on that model, and such
certification will allow them to operate
any model of the same type (as long as
they also pass the written test).
Therefore, certification on a specific
model would be more restrictive than is
necessary, and OSHA sees no benefit
from providing for such a certification.
OSHA has therefore retained the
requirement that certification is based
on the ‘‘type’’ of crane.
The SBREFA Panel also received
comments from some SERs suggesting
that the standard should accommodate
crane operators who were fully capable
of operating particular equipment in a

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
limited set of circumstances but who
would be unable to pass certification
tests that required knowledge and
abilities beyond those circumstances.
The Panel recommended that OSHA
consider and solicit public comment on
expanding the levels of operator
qualification/certification to allow such
operators to be certified for a specific,
limited type of circumstance defined by
a set of parameters that, taken together,
would describe an operation
characterized by simplicity and
relatively low risk. In response to the
Panel’s recommendation, OSHA
requested public comment on whether
such parameters could be identified in
a way that would result in a clear, easily
understood provision that could be
effectively enforced.
A number of commenters were in
favor of a provision that would allow
certification in a limited set of
circumstances. A labor organization
supported certification limited to the
use of rail-bound equipment used to
install continuously welded rail and
stick rail. (ID–0145.1.) This commenter
said that such operations involved
dragging, manipulating, and positioning
rather than hoisting. Other commenters
also supported such a limited
certification provision but did not
provide specific information about how
to define those operations or what
aspects of the operations made them
less risky than other crane operations.
(ID–0151.1; –0176.1; –0191.1; –0214.1.)
Other commenters opposed this type of
‘‘restricted’’ certification. (ID–0175.2;
–0205.1; –0213.1.) They said that the
degree of risk in a given situation was
difficult to assess and could change due
to unforeseen circumstances arising on
the job.
OSHA agrees with the commenters
who opposed allowing a limited form of
certification based on perceived risk
levels. As explained earlier in the
discussion of this section, the Agency
found the argument that certification
should not be required to operate cranes
that are typically used for repetitive,
predictable, intermittent, or light use to
be unpersuasive. OSHA did so because
such uses are likely to involve many if
not all of the same hazards present in
other situations.
Similar concerns apply to the concept
of ‘‘low risk’’ operations. First, even if
such operations could be effectively
identified, the possibility of unforeseen
events occurring during such a lift
requires that the operator have sufficient
ability to handle such complications.
Second, as noted above, apart from
the suggestion regarding certain railroad
operations, no commenter offered a
means of setting the parameters for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

defining this concept. OSHA has
therefore rejected the concept of a
limited, ‘‘low risk’’ qualification/
certification.
A labor organization recommended
that OSHA require that applicants for
certification testing provide
documentation that they have at least
1,000 hours of crane related on-the-job
experience or training. (ID–0341.) Such
experience was necessary, in this
commenter’s view, because neither the
written nor practical exams tested an
operator’s ability to handle unusual
worksite conditions, such as adverse
weather or working on crowded jobsites,
and did not test an operator’s judgment.
As explained above, OSHA has
included the qualification/certification
requirement to serve as a mechanism to
help ensure that operators have attained
the level of knowledge and skill
necessary to safely operate the
equipment. The record amply
demonstrates the sufficiency of the
accreditation process that must be
passed for a testing organization to
become accredited. That process is
designed to ensure that accredited
testing organizations use a sufficiently
reliable process for certifying operators.
The record also shows that such a
mechanism is an effective one for
determining operator competence (the
record includes the support of the
commenter and its C–DAC nominee for
that mechanism).115
There is insufficient information in
the record to include an additional
requirement for 1,000 hours of ‘‘crane
related experience or training.’’ The
commenter does not specify what
should be included in ‘‘crane related
experience,’’ or why 1,000 hours would
be the appropriate amount of such
experience for this purpose. The
commenter also does not specify if
meeting the 1,000 hour prerequisite by
‘‘training’’ should mean hands-on
(criteria for such training is delineated
in § 1926.1427(f)) or classroom type
training. OSHA notes that the other
commenters supporting this section
have not recommended adding an
experience or training prerequisite. The
Agency has therefore declined to accept
this suggested change.116
115 OSHA also notes that the this commenter is,
in this regard, taking a position that is inconsistent
with the one taken by its C–DAC nominee, who had
agreed to the C–DAC version of § 1926.1427, which
had no experience/training prerequisite. Nor has
this commenter explained why it has changed its
position from that of its C–DAC nominee. Due to
this inconsistency in position, OSHA accords
reduced weight to this commenter’s suggested
change.
116 OSHA also notes that the commenter is, in this
regard, taking a position that is inconsistent with
the one taken by its C–DAC nominee, who had

PO 00000

Frm 00115

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48019

Section 1926.1427(b)(1)(iii) requires
that the testing organization have
procedures for operators to re-apply and
be re-tested in the event an applicant
fails a test. This would help ensure that
if the employee initially failed to pass
the test, the employee would be able to
retake the test and still have the
opportunity to obtain the certification.
Section 1926.1427(b)(1)(iii) also requires
that the testing organization have
procedures for operators to re-apply and
be re-tested in the event an operator is
decertified.
Section 1926.1427(b)(1)(iv) specifies
that the testing organization must have
procedures for re-certifying operators
designed to ensure that the operator
continues to meet the requirements of
§ 1926.1427(j). Under § 1926.1427(b)(4),
a certification is valid for five years,
after which the operator must again pass
a certification examination. Section
1926.1427(b)(1)(iv) is included so that
recertification procedures appropriate
for those who have already been
certified will be available.
Under § 1926.1427(b)(1)(v), the testing
organization’s accreditation must be
renewed by the accrediting organization
at least every three years to ensure
continuing quality of testing materials
and administration.
No comments were received on
§§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(iii)–(v); those
provisions are promulgated as proposed.
Under § 1926.1427(b)(3) (previously
designated § 1926.1427(b)(2) in the
proposed rule), a certification is
‘‘portable,’’ which means that a
certificate issued under Option (1)
would meet the requirements of
§ 1926.1427(a)(2) (when State or local
jurisdiction does not require operator
licensing) until the certificate expires. In
the final rule, OSHA is specifying that
meaning directly in § 1926.1427(b)(3)
rather than in a separate definition in
§ 1926.1427(m), as proposed. C–DAC
determined that certification under this
option should be portable because the
testing organization is fully independent
of all employers who may employ a
crane operator and there is no reason to
limit the certification to a particular
employer. OSHA agrees.
Section 1926.1427(b)(4) (previously
designated § 1926.1427(b)(3) in the
proposed rule) provides that a
certification under this paragraph is
valid for exactly five years. The exact
five year period is intended to strike the
agreed to the C–DAC version of § 1926.1427, which
had no experience/training prerequisite. Nor has
the commenter explained why it has changed its
position from that of its C–DAC nominee. Due to
this inconsistency in position, OSHA accords
reduced weight to the commenter’s suggested
change.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48020

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

appropriate balance between ensuring
that certified operators are re-evaluated
regularly, while reducing the burden of
recertification on operators.
No comments were received on the
text that is now in paragraphs (b)(3) and
(b)(4). As noted, the definition of
‘‘portable’’ has been moved from
proposed (m)(1) to final (b)(3).

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (c) Option (2): Qualification
by an Audited Employer Program
Paragraph (c) of this section sets out
Option (2), in which the employer
determines, through its own audited
testing program, that its employee is
qualified to operate the equipment. This
option is designed to enable employers
to meet the § 1926.1427 requirements
through their own in-house testing
programs. As discussed above, however,
C–DAC determined that independent,
third-party involvement was needed to
ensure the reliability and integrity of
any testing program. Therefore, to
ensure that testing under Option (2) of
this section is accurate and reliable,
§ 1926.1427(c)(1) requires that the tests
must be developed by either an
accredited crane operator testing
organization (as described under Option
(1)), or approved by an auditor who is
certified by an accredited crane operator
testing organization. In addition, the
administration of the tests must be
audited.
If the employer chooses to use tests
approved by an auditor, the auditor
must, under § 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(A), be
certified as a test evaluator by an
accredited testing organization. To
ensure that the auditor’s evaluation is
independent and impartial,
§ 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(B) prohibits the
auditor from being employed by the
employer seeking evaluation of its
qualification program. Also,
§ 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(C) requires the
auditor to determine that the program
meets nationally recognized test
development criteria and adequately
assesses the criteria in § 1926.1427(j).
The requirements for test
administration that apply under Option
(2) of this section are set forth in
§ 1926.1427(c)(2). These requirements
apply to both tests that have been
developed by an accredited crane
operator testing organization or to those
that have been approved by an auditor.
Section 1926.1427(c)(2)(i) requires that
the auditor find that the procedures for
administering the test meet nationally
recognized test administration
standards. This provision is designed to
ensure that the test results accurately
reflect the operator’s performance on the
test.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Under § 1926.1427(c)(2)(ii), the
auditor must be certified to evaluate the
administration of the written and
practical tests by an accredited crane
operator testing organization. Section
1926.1427(c)(2)(iii) prohibits the auditor
from being employed by the employer
seeking the auditor’s approval of its test
administration procedures.
Proposed § 1926.1427(c)(2)(iv)
required that the audit be conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized
auditing standards. OSHA noted that
the proposed rule, as drafted by C–DAC,
required only that the administration of
the tests, and not the audit of the tests
themselves under paragraph (c)(1)(ii),
would have to be conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized
auditing standards. OSHA determines
that this was a drafting error and that
the Committee intended that the entire
audit be conducted in accordance with
nationally recognized auditing
standards. Therefore, the Agency
solicited public comment on whether a
new § 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(D), reading as
follows, should be added to
§ 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii):
(D) The audit shall be conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized
auditing standards.

Several commenters stated that the
regulatory text should remain
unchanged because, the commenters
believed, the nationally recognized
accrediting agencies that accredit testing
organizations do not review the
examinations for content but only for
examination design, administration, and
maintenance. (ID–0175.1; –0205.1;
–0211.1; –0213.1.)
The Agency concludes that the
commenters have misunderstood
OSHA’s intent in this regard. Under
Option (1) of this section,
§ 1926.1427(b)(1), the accrediting
agency must evaluate the ‘‘written
testing materials’’ as well as the
‘‘practical examinations, test
administration, grading, facilities/
equipment and personnel’’ to make sure
they all meet ‘‘industry recognized
criteria.’’ The accrediting agency
therefore must evaluate the tests as well
as their administration to confirm that
they meet industry recognized criteria.
Just as the accrediting agency under
Option (1) of this section assesses
written testing materials and the
practical test for compliance with
industry recognized criteria, under
Option (2) of this section, as drafted by
C–DAC and as written in the proposed
rule, the auditor must determine ‘‘that
the written and practical tests meet
nationally recognized test development
criteria and are valid and reliable in

PO 00000

Frm 00116

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

assessing the operator applicants
* * *.’’ (see § 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(C)). No
comments were received objecting to
those requirements.
OSHA determines that C–DAC’s
intent in designing Option (2) was, in
essence, to have the auditor serve a role
similar to that of the accreditor in
Option (1). The accreditor in Option (1)
assesses the tests as well as their
administration to determine if they meet
‘‘industry recognized criteria.’’ As
drafted by C–DAC, the auditor does the
same thing, both with respect to
assessing the tests and their
administration.
The problem identified by OSHA in
the proposed rule relates to auditing
procedure, not testing criteria. For
example, the records that the auditor
would generate and maintain, the
procedures he/she would use for
obtaining documents that need to be
examined to conduct the audit, the
thoroughness of the audit, and similar
procedural matters regarding the
conduct of the audit need to accord with
nationally recognized auditing
standards. Section 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(C)
shows that C–DAC concluded that it
was important that the audit meet
nationally recognized auditing
standards to help ensure the integrity of
the audit of the administration of the
tests. OSHA determines that it is equally
important that the audit of the tests
themselves meet those same procedural
criteria. Therefore, the Agency has
added new § 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(D).
Paragraph (c)(3) requires that the
program be audited within three months
of its inception and every three years
thereafter. The Agency has added ‘‘at
least’’ to the final rule to clarify that the
auditor has the flexibility to perform
audits more regularly if it so chooses.
Paragraph (c)(4) of this section
requires the employer’s program to have
testing procedures for re-qualification
designed to ensure that the operator
continues to meet the technical
knowledge and skills requirement in
§ 1926.1427(j). The re-qualification
procedures must be audited in
accordance with §§ 1926.1427(c)(1) and
(c)(2).
In the event an auditor discovers a
deficiency in an employer’s operator
qualification program, the employer
must meet the requirements set forth in
paragraph (c)(5) of this section. Under
paragraph (c)(5)(i), no additional
operators may be qualified until the
auditor determines that the deficiency
has been corrected. Under paragraph
(c)(5)(ii), the program must be reaudited within 180 days of the
confirmation that the deficiency was
corrected. Paragraph (c)(5)(iii) requires

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the auditor to file a report of any such
deficiency with the appropriate OSHA
Regional Office within 15 days of
discovery. In addition, paragraph
(c)(5)(iv) requires that records of the
audits must be maintained by the
auditor for three years and must be
made available by the auditor at the
request of the Secretary of Labor or a
designated representative. The auditor’s
maintenance of the records, and the
reporting requirement, are intended to
preserve the independent verification
function of the auditor.
Paragraph (c)(6)(i) specifies that a
qualification under Option (2) is not
portable. As defined in
§ 1926.1427(m)(2), ‘‘not portable’’ means
that only the employer issuing the
qualification may rely upon it. OSHA
has added that statement of meaning
directly in paragraph (c)(6)(i) in the final
rule and has removed paragraph (m). C–
DAC determined that portability should
be limited to certification under Option
(1) because the degree of consistency in
adhering to the requirements of this
section is likely to be highest among
accredited crane operator testing
organizations because they are fully
independent and their business interest
depends on their continued
accreditation. Under paragraph (c)(6)(ii),
a qualification under Option (2) is valid
for exactly five years.
A trade association stated that
qualification under Option (2) of this
section (as well as Options (3) and (4))
should, like certification under Option
(1), also be portable. (ID–0214.1.) The
commenter stated that there was no
rational reason to adopt a rule where
portability is restricted to Option (1)
certifications. However, OSHA
concludes that C–DAC’s decision to
accord full portability only to a
certification under Option (1) is sound.
A certification issued under Option (1)
is based on tests that are completely
independent of any particular employer.
Moreover, the commenter’s nominee to
C–DAC did not dissent on this issue and
the commenter has not explained the
reason for changing its position. OSHA
gives reduced weight to comments by a
nominating organization that are
inconsistent with the position its
nominee took on C–DAC.
A utility company suggested that
electric utilities be able to use Option
(2) without an independent auditor by
allowing for an internal audit of the
employee training program based on
annual employee inspections, as
allowed in § 1910.269(a)(2). (ID–0342.)
Granting this request would permit
electric utilities to self-certify their
operators. OSHA has rejected this

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

option above and does so here for the
same reasons given earlier.
Some commenters stated that Option
(2) was impractical because there are
currently no individuals who are
accredited to carry out the duties of the
auditor under the option (ID–0151.1;
–0329.1.) OSHA notes, however, that
employers have four years from the
effective date of this standard to comply
with § 1926.1427, and the agency
anticipates that, if the demand exists for
the services of accredited auditors, they
will become available during that time
frame.
An operator certification company
recommended eliminating Option (2)
because, in the commenter’s view, it
lacks sufficient safeguards to ensure the
integrity of the qualification process.
(ID–0330.1.) The commenter views this
Option as a form of self-certification that
is generally inconsistent with the rule’s
principle of third-party verification. It
suggests that this Option presents an
inherent conflict of interest based on the
incentive that employers have to pass
their employee-operators and that the
conflict is not cured by an auditor’s
oversight of the program. OSHA
disagrees. Under this option, the auditor
must be independent of the employer
and certified by an accredited testing
organization. In OSHA’s view, these
requirements provide adequate
assurance that a testing program
approved by the auditor is of high
quality and reliability.
Paragraph (d) Option (3): Qualification
by the U.S. Military
Proposed § 1926.1427(d) provided
that an operator who is an employee of
the United States military would be
deemed qualified if he/she had a current
qualification issued by the U. S.
military. The criteria for qualification
under Option (3) would be left to the
military to determine, including the
length of time such a qualification
would be valid. Qualification under this
option would not be portable unless it
meets the requirements of Option (1) of
this section.
Unlike Options (1) and (2), Option (3)
is available, in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (d), whether
or not the equipment is operated within
the jurisdiction of a State or local
government that has its own operating
licensing requirement. The Agency
notes that in its comments requesting
mandatory compliance with State
licensing requirements, New York State
noted that it did not intend to supplant
Option (3). (ID–0171.1.) There is
nothing in the record to indicate that
employees of the U.S. military who are
authorized by the U.S. military to

PO 00000

Frm 00117

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48021

operate equipment covered by this
subpart are currently required to comply
with State or local licensing
requirements.
In the proposed rule, OSHA noted
that OSHA standards did not apply to
uniformed military personnel and to
civilian employees of the military who
are engaged in uniquely military
equipment, systems, and operations.
Accordingly, Option (3) would apply
only to civilian employees of the
Defense Department and Armed Forces
who are engaged in work that is not
uniquely military. It does not apply to
employees of private contractors who
are working under contract to the
military. In the proposed rule, OSHA
noted that the C–DAC document did not
clearly exclude such employees even
though that was C–DAC’s intent.
To make this point clear, OSHA is
adding the following clarification to
§ 1926.1427(d)(1): An ‘‘employee of the
U.S. military’’ is a Federal employee of
the Department of Defense or Armed
Forces and does not include employees
of private contractors. This clarification
was originally proposed in
§ 1926.1427(m), which is removed from
the final rule. Two commenters
supported the clarification proposed by
OSHA. (ID–0205.1; –0211.1.) Another
said the provision should be clarified
but did not express an opinion on
whether OSHA’s proposed clarification
should be adopted. (ID–0122.) In the
absence of any reasons presented in
opposition to the proposed clarification,
OSHA is retaining the clarification.
Paragraph (d)(2) specifies that
qualification under Option (3) is not
portable. Because this option is
designed specifically to accommodate
civilian employees of the U.S. military,
and therefore is not based on the same
criteria and independent third-party
verification. However, if a U.S. military
entity meets the requirements of Option
(1), OSHA would consider the operator
certification provided by that entity to
be portable.
Paragraph (e) Option (4): Licensing by
a Government Entity
Paragraph (e) of this section of the
final rule addresses government
licensing departments/offices that issue
operating licenses for equipment
covered by this standard. Paragraph
(e)(1) makes it clear that OSHA is only
requiring compliance with State or local
operating licensing requirements when
those licensing programs meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(e)(2). These requirements are
commonly referred to as a ‘‘Federal
floor,’’ meaning that they are the
minimum criteria necessary to trigger

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48022

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

employer compliance with those
licensing requirement under this
standard. OSHA is including this
‘‘Federal floor’’ because it determines, as
did C–DAC, that some, but potentially
not all, State/local governments will
have effective, reliable licensing
procedures. If OSHA determines that a
State or local licensing department/
office, or its testing, does not satisfy the
minimum requirements set out in
paragraphs (e) and (j), then employers
would not be required by OSHA to
comply with the licensing requirements
of that government entity. In such cases,
the employer would satisfy the
requirements of this section by ensuring
that their operators are certified or
qualified in accordance with the options
provided in paragraphs (b) through (d).
The requirement for the government
licensing department/office to meet the
criteria in § 1926.1427(e)(2) ensures that
operators who qualify under Option (4)
have the requisite knowledge and skills
to operate safely. Paragraph (e)(2)(i)
requires that the criteria used by the
licensing department/office address the
knowledge and skill requirements listed
in § 1926.1427(j). Section
1926.1427(e)(2)(ii) requires that the
government entity follow the same test
content, test administration and related
criteria as required under Option (1).
Section 1926.427(e)(2)(iii) requires that
the office with authority over the
licensing department/office assess the
tests and procedures used by the
licensing office/department and
determine that the requirements of
§§ 1926.1427(e)(2)(ii) and
1926.1427(e)(2)(iii) have been met. Also,
the government licensing office must
have re-certification procedures in place
as discussed in §§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(iv)
and 1926.427(c)(4).
Under § 1926.1427(e)(3)(i), a
qualification under Option (4) is valid
only within the geographic jurisdiction
of the licensing entity. However, if the
qualifications of Option (1) in
§ 1926.1427(b) are met, OSHA would
consider the operator certification
provided by that entity to be portable.
Under paragraph (e)(3)(ii), the
qualification is valid for the time period
specified by the licensing entity, but for
no longer than five years.
Several commenters expressed the
concern that OSHA’s new standard
would preempt existing State or local
laws, particularly those relating to
licensing of crane operators. Others
encouraged the Agency to expressly
preempt those laws. The preemption
issue is discussed in full at the end of
this preamble within section V.D
addressing federalism.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Other Recommended Options
Commenters recommended that
OSHA offer employers two additional
options for qualifying or certifying
operators. One is to allow employers to
self-certify operators based on their own
evaluation of the operator’s ability. For
the reasons discussed in the
introduction to this section, OSHA
rejects that suggestion.
A number of commenters
recommended that OSHA expand the
range of options by allowing an
accredited educational institution to
certify operators. (ID–0105.1; –0147.1;
–0151.1; –0187.1; –0193.1.) At the
public hearing, a witness for a trade
association further recommended an
option whereby operators could be
trained and qualified through an
employer program developed by an
accredited educational institution. (ID–
0343.)
Some commenters believed that
additional options were needed because
they believed that Option (1) was the
only viable option for many employers
and that an insufficient number of
accredited testing organizations existed
to meet the demand that an OSHA rule
would create. (ID–0165.1; –0187.1;
–0193.1.)
OSHA notes that an educational
institution, like any other testing
organization, may become an accredited
testing organization under Option (1) by
becoming accredited by a nationally
recognized accrediting agency based on
the criteria listed under that option and
complying with the ‘‘firewall’’
requirements of § 1926.1427(g).
However, OSHA determines the
comments favoring this concept were
addressing OSHA’s request for comment
on whether to allow an educational
institution to certify operators based
solely on its accreditation by an
organization recognized by the
Department of Education (DoE) without
the need to be accredited under Option
(1) (see 73 FR 59812, Oct. 9, 2008).
OSHA concludes that accreditation of
an educational institution under DoE
criteria is insufficient to ensure that a
certification issued by the institution
would reliably demonstrate that the
crane operator has the knowledge and
skills needed for safe operation. The
fundamental reason is that the
accreditation process for educational
institutions does not include an
assessment of an institution’s ability to
assess personnel competency.
A representative from a consensus
standard organization addressed this
issue at the public hearing. The
representative had experience both in
accrediting educational institutions and

PO 00000

Frm 00118

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

personnel certification organizations.
(ID–0344.) He testified that the
accreditation of an educational
institution under the DoE system is
designed to assess the quality of the
education an institution offers but does
not determine whether the individuals
who have attended that institution
possess the specific skills or
competencies required for particular
jobs. Unlike an educational institution,
which focuses on the number of
graduates, attrition rates, and the
percentage pass rate on any national
certification or State licensure
examinations, a personnel certification
program is designed to address
competency for job performance.
Among the concerns cited by the
representative were that the
accreditation for an educational
program does not assess competency,
and that the tests administered by an
educational program are not held to the
same psychometric standards as those
administered by an accredited
personnel certification program. The
commenter said higher education
accreditation is concerned with the
quality of education. Personnel
certification accreditation, on the other
hand, evaluates the quality of
assessments to measure the acquisition
and ongoing maintenance of valid job
competencies. (ID–0344.) In addition,
personnel certification is time-limited
and certifying entities retain the ability
to withdraw certification if the
individual subsequently demonstrates a
lack of competency. (ID–0344.)
Institutions of higher education cannot
revoke or repossess diplomas.
The representative explained that a
key difference between educational
accreditation and personnel
accreditation is surveillance of the test
administration process by the
accrediting body to ensure that an
individual’s score is not tainted by prior
knowledge of the examination or by lack
of security during the test itself. Using
the ANSI accreditation process as an
example, he explained that a
certification entity seeking accreditation
will undergo annual surveillance—
onsite during the first and third years,
which can encompass multiple sites if
the certification entity’s structure merits
such review. ANSI examines the
controls over test items and the
development of test items, to ensure that
these items are not released to the
public. ANSI also looks to ensure that
the organizational structure of the
certifying entity is reflective of the
population it is intended to serve, and
that the administration is fair and
equitable among all the applicants.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
These criteria are not required elements
of accreditation for higher education
institutions, according to both the
representative and Department of
Education materials (see 34 CFR part
602).
There is another reason why
certification by an educational
institution would, in most cases, not be
suitable for crane operators: The need
for personnel testing to be independent
of the training that precedes the testing.
As discussed below, § 1926.1427(g) of
this rule is designed to ensure that
training is separate from testing to
prevent an organization that offers both
services from defeating the validity of
the test by ‘‘teaching to the test.’’ OSHA
acknowledges that it might be possible
for an educational institution to provide
the necessary ‘‘firewalls’’ between its
training and testing, and obtain the
separate accreditation required under
this section, such that it could comply
with § 1926.1427(g). However,
educational institutions typically both
teach and test, and may do so within
their educational accreditation without
any requirement that the testing process
be insulated from the teaching process.
The purpose of a personnel
certification test is different from a test
offered by an educational institution,
which is to determine whether the
individual has mastered the material
that was taught. As a labor
representative stated at the hearing,
personnel certification tests examine a
random sampling of information that
individuals must know to perform the
function being tested. (ID–0341.) The
labor representative pointed out that if
the individual is tested only on the
material he or she has been taught, the
individual learns only the information
needed to pass the test and the test is
not a reliable measure of the person’s
depth of knowledge on the subject.
Therefore, allowing educational
institutions to certify crane operators
based solely on their DoE accreditation
would be inconsistent with the
principle that testing for certification
purposes should be independent of any
training that the individual has received
and would severely compromise the
reliability of the certification process.
In sum, the DoE accreditation system
for educational institutions is not
designed to assess the capabilities that
are needed for developing or
administering personnel competency
tests.117
117 At least one other Federal agency has also
taken this view of certification. The Department of
Defense requires the certification of certain
personnel performing Information Assurance
functions within that organization. Appendix 2 to
DoD 8570.01–M, the directive addressing such

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Moreover, concerns about inadequate
availability of certifying entities are
unfounded. At the time of the proposed
rule, two testing organizations, NCCCO
and the Southern California Crane &
Hoisting Association, had been
accredited (see 73 FR 59812, Oct. 9,
2008). By the time of the hearing, four
additional testing organizations had
been accredited: The Operating
Engineers Certification Program, Union
Pacific Railroad, National Center for
Construction Education and Research,
and Crane Institute Certification. (ID–
0343.) Although some of these are not
available to all employers or crane
operators, it does not appear that there
will be a lack of availability of testing
services under Option (1), particularly
with the four-year phase-in period for
§ 1926.1427.
In addition, the record shows that
testing organizations arrange for testing
to be available at convenient locations.
For example, NCCCO offers the written
test anywhere in the country where it
receives adequate notice and an
appropriate testing room is available.
(ID–0343.) NCCCO also sends examiners
to an employer’s worksite to administer
the practical tests. (ID–0343.) OSHA
therefore concludes that the current four
options afford crane operators and their
employers sufficient opportunity to
obtain qualification/certification and
that additional options are not needed
to make such services readily available.
Two building trade associations
recommended that OSHA add an option
that combines aspects of Option (2) of
this section with tests developed by an
accredited educational institution. (ID–
0218.1; –0232.1.) Under their
recommendation, the educational
institution would develop written and
practical tests, and the tests would be
approved by an auditor who is certified
by an accredited educational institution
as qualified to evaluate such tests. The
actual operator certification would be
issued by the accredited educational
institution.
OSHA determines that this
recommended program is, in practical
effect, not significantly different than
the general recommendation for OSHA
to allow certification by an accredited
educational institution. First, it is likely
that educational institutions would be
administering tests to individuals who
have taken their training courses
without ‘‘firewall’’ separation between
those functions, thereby giving rise to
the problem addressed above that
testing would not be independent of
certifications, requires that the certifications must
be accredited, and maintain accreditation, under
ISO 17024. (ID–0346.1.)

PO 00000

Frm 00119

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48023

training and would therefore be of
reduced reliability. Second, although
the commenters would not permit the
auditor to be employed by the employer,
there is no prohibition against the
auditor being employed by the
accredited educational institution who
certifies him/her. In OSHA’s view, this
creates the potential for a conflict of
interest because the auditor would not
be independent of the institution whose
tests he or she is reviewing. OSHA finds
that the recommendation by the
commenters does not contain sufficient
safeguards to ensure that the tests
provide an indicator of operator
competence that is comparable to the
other options permitted under this rule.
One commenter asked OSHA to
prohibit different organizations from
administering the written and practical
testing. (ID–0199.1.) The commenter
stated that it is necessary for one
organization to maintain oversight of the
entire test process. The commenter did
not provide any support for this
assertion, nor has OSHA identified any
other evidence in the record to support
it. OSHA does not find the request
persuasive and is instead relying on the
accreditation requirements to ensure
that the certifying entity administers all
testing appropriately.
Paragraph (f) Pre-Qualification/
Certification Training Period
Section 1926.1427(f) establishes a
process by which operators who are not
certified or qualified can get experience
operating the equipment to help prepare
for obtaining a certification/
qualification. Section 1926.1427(f)
allows employees who are not yet
qualified or certified to operate cranes
provided that they qualify as ‘‘operatorsin-training’’ in accordance with
§§ 1926.1427(f)(1) through (5), which
require appropriate monitoring of such
operators-in-training to ensure worksite
safety and places limitations on the
tasks they can perform. OSHA revised
proposed § 1926.1427(f) to clarify that
employees who do meet the
requirements of an ‘‘operator-intraining,’’ and who are not otherwise
certified or qualified under this section,
are prohibited from operating
equipment (except for maintenance, as
provided in § 1926.1429 of this subpart).
OSHA has removed the text that was in
proposed paragraph (f)(2) as
redundant,118 and has renumbered
paragraph (f) of this section.
118 Proposed paragraph (f)(1) of this section had
provided that ‘‘[a]n employee who is not qualified
or certified under this section is permitted to
operate equipment’’ by satisfying the requirements
of proposed paragraph (f).’’ Proposed paragraph

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

Continued

09AUR2

48024

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

The proposed rule used the phrase
‘‘trainee/apprentice’’ to describe an
operator-in-training, the word
‘‘supervisor’’ to describe the individual
responsible for monitoring the operatorin-training, and the word ‘‘supervise’’ to
describe that individual’s oversight of
the operator-in-training. Several
commenters suggested that the terms
‘‘trainee,’’ ‘‘apprentice,’’ and ‘‘supervisor’’
could be construed to have labor/
management consequences under the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
(ID–0182.1; –0199.1; –0341.0.) OSHA
did not intend for these terms to be
construed as they are used under the
NLRA, and, to avoid any possible
confusion on the subject, has changed
‘‘supervisor’’ to ‘‘trainer,’’ ‘‘trainee/
apprentice’’ to ‘‘operator-in-training,’’
and ‘‘supervise’’ to ‘‘monitor’’ in the final
rule.
Paragraph (f)(1) requires that the
operator-in-training be provided with
sufficient training prior to operating the
equipment to enable him/her to operate
it safely under the limitations listed in
this section and any additional
limitations established by the employer.
This ensures that, before beginning to
operate the equipment at the site, the
operator-in-training would have
attained sufficient knowledge and skills
to operate the equipment safely within
the limitations and with the monitoring
required by the remainder of
§ 1926.1427.
Paragraph (f)(2) restricts the operatorin-training operation of the equipment
to those tasks currently within his/her
ability. As the operator-in-training gains
experience and demonstrates increased
skill, this provision allows him/her to
perform progressively more complex
tasks.
Paragraph (f)(3) sets forth the
requirements that an employee would
have to meet to be permitted to monitor
the operator-in-training’s operation of
the crane. During the training period,
the operator-in-training must be closely
monitored to ensure that he/she is
operating in accordance with the
training he/she has received and is
adhering to the limitation in paragraph
(f)(2) that he/she only performs tasks
currently within his/her ability.
(f)(2), and an alternative also included in the
proposed rule, had granted the same permission to
any employee who had not passed the written exam
or practical tests required under § 1926.1427. While
OSHA still intends that employees who have
passed either the written exam or practical test be
eligible to serve as an ‘‘operator-in-training,’’ it is not
including this text in the regulation because these
employees are already addressed by the language
that was in proposed paragraph (f)(1) (‘‘an employee
who is not qualified or certified under this section’’)
and is included in the final rule as the introductory
text for paragraph (f).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Under paragraph (f)(3)(i) the operatorin-training’s trainer has to be an
employee or agent of the operator-intraining’s employer. This ensures that
the trainer has the authority to direct the
actions of the operator-in-training.
Paragraph (f)(3)(ii) requires that the
operator-in-training’s trainer must be
either a qualified/certified operator (in
accordance with § 1926.1427), or to
have passed the written portion of a
qualification/certification test under one
of the Options in § 1926.1427. In
addition, the trainer must be familiar
with the proper use of the equipment’s
controls. This provision is designed to
ensure that the trainer has sufficient
knowledge about the equipment to
enable him/her to effectively oversee the
safe operation of the crane.
Paragraph (f)(3)(iii) requires that the
trainer perform no tasks that would
detract from his/her ability to monitor
the operator-in-training. This provision
ensures that the trainer is able to devote
sufficient attention what the operatorin-training is doing so that he/she can
intervene to prevent the operator-intraining from doing anything unsafe.
Under paragraph (f)(3)(iv), for
equipment other than tower cranes, the
trainer and the operator-in-training must
be in direct line of sight of each other
and are required to communicate either
verbally or by hand signals. This
provision ensures that the trainer
monitor can rapidly and effectively give
instructions to the operator-in-training,
especially for purposes of correcting
anything that the operator-in-training
may be doing incorrectly.
With respect to tower cranes, the
height of the operator’s station will
often make it infeasible to maintain
direct line of sight between the trainer
and the operator-in-training. For the
same reason, use of hand signals is also
often not feasible. Therefore, the
provision instead requires that they be
in direct communication with each
other. For example, direct
communication could be achieved by
radio or other instant electronic voice
communication system.
Section 1926.1427(f)(4) permits the
operator-in-training to continue
operating the crane in the absence of the
trainer for short breaks under criteria
designed to result in safe operation.
This provision recognizes that
monitoring 100 percent of the time is
neither practical nor is it necessary for
safe operation if appropriate limitations
are imposed. Those limitations are
listed in paragraphs (f)(4)(i)–(iii):
Under paragraph (f)(4)(i), the break
would be restricted to no more than 15
minutes, with no more than one break
per hour.

PO 00000

Frm 00120

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Under paragraph (f)(4)(ii),
immediately prior to the break, the
trainer must inform the operator-intraining of the specific tasks that the
operator-in-training is authorized to
perform and the limitations that he/she
must adhere to during the break.
Under paragraph (f)(4)(iii), the
specific tasks that the operator-intraining would perform during the break
must be within the operator-intraining’s ability.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(v) 119 stated
that a ‘‘* * * trainee/apprentice shall
not operate the equipment in any of the
following circumstances.’’ This
paragraph was followed by paragraphs
(f)(2)(v)(A)–(E). Of these, paragraphs
(f)(2)(v)(A)–(D) contained absolute
prohibitions while paragraph (f)(2)(v)(E)
contained a conditional prohibition. To
avoid inconsistency between paragraph
(f)(2)(v) and the paragraphs that
followed, the paragraph, which is now
at § 1926.1427(f)(5) has been modified to
make clear that there is an exception at
(f)(5)(v).
Paragraph (f)(5) recognizes that
certain tasks are too complex or present
such heightened risks that it would be
unreasonably dangerous if a less than
fully qualified operator were to operate
the equipment. For the circumstances
listed in §§ 1926.1427(f)(5)(i)–(v), the
operator-in-training is prohibited from
operating the equipment in all cases.
With respect to operations involving
multiple-lift rigging, the Committee
determined that the difficulty and/or
risk involved is not at the same level as
the operations listed in
§§ 1926.1427(f)(5)(i)–(iv). Consequently,
while § 1926.1427(f)(5) contains a
general prohibition against an operatorin-training operating the equipment
during multiple-lift rigging operations,
an exception would apply where the
trainer determined that the operator-intraining’s skills are sufficient for this
high-skill work.
A utility company objected to the
requirement in proposed
§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(A) that operators-intraining who are performing subpart V
work (construction and improvement of
power lines) maintain at least a 20-foot
distance from energized power lines,
asking that operators-in-training only be
required to maintain the same clearance
from power lines (those listed in Table
V–1 of subpart V) as certified operators.
(ID–0144.1.) This commenter claimed
that the prohibition would limit the
ability of electric utility owners and
operators to provide operators-intraining with hands on training.
119 This requirement is now located at
§ 1926.1427(f)(5).

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Based on the record as a whole,
OSHA is convinced that the risk of
injury from contact with an energized
power line is so great that it warrants
extra precautions, particularly with
respect to operators who are still
learning how to operate their
equipment. OSHA notes that the other
electric utilities and representatives
who submitted comments and appeared
at the hearing did not voice a similar
concern, nor did the industry’s
representatives on C–DAC. OSHA also
notes that the exclusion of digger
derricks from the scope of this subpart
for pole work should largely alleviate
this commenter’s concern. Accordingly,
OSHA is retaining paragraph (f)(5)(i) in
the final rule.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (g)
Paragraph (g) of this section provides
that ‘‘a testing entity is permitted to
provide training as well as testing
services as long as the criteria of the
applicable accrediting agency (in the
option selected) for an organization
providing both services are met.’’ This
paragraph serves two purposes. First, it
makes clear that an entity providing
qualification/certification testing may
also provide training to the individuals
it tests, as well as others. Second, it
establishes a condition such entities
must satisfy: the testing agency must
meet the criteria of its accrediting
agency for an organization providing
both services.
For example, an industry consensus
standard, the International Organization
for Standardization (‘‘ISO’’) 17024,
requires that a certifying entity only
offer training if it can demonstrate that
the training is independent of both
evaluation and certification. This is
intended to prevent the entity’s training
arm from ‘‘teaching to the test,’’ which
would detract from the test’s ability to
determine the individual’s true
knowledge of the subject matter needed
for safe operation. It is also necessary to
protect the integrity of the testing.
Therefore, with respect to those
accrediting agencies that apply the ISO
standard, a testing entity may also
conduct training as long as an adequate
‘‘firewall’’ exists between the two
functions.
Paragraph (h)
Paragraph (h) of this section addresses
C–DAC’s concern that some competent
crane operators may be hindered in
obtaining qualification or certification
under this section because they have
difficulty with taking written tests even
though they possess sufficient literacy
for reading and understanding safetyrelated material such as the crane’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

operating manual and load chart. To
avoid disqualifying individuals solely
because they have this type of difficulty,
paragraph (h) permits written tests
under this section to be administered
verbally, with answers given verbally,
where the operator candidate (1) passes
a written demonstration of literacy
relevant to the work; and (2)
demonstrates the ability to use the type
of written manufacturer procedures
applicable to the class/type of
equipment for which the candidate is
seeking certification. These would
typically include, for example, the load
chart and operator’s manual for the
crane the candidate would be operating.
Thus, paragraph (h) only permits tests to
be administered verbally where the
individual demonstrates the literacy
needed to read and understand written
material needed for safe operation.
As explained in the proposed rule,
neither of the demonstrations in
paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) would have to
be made in English (see 73 FR 59816,
Oct. 9, 2008). As an example, under
these provisions, an employer could
obtain a Spanish-language version of the
load charts and operator’s manual, and
arrange to have the literacy test
administered in Spanish. An operator
able to meet the requirements of
§ 1926.1427(h) using these Spanish
language materials would have
demonstrated adequate literacy under
the rule.
A trade association supported the
provision allowing examinations to be
administered verbally. (ID–0151.1.) A
testing organization opposed the
provision, believing it adds an
unnecessary and potentially harmful
step in the qualification process. (ID–
0343.) The testing organization was
concerned that the rule does not
identify standards or protocols by which
the written demonstration of literacy
relevant to the work and the ability to
use written manufacturer procedures are
to be made.
OSHA recognizes the testing
organization’s concern but concludes
that the rule must allow sufficient
flexibility in the testing process to
enable individuals who have sufficient
literacy skills and are demonstrably
competent to operate a crane, but are
deficient in written test-taking ability, to
obtain qualification/certification under
this rule. Accordingly, OSHA is
retaining the provision allowing tests to
be administered verbally if the specified
demonstrations of literacy are made.
OSHA requested comment on several
issues arising under paragraph (h),
including (1) Whether, if an operator
complies with paragraph (h) by
demonstrating proficiency in a language

PO 00000

Frm 00121

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48025

other than English, the qualification/
certification should be limited to the use
of equipment that is equipped with
materials in the operator’s language; (2)
whether the rule needs to incorporate
safeguards to ensure that a translation of
manufacturer-supplied materials
conveys the same information as the
original; (3) whether employers should
be permitted to use manuals that have
been re-written in simplified language
to accommodate individuals whose
literacy level does not permit them to
understand the manufacturer-supplied
materials.
One trade association commented
that, in many regions of the United
States, employers rely on non-English
speakers to operate cranes and stated
that OSHA should require testing
organizations to offer crane operator
certification in languages other than
English. (ID–0231.1.) OSHA’s
longstanding position is that workers
must be trained and provided with
information in a language that they can
understand. That is particularly
important for crane operators, who will
be in control of large pieces of
equipment, with the potential to inflict
major damage and injury.
It was C–DAC’s intent in the proposed
rule, and it is OSHA’s intent in this final
rule, that non-English speaking
operators will have the ability to
become certified using languages other
than English. Paragraph (h)(2) of the
rule, therefore, authorizes testing
organizations to administer tests in any
language that the operator candidate
understands. Paragraph (h)(2) is
intended to ensure that crane operators
are certified in a language that they
comprehend, and that the cranes they
operate are equipped with the requisite
materials in that language. OSHA
intends to work with certifying
organizations to ensure that
examinations in appropriate languages
are available within the four-year phasein period under this section.
OSHA expects employers who
perform their own testing under
paragraph (c) to test candidates in the
languages understood by their workers.
OSHA concludes that accredited testing
organizations providing certifications
under paragraph (b) should likewise
provide testing in major languages
understood by the relevant worker
population of the regions in which they
do business. Doing so will maximize an
organization’s share of the testing
market. Moreover, OSHA expects that
employers who rely on testing
organizations will demand testing in the
languages understood by their
workforces.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48026

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Paragraph (i)

[Reserved.]

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (j) Certification Criteria
Paragraph (j) of this section sets out
the qualification and certification
criteria applicable to Options (1), (2),
and (4) of this section. These criteria
address the knowledge and skills that
are fundamental to safe crane operation.
As stated in the introductory language
in § 1926.1427(j), these would constitute
‘‘minimum’’ criteria; the accredited
testing organizations, employers, or
local or State licensing offices would
not be precluded from adding additional
requirements to their certification or
qualification programs.
Paragraph (j)(1) describes the criteria
that must be covered by the written
examination portion of a qualification/
certification program. As stated above in
the discussion of examination
administration, the written portion of
the examination may be administered
orally, so long as the candidate has
demonstrated sufficient literacy relevant
to the work (e.g., load charts and
equipment manual).
Paragraph (j)(1)(i) states that the
individual seeking qualification or
certification must know ‘‘the
information necessary for safe operation
of the specific type of equipment the
individual will operate * * *’’
Paragraph (j)(1)(i) goes on to list specific
types of information the individual
must know.
Paragraph (j)(1)(i)(A) requires that the
written examination address the
candidate’s knowledge of the equipment
controls and operational/performance
characteristics of the specific type of
equipment. Operational/performance
characteristics would include, for
example, the deflection characteristics
of the boom, including how deflection
affects the positioning of the load and
the extent to which deflection varies
with boom angle and length as well as
load weight. Also, equipment with
lattice/cable supported booms has
different deflection characteristics than
equipment with non-lattice booms (that
is, hydraulic ram extensible booms).
Paragraph (j)(1)(i)(B) requires the
candidate to know the use of, and be
able to calculate (manually or with the
use of a calculator), load/capacity
information on a variety of
configurations of the equipment. Such
information is typically contained in
load charts and manuals. This provision
ensures that the operator is able to
accurately determine, independently,
the capacity of the equipment in each
situation that he/she might encounter
and thereby avoid overloading the
equipment.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Paragraph (j)(1)(i)(C) requires the
candidate to know procedures for
preventing and responding to power
line contact. As discussed above in
relation to §§ 1926.1407–1926.1411,
electrical contact with power lines is
one of the principal causes of
crane-related fatalities and injuries, and
those sections contain detailed
requirements for preventing such
contact and for reducing the likelihood
of death or injury should such contact
occur.120 Knowing how to prevent and
respond to power line contact is
therefore critical knowledge for any
crane operator.
Paragraph (j)(1)(i)(D) addresses the
need for crane operators to have
technical knowledge similar to the
subject matter listed in Appendix C
applicable to the specific type of
equipment the individual will operate.
These criteria were selected by C–DAC
because, in the experience of the
committee’s members, they are critical
knowledge and skill areas for equipment
operators. OSHA defers to C–DAC’s
experience on this issue and notes that
the Agency did not receive any
comments suggesting that a particular
item be removed from this list. While
testing based on the specific list
provided in Appendix C is not the
means of satisfying the requirements of
§ 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(D), alternative
criteria must be ‘‘similar to’’ that of
Appendix C. The appendix also serves
as a ‘‘safe harbor,’’ meaning that testing
on all of the criteria provided in
Appendix C would satisfy the
requirements of § 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(D).
In addition to the technical
knowledge that is required under
§ 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(D), technical
knowledge applicable to three specific
subjects is required under
§ 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(E). Paragraph
(j)(1)(i)(E)(1) requires that an operator
have technical knowledge about the
suitability of the supporting ground and
surface to handle expected loads.
Paragraph (j)(1)(i)(E)(2) requires
operators to possess technical
knowledge applicable to site hazards,
such as hazards posed by excavations or
vehicular traffic. Paragraph (j)(1)(i)(E)(3)
requires operators to have technical
knowledge about site access so that the
operator can evaluate whether
120 As provided in § 1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(A) on
power line safety, operators must be aware of the
danger of electrocution if they simultaneously
touch energized equipment and the ground. They
must also, pursuant to § 1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(B), be
trained to understand that when the equipment
makes electrical contact with a power line, the
operator’s safety requires him or her to remain
inside the cab except where there is an imminent
danger of fire, explosion, or other emergency that
necessitates their leaving the cab.

PO 00000

Frm 00122

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

conditions at the point of access to the
site enable the equipment to travel
safely onto or off of the site. For
example, where equipment must
descend or ascend a dirt ramp, the
operator needs to be able to assess the
effect of the ramp’s steepness and to
detect signs of instability.
Paragraph (j)(1)(i)(F) requires
operators to demonstrate a thorough
knowledge of this subpart, including
incorporated materials. Operators play a
key role in the application of these
requirements, and it is therefore
essential that they understand them.
Paragraph (j)(1)(ii) provides that the
individual is able to read and locate
relevant information in the equipment
manual and other materials containing
information referred to in paragraph
(j)(1)(i) of this section. As discussed
above in relation to paragraph (h), the
written materials to which this
paragraph refers must be in a language
that the individual can read and in
which the individual is tested.
Paragraph (j)(2) requires that the
qualification/certification examination
include a determination through a
practical test that the individual has the
skills necessary for the safe operation of
the equipment. It also states criteria for
such a test. Paragraph (j)(2)(i) requires
that an individual demonstrate the
ability to recognize, from visual and
auditory observation, the items listed in
proposed § 1926.1412(d), which sets
criteria for shift inspections. Paragraph
(j)(2)(ii) requires the operator to
demonstrate operational and
maneuvering skills. Paragraph (j)(2)(iii)
requires that the operator demonstrate
the ability to apply load chart
information. Paragraph (j)(2)(iv) requires
that an operator be able to apply safe
shut-down and securing procedures.
One commenter suggested
incorporating standard verbal operation
signals into the certification criteria.
(ID–0110.1.) A different commenter
asked OSHA to require knowledge of
the ‘‘dynamics of boom flex’’ in its
criteria for certification. (ID–0125.) To
the extent that knowledge of such
signals and the dynamics of boom flex
are required for the safe operation of the
type of equipment the individual will
operate, they would be covered under
§ 1926.1427(j)(1)(i). The examples of the
types of information that would be
required for certification are not all
inclusive. OSHA defers to C–DAC’s
experience with respect to the
determination of which examples
should be highlighted in paragraph (j).
No other comments were received on
§ 1926.1427(j); it is promulgated as
proposed, except that OSHA has
corrected ‘‘audible observations’’ to read

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

‘‘auditory observations (observations
through the use of the ear).
Paragraph (k) Phase-In
As discussed above, a number of
commenters believe that Option (1) of
this section (certification by an
accredited testing organization) is the
only viable option for many employers
and expressed concern about the
availability of sufficient accredited
testing organizations to meet the
demand that this rule would create.
Therefore, in the final rule, OSHA has
provided a four-year phase-in period for
compliance with paragraph (a)(2),
which requires employers to have their
operators certified or qualified under
Option (1) (independent certifying
organization), Option (2) (audited
employer certification), or Option (3)
(U.S. military employees). Paragraph
(k)(1) of this section of the final rule sets
out different effective dates for the
different provisions of § 1926.1427: all
provisions except paragraphs (a)(2) and
(f) of this section are enforceable as of
the effective date of new subpart CC,
whereas the certification required under
paragraph (a)(2) will not be required
until the end of the phase-in period,
which is four years after the effective
date of subpart CC.
The phase-in period does not apply to
compliance with licensing requirements
of government entities. Those
government entities already require
compliance with their own licensing
requirements, and OSHA sees no
rationale for delaying compliance with
existing law. Employers would be
required to comply with State or local
government entity licensing
requirements only to the extent that
State or local government entity licenses
comply with the ‘‘Federal floor’’
established in paragraphs (e)(2) and (j)
of this section. The options available
under § 1926.1427(a)(2) would remain
available, and the four-year phase-in
period would apply.
As already discussed, C–DAC
determined that the market would
respond to a qualification/certification
requirement, and the increase in the
number of accredited testing
organizations since C–DAC completed
its consensus document validates that
view (OSHA notes that several more
testing organizations have become
accredited since the proposed rule was
issued). There is no evidence in the
record that the available testing
organizations will be unable to meet the
demand even if almost all employers
choose that option. The four year period
will provide time for additional testing
organizations to become accredited for
purposes of Option (1).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

A labor organization suggested that
the four-year phase-in period be
reduced to two years. (ID–0409.1.) The
commenter stated that C–DAC agreed to
the four-year period when it issued its
report in 2004 to allow sufficient time
for additional certification services to
become available. It noted that several
additional testing organizations had
become accredited since 2004 to meet
the demand for certification under
various State laws and suggested that
the number of accredited testing
organizations was now sufficient to
meet the demand under this rule within
two years. Another commenter also
suggested that the phase-in period could
be reduced to two or three years if
sufficient certifying organizations are
available when the final rule is issued.
(ID–0104.1.)
OSHA concludes that the rulemaking
record supports the proposed four-year
phase-in period. While the availability
of certification services has increased
since C–DAC issued its report, four
years is a reasonable amount of time to
ensure that the supply of certification
services will be sufficient to meet
demand. It will also provide time for
those operators who need additional
training to pass qualification/
certification tests to complete that
training, and for accredited testing
organizations to develop tests in
languages other than English to
accommodate crane operators for whom
English is not their first language.
The four year period will also provide
time for the market to also respond to
demand for certification programs for
certified auditors as described under
Option (2) of this section (and for
employers who so choose to develop
audited programs for use under Option
(2)). Some State and local government
entities now offer licenses and, if those
licensing organizations do not already
meet the criteria under Option (4) of this
section, the four-year phase-in period
gives them time to do so if they so
choose. C–DAC’s determination that
four years is a reasonable phase-in
period was not based solely on the
availability of testing services under
Option (1) of this section, and OSHA
continues to agree that period is
appropriate.
Under paragraph (k)(1), during this
four year period, §§ 1926.1427(k)(1)(i)
and (ii) address the qualifications and
training an operator must have before
becoming qualified or certified under
one of the four options. Section
1926.1427(k)(1)(i) requires that
operators be competent for the purposes
of operating the equipment safely. This
means that the operator must have the
requisite knowledge and skill to

PO 00000

Frm 00123

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48027

identify, anticipate, and avoid actions
which could result in hazardous
conditions related to the equipment and
job site.
Paragraph (k)(1)(ii) requires that
employers ensure that operators who do
not already have sufficient knowledge
or skill to operate the equipment safely
undergo training prior to engaging in
operations. In addition, the employer is
required to ensure that the operator is
evaluated to confirm that he/she
understands the information provided
in the training.
The interim measures in paragraph
(k)(1) are not significantly different from
requirements that were effective under
subpart N of this part at former
§ 1926.550, § 1926.20(b)(4) (‘‘the
employer shall permit only those
employees qualified by training or
experience to operate equipment and
machinery’’), and § 1926.21(b)(2)(‘‘the
employer shall instruct each employee
in the recognition and avoidance of
unsafe conditions . . .’’). However, they
are included in this final rule to ensure
that there will not be a gap with respect
to operator qualifications between the
termination of the requirements under
subpart N of this part at former
§ 1926.550 and the effective date of
§§ 1926.1427(a) through (j) and (m).
Paragraph (l)

[Reserved.]

Definitions
The proposed rule contained
definitions of ‘‘portable’’ and ‘‘not
portable’’ in proposed § 1926.1427(m).
In addition, OSHA stated that it was
considering adding a definition of
‘‘employee of the U.S. military’’ to
paragraph (m). As noted above, OSHA
has moved the definitions of ‘‘portable’’
and ‘‘not portable’’ to the provisions
where those terms are used, and has
added a definition of ‘‘employee of the
U.S. military’’ to paragraph (d). As a
result, proposed paragraph (m) is not
needed and is removed.
Physical Qualifications and Substance
Abuse Testing
Physical Qualifications
C–DAC considered whether to
include in this standard provisions that
would require equipment operators to
meet particular physical qualifications.
After considering various possible
approaches, including those in industry
consensus standards, the Committee
decided that it would be very difficult,
and likely unnecessary, to identify
minimum physical requirements that
would be appropriate.
First, the physical demands of
equipment covered by this rule vary
significantly depending on the type and,

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48028

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

in some cases, age of the equipment. For
example, some equipment is operated
largely by electronic controls. In
contrast, older ‘‘friction cranes’’ have
pedal controls that can require
significant strength and stamina to
operate. Some equipment is air
conditioned whereas other equipment is
not. Tower cranes can require very long
climbs to the operator station; small
mobile hydraulic cranes typically have
an operator’s station that is much more
easily accessible. A requirement
regarding physical qualifications would
have to account for these types of
differences.
Second, establishing physical
qualifications that would appropriately
account for the effect of medical
conditions would be a complex
undertaking. The Committee ultimately
determined that, in light of its members’
experience that accidents caused by
problems associated with the operator’s
physical/medical condition are rare, the
issue of physical qualifications did not
need to be addressed by this standard.
Several commenters suggested that
OSHA should require operators to
undergo and pass medical
examinations. (ID–0104.1; –0143.1;
–0151.1; –0152.1; –0187.1.) A trade
association suggested that medical
testing of vision, hearing, and potential
for seizures, epilepsy, emotional
instability, high blood pressure, and
other physical impairments should be
part of requirements for safe crane
operation. (ID–0187.1.) A safety
consultant stated that establishing
physical qualifications that would
appropriately account for the effects of
medical conditions would not be a
complex undertaking.
(ID–0152.1.) This commenter suggested
that a doctor who performs an operator’s
physical and medical examination
could determine if an operator was
medically qualified to operate a crane.
OSHA is not persuaded by these
comments. First, OSHA concludes that
it would not be reasonable to rely on the
unguided discretion of examining
physicians to determine whether an
operator is medically qualified to
operate a crane. Doing so would likely
lead to a wide variation in the medical
conditions that different physicians
believe are either necessary or
unnecessary for crane operation.
Moreover, individual physicians are
unlikely to be aware of the variety of
conditions that may influence an
individual’s ability to operate a crane
safely, such as the variation in strength
needed to operate the controls on
different types of cranes. Although
physicians are able to determine if an
individual has a particular medical

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

condition, they are not well situated to
determine if that condition should
preclude the individual from operating
a crane.
OSHA also finds the comment by the
trade association to be unpersuasive.
First, this commenter nominated a C–
DAC member, who did not dissent on
this issue. The commenter did not
explain why it is deviating from the
position its nominee took on C–DAC,
and for that reason OSHA gives reduced
weight to its comment. Moreover, OSHA
notes that some of the criteria suggested
by the commenter, particularly the
phrase ‘‘other physical impairments,’’
are of questionable value in determining
the physical qualifications of crane
operators. Indeed, OSHA determines
that the commenter’s inclusion of such
a catchall phrase highlights the
difficulty of trying to list the medical
conditions that should preclude a
person from operating a crane.
In short, OSHA has not been given
any persuasive reason to deviate from
the considered judgment of C–DAC that
this standard should not address the
issue of physical qualifications of
equipment operators.
Substance Abuse Testing
As explained in the proposed rule, C–
DAC considered whether to include
mandatory substance abuse testing for
equipment operators and others, such as
signal persons, whose jobs affect safety.
It decided against doing so because of
the procedural limitations such a
requirement would impose on
employers who have voluntarily
instituted substance abuse programs; a
government mandate for substance
abuse testing would have to meet
constitutional safeguards.121 For
example, under a government-mandated
testing program, an employer likely
would not be permitted to ‘‘stand down’’
an operator based on an unconfirmed
test result but would need to wait until
a positive result is verified by a medical
review officer. The Committee did not
want to restrict an employer’s ability to
suspend an operator who tested positive
pending confirmation of the result.
In short, the Committee balanced the
potential benefits from a requirement for
substance abuse testing that would have
more restrictive procedures against the
fact that many employers already have
their own programs in place that, in C–
DAC’s view, may be more protective
than what could be enacted as an OSHA
requirement. C–DAC concluded that it
121 See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’
Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989); International
Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Department of
Transportation, 932 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1991).

PO 00000

Frm 00124

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

would be better not to include a
substance abuse requirement.
Several commenters recommended
that OSHA include substance abuse
testing in the final rule. (ID–0104.1;
–0105.1; –0151.1; –0152.1; –0187.1.)
These commenters did not, however,
address C–DAC’s conclusion that an
OSHA mandate for such testing could
have the adverse consequence of
limiting employers’ ability to enforce
their own substance abuse testing
programs and could thereby detract
from worksite safety. OSHA therefore
defers to C–DAC’s judgment and
declines to include a substance abuse
testing requirement in the final rule.
Section 1926.1428 Signal Person
Qualifications
As discussed under § 1926.1419,
Signals—general requirements, the
safety of equipment operations depends
in many situations on signals given to
the operator. It is critical that the
operator understand the signals given,
and the signal person must therefore be
able to give clear, accurate and
appropriate signals that unambiguously
convey the needed information. The
Committee, which included a number of
members with significant experience
with signal persons, was concerned that
some signal persons are not able to
recognize the hazards involved with
certain crane operations, do not, in
some cases, understand what it is that
the crane needs to do to accomplish the
task, and do not know how to give the
appropriate signals. This poses hazards,
such as struck-by and crushed-by
hazards, due to either
miscommunication or the
communication of instructions that are
inappropriate.
An example of the type of accident
that can be caused by
miscommunication from not knowing
the appropriate signals is as follows:
The signal person intends to indicate to
the operator to hoist up, since the load
needs to be raised straight up. However,
the signal person uses the standard
signal for booming up in the mistaken
belief that this signal is for hoisting up.
A struck-by or crushed-by incident
could result because, when booming up,
the load will move laterally as well as
vertically.
A failure to understand what it is that
the crane needs to do to accomplish a
task can also lead to struck-by or
crushed-by incidents. For example, as a
crane booms down, boom deflection
tends to increase, which has the effect
of lowering the load more than if there
were no boom deflection. If the signal
person is unfamiliar with this boom
characteristic, he or she may fail to

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
signal in time for the load to stop at the
correct point or may cause the load to
descend too quickly.
The Committee concluded that to
prevent such accidents it is necessary to
establish qualification criteria that
would have to be met for an individual
to serve as a signal person (that criteria
is set out in proposed § 1926.1428(c),
discussed below). The employer would
have the option of using one of two
methods for ensuring that these criteria
were met. Under Option (1) of this
section (§ 1926.1428(a)(1)), the signal
person would have documentation from
an independent ‘‘qualified evaluator
(third party),’’ as defined in § 1926.1401,
showing that the evaluator had
determined that the signal person meets
the requirements of § 1926.1428(c).
This qualification would be portable,
that is, any employer could rely on such
documentation to show that a signal
person meets the criteria. C–DAC
determined that such portability would
be appropriate because of the
independence and expertise of the
third-party evaluator.
Under Option (2) of this section
(§ 1926.1428(a)(2)), an employer’s own
qualified evaluator (not a third party)
would determine that a signal person
meets the qualification requirements.
Since such a determination would not
be done by an independent entity, other
employers would not have a basis to
assume that the assessment had been
done correctly. Therefore, a
qualification under this option would
not be portable; other employers would
not be permitted to rely upon it to show
that the signal person meets these
requirements.
One commenter argued for the
deletion of Option (2) of this section
(the employer option) altogether to
ensure that an independent evaluator
trains signalpersons according to the
established best practices of the
industry. (ID–0156.1.) The commenter
did not explain why employer
evaluations were less effective. To the
contrary, the Agency notes that C–DAC
experience indicated that employer
evaluations of signal persons were
effective. The employer evaluation may
in some cases be even more effective
and efficient than independent
evaluations, such as for the evaluation
of employer specific signals. Sections
1926.1428(a)(1) and (2) (Options (1) and
(2)) are promulgated as proposed.
The term ‘‘qualified evaluator’’ used in
proposed § 1926.1428(a)(2) was defined
in proposed § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a person
employed by the signal person’s
employer who has demonstrated that
he/she is competent in accurately
assessing whether individuals meet the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

48029

Qualification Requirements in this
subpart for a signal person.’’ In
reviewing the C–DAC document, the
Agency realized that the Committee had
not provided a definition for the term
‘‘third party qualified evaluator,’’ which
was used in proposed § 1926.1428(a)(1).
OSHA therefore added to the proposed
rule a definition for this term.
The Agency requested public
comment about whether this definition
is appropriate, and two commenters
indicated support for the definition.
(ID–0187.1; –0205.1.) One commenter
requested that, in the phrase, ‘‘due to its
independence and expertise,’’ the
Agency add ‘‘history in providing
training’’ as an additional criterion and
include labor-management joint
apprenticeship training programs as an
example of an entity that meets this
definition. (ID–0191.1; –0194.1.)
The role of the third-party qualified
evaluator in § 1926.1428(a)(2) is to
assess the individual’s competence. The
expertise needed for training is not the
same as the expertise needed for
evaluating competence (see the
explanation of the distinction between
training expertise and competence
evaluation in the discussion of
§ 1926.1427). Therefore, it would be
inappropriate to require training
expertise as a prerequisite for being
considered a third-party qualified
evaluator.122 Similarly, while labormanagement joint apprenticeship
training programs that train and assess
signal persons would typically meet the
definition for a third-party qualified
evaluator, OSHA concludes that
including them as an example in the
definition could incorrectly imply that
training expertise (as opposed to
assessment expertise) is a prerequisite.
Several other commenters expressed
general support for the definition of a
third-party qualified evaluator but
requested clarifications. Two of these
commenters proposed changing the
definition to specify that an ‘‘individual’’
could also qualify as a third-party
qualified evaluator. (ID–0205.1;
–0222.1.) This is unnecessary because
the word ‘‘entity’’ already encompasses
an individual. The other commenters
recommended that OSHA further clarify
the definition by requiring an evaluating
entity to ‘‘demonstrate’’ its competence
through an independent body’s audit,
certification, or accreditation. (ID–
0169.1; –0211.1.) OSHA agrees with C–
DAC that competence can be

demonstrated in a variety of ways and
is not establishing an accreditation
requirement as for evaluators of crane
operators. The assessment of a signal
person’s qualifications is inherently less
complex than the assessment of a crane
operator’s qualifications because the
range of signals and their applications
are more finite than the wide assortment
of scenarios and skills for which a crane
operator must be tested. As such, the
need for independent assessment of the
evaluator is diminished. Therefore, the
Agency has not made the suggested
changes; the definition is promulgated
as proposed except that the defined
term is ‘‘qualified evaluator (not a third
party)’’ in the final rule.
Another commenter at the hearing,
citing the availability of experienced,
trained signal persons in his
organization, requested a ‘‘grandfather’’
clause for signal persons so that
previous training and proof of hands-on
practical experience would qualify
signal persons under this rule, citing the
availability of experienced, trained
signal persons in that organization. (ID–
0345.17.) OSHA does not agree that a
‘‘grandfather’’ clause is necessary or
appropriate. The experienced, trained
workers to which the commenter refers
should be able to pass the required
assessment with little additional
training.123
OSHA concurs with the C–DAC
Committee’s determination that it is
important for employers to make the
documentation of signal person
qualifications readily available to
employees and others who need to rely
on those qualifications, such as crane
operators who rely on signal persons
provided by a different employer, or
OSHA for compliance purposes. In
proposed § 1926.1428(a)(3), OSHA
included C–DAC’s language requiring
that the documentation be ‘‘available,’’
rather than ‘‘available at the site,’’ but
noted that C–DAC intended that the
documentation be available at the site
by, for example, the documentation
being physically present at the site or
through use of an on-site computer.
OSHA asked for public comment on
changing the term ‘‘available’’ to
‘‘available at the site.’’
Two commenters objected to the
proposed change, indicating that it is
not necessary to have the
documentation on site so long as it can
be readily produced. (ID–0205.1;
–0222.1.) The commenters did not,

122 A third party evaluator that did not have
signal person training expertise would nonetheless
have to have substantive expertise in signaling and
the other subjects referred to in § 1926.1428, as well
as expertise in assessment, to meet the ‘‘expertise’’
criterion in the definition.

123 In many cases the only additional training that
likely will be needed for those experienced and
trained workers will be to become familiar with the
relevant requirements of §§ 1926.1419–1926.1422,
and § 1926.1428 (knowledge of that information is
required under § 1926.1428(c)(4)).

PO 00000

Frm 00125

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48030

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

however, provide further explanation or
cite any examples of how the
documentation would be ‘‘readily
produced’’ quickly through means other
than via computer. Moreover, the
commenter’s suggestion that documents
be ‘‘readily produced’’ is vague and
could encompass documents that might
be ‘‘produced’’ offsite quickly but not
transmitted in a timely manner to the
work site. OSHA has decided to modify
the language used in the proposed rule
and require in the final rule that the
documentation be available at the site,
and is also adding language to make it
clear that the employer is responsible
for making that documentation available
at the worksite.
In the proposed rule preamble, the
Agency noted that the C–DAC draft of
Option (2) of this section did not
explicitly state that documentation of
the signal person’s qualification by this
method is required. However, proposed
§ 1926.1428(a)(3) stated that ‘‘the
documentation for whichever Option is
used shall be available. * * *’’ It was
not clear to the Agency if C–DAC
intended to require documentation
under Option (2) of this section as it did
for Option (1), or if it only intended that
any documentation the employer chose
to create under Option (2) would have
to be made available.
One reason to require documentation
under Option (2) of this section is the
Committee’s concern that, at present,
the operator’s employer has no ready
means of determining if the signal
person (who is typically a different
employer’s employee) has the necessary
knowledge and skill for signaling until
after hoisting operations have begun. In
other words, a problem with the signal
person’s ability may not become evident
to an operator until a hazardous
situation has already arisen. Requiring
documentation enables this
determination to be made before
hoisting operations begin.
Requiring documentation under
Option (2) of this section addresses C–
DAC’s concern. Therefore, in the
proposed rule, OSHA expanded the first
sentence of the C–DAC version of
§ 1926.1428(a)(2) to clarify that
documentation is required under Option
(2). The only comment received on
OSHA’s inclusion of an explicit
requirement for documentation under
Option (2) was from SC&RA, which
supported its inclusion. (ID–0205.1.)
Therefore, in the final rule,
documentation is required under Option
(2).
The Agency concludes that the
rationale for including an explicit
requirement for documentation under
Option (2) of this section—the need for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

other affected employers at the site,
such as the operator’s employer, to have
a ready means of determining if the
signal person has the necessary
knowledge and skill before beginning
hoisting operations—also necessitates
that the documentation be available at
the site. OSHA is concerned that if it is
not available at the site (either in paper
form or electronically), it is less likely
that the documentation will serve its
intended purpose. Therefore, in the
final rule, the documentation required
under both Option (1) and Option (2) of
this section must be available at the site.
OSHA is also adding a requirement in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section of the
final rule that the documentation must
specify each type of signaling for which
the signalperson has been tested and
meets the requirements of
§ 1926.1428(c). This requirement
parallels the requirement in
§ 1926.1427(b)(2) in which operator
certification documents must specify
the type and capacity of the equipment
for which an operator is certified. This
new provision fills a potential
communication gap that would have
existed in the implementation of the
rule as proposed. As explained above,
one of the main reasons that OSHA is
requiring the documentation to be
available at the site is so that the
operator, or any person on the job site,
who is unfamiliar with a signal person
may review that documentation to
ensure that the signal person is
sufficiently qualified to provide the
signals required for that job. Because
many of the qualifications that must be
tested under paragraph (c) of this
section are conditional (e.g., if hand
signals are to be used, the signal person
must understand the Standard Method
hand signals), and the proposed rule did
not specify any content for the
documentation, the documentation
provided by a third-party qualified
evaluator under Option (1) of this
section might simply have generally
noted the satisfactory completion of
testing in accordance with
§ 1926.1428(c). In that case, under the
proposed rule, an operator preparing for
a job requiring the use of hand signals
would not have been able to use that
documentation as intended to determine
whether the signalperson knew and
understood the Standard Method for
hand signals. Under the final rule, the
operator will be able to make that
determination quickly because the
documentation must specify whether
the signalperson was examined on hand
signals. This requirement is not
intended to require significant detail,
such as specifying that the signalperson

PO 00000

Frm 00126

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

knows the hand signals for ‘‘hoist’’ or
‘‘stop.’’ Rather, it is intended to identify
satisfactory completion of testing on
different categories of signals, such as
hand signals, radio signals, or flag
signals.
Paragraph (b) of this section addresses
circumstances in which a signal person
who had been qualified under
§ 1926.1428(a) subsequently acts in a
manner that indicates that he or she
may not meet the qualification
requirements. Such an indication would
result, for example, where the use of
Standard Method signals have been
agreed to but the signal person does not
give a Standard Method signal. Another
example would be where the signal
person gives inappropriate signals (such
as indicating to the operator to boom up
when the action that is needed is to
hoist up).
In such circumstances the employer is
prohibited from allowing the individual
to continue working as a signal person
until he or she is re-trained and has
been requalified in accordance with
§ 1926.1428(a). No comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c) of this section sets forth
the qualification requirements for signal
persons. Paragraph (c)(1) requires that
the signal person know and understand
whatever signal method will be used for
that particular job site.
In addition, if hand signals are used,
the signal person must know and
understand the Standard Method for
hand signals. Hand signals are widely
used in this industry. As discussed
above with respect to § 1926.1419(c),
C–DAC determined that accidents due
to miscommunication could be reduced
if there were more widespread use of
standardized hand signals. C–DAC
concluded that this provision will
promote greater use of standardized
hand signals through the use of the
Standard Method.124 No comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c)(2) of this section will
help prevent miscommunication
between the signal person and the crane
operator by requiring the signal person
to be competent in the application of
whatever signals are used. No comments
were received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c)(3) of this section
requires the signal person to have a
basic understanding of crane operation
124 As discussed above with respect to
§ 1926.1419(c), there are circumstances when it
would be permissible to use hand signals other than
the Standard Method signals. Also, under
§ 1926.1419, signals other than hand signals can be
used.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
and limitations, including crane
dynamics involved in swinging and
stopping loads and boom deflection
from hoisting loads. As explained in the
proposed rule preamble, it is critical
that the signal person understand how
the crane and load will move in
response to the various signals he or she
gives so that the signal person will give
the most appropriate signals and reduce
the occurrence of struck-by, crushed-by
and other hazards (see 73 FR 59823,
Oct. 9, 2008). No comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c)(4) of this section
specifies that signal persons must know
and understand the relevant
requirements in §§ 1926.1419–
1926.1422, which address the types of
signals that may be used and the
circumstances surrounding their use,
and the requirements of § 1926.1428. C–
DAC included the phrase ‘‘relevant
requirements’’ to make clear that a signal
person’s qualification could be limited
with regards to the use of a particular
type of signal and associated
information.
For example: A crane operation is
going to use Standard Method hand
signals. The signal person knows and
understands all aspects of § 1926.1419
that are relevant when using hand
signals, as well as § 1926.1422,
Signals—hand signal chart. In addition,
the signal person meets the
requirements in § 1926.1428(c)(1) and
(2) with respect to the use of Standard
Method hand signals. The signal person
also has the knowledge necessary to
meet the provision in § 1926.1428(c)(3),
and demonstrates through a verbal or
written test, and through a practical test,
that he/she has this knowledge and
capabilities. However, the signal person
is unfamiliar with the contents of
§ 1926.1420, Signals—radio, telephone
or other electronic transmission of
signals, or of § 1926.1421, Signals—
voice signals—additional requirements.
In this example, it would be
appropriate for the signal person to be
qualified under either Option (1) or
Option (2) of this section (see
1926.1428(a)) so long as that
qualification was limited to signaling
with Standard Method hand signals.
Since the signal person would be
qualified only for Standard Method
signaling, there would be no need for
that person to have the knowledge or
capabilities associated with other types
of signaling. In such a situation
employers, though, would be precluded
from using such a person if other types
of signals were to be used. No comments
were received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Paragraph (c)(5) of this section would
require that the signal person pass
knowledge and practical tests to
demonstrate that he or she meets the
qualification requirements. The
knowledge test may be either oral or
written. C–DAC noted that signal
persons normally need not read or write
to perform their jobs effectively. No
comments were received on this
provision. Therefore, OSHA agrees with
C–DAC that administering the
knowledge test orally, without a
separate demonstration of literacy,
should be permitted. The provision is
promulgated as proposed, with one
minor grammatical correction.
Section 1926.1429 Qualifications of
Maintenance and Repair Workers
This section addresses the
qualifications that the workers who
maintain and repair cranes/derricks
must possess. Subpart N of this part at
former § 1926.550 contained no
provisions concerning the qualifications
of maintenance and repair workers.
The Committee had two basic
concerns regarding maintenance and
repair work. First, it was aware of
accidents that had occurred when the
equipment that was being maintained or
repaired was operated improperly. For
example, a maintenance worker who
booms down a mobile hydraulic crane
to one side without following the
manufacturer’s instructions for
deploying outriggers may overturn the
equipment. C–DAC concluded that
placing restrictions on equipment
operations during such work would
help prevent such accidents.
Second, the Committee sought to
avoid hazards that can result from
maintenance and repair work that is
done improperly by ensuring that
maintenance and repair workers are
sufficiently qualified to perform their
work. For example, if a load-bearing
component is removed for maintenance
or repair and re-installed incorrectly,
unintended movement of the load or
even a collapse could occur during
operations.
Paragraph (a)
The Committee was aware that
maintenance and repair workers
sometimes need to operate equipment to
perform maintenance, inspect the
equipment, or verify the performance of
the equipment. This work typically
involves operating the equipment to get
access to components, diagnose
problems and check repairs.
C–DAC did not determine it necessary
for maintenance, inspection and repair
personnel to meet the requirements in
proposed § 1926.1427, Operator

PO 00000

Frm 00127

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48031

qualification and certification, when
operating equipment for such purposes.
The operations involved for these
purposes are almost always done
without a load on the hook. The only
instance when there is a load on the
hook is if the equipment is load tested.
However, even when load testing, the
operation is very limited, since the load
is not moved about as it would be
during normal crane operations.
While such limited operation does
not, in C–DAC’s view, necessitate the
maintenance, inspection or repair
personnel to meet the proposed
§ 1926.1427 requirements, a failure to
operate the equipment properly even in
these limited circumstances can result
in accidents from, for example,
unintended movement or tip-over.
OSHA agrees, and is therefore
permitting maintenance and repair
workers to operate equipment during
their work only under specific
restrictions designed to ensure safety.
Specifically, under paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, maintenance and repair
workers are permitted to operate the
equipment only to the extent necessary
to perform maintenance, inspect the
equipment, or verify its performance.
Under this provision, maintenance and
repair workers are not permitted to
operate the equipment during regular
operations.
Paragraph (a)(2) of this section
requires the maintenance and repair
worker who operates equipment to
either (i) do so under the direct
supervision of an operator who meets
the requirements of § 1926.1427,
Operator qualification and certification,
or (ii) be familiar with the operation,
limitations, characteristics and hazards
associated with the type of equipment
involved.
Paragraph (b)
In light of the safety hazards that
could result from maintenance and
repairs that are performed improperly,
C–DAC determined that it was
necessary for maintenance and repair
workers to meet the ‘‘qualified person’’
criteria. OSHA agrees. Paragraph (b) of
this section therefore provides that
maintenance and repair personnel must
meet the definition of a qualified person
with respect to the equipment and
maintenance/repair tasks they perform.
As defined in § 1926.1401, a ‘‘qualified
person’’ is ‘‘a person who, by possession
of a recognized degree, certificate, or
professional standing, or who by
extensive knowledge, training, and
experience, successfully demonstrated
the ability to solve/resolve problems
relating to the subject matter, the work,
or the project.’’

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48032

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Two commenters requested that
maintenance and repair workers be
certified by a third party. (ID–0061;
–0156.1.) As noted in the preamble to
the proposed rule and again here, C–
DAC considered the requirements for
maintenance and repair workers and
found that the term ‘‘qualified person’’
would adequately address these
concerns. OSHA agrees, and is
promulgating paragraph (b) without
substantive change. OSHA is
substituting the word ‘‘must’’ for ‘‘shall’’
in the last sentence of that paragraph to
avoid any implication that a
maintenance and repair worker is, by
definition, a qualified person.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Section 1926.1430

Training

With a few exceptions, the
requirements in this final rule for this
section are the same as those in the
proposed rule (see 73 FR 59939, Oct. 9,
2008). This section both references
training criteria required by other
sections of subpart CC and sets forth
additional training criteria and
requirements. Additionally,
§ 1926.1430(h) requires employers to
evaluate employees’ understanding of
the training.
The Agency determined that both
training and testing of certain
employees are critical to the safety of
crane/derrick use in construction.125
The requirements of this section and
subpart with respect to training do not
replace those established by § 1926.21,
Safety training and education, which
requires the employer to (1) ‘‘establish
and supervise programs for the
education and training of employers and
employees in the recognition, avoidance
and prevention of unsafe conditions in
employments covered by the [OSH]
Act,’’ and (2) ‘‘instruct each employee in
the recognition and avoidance of unsafe
conditions and the regulations
applicable to his work environment to
control or eliminate any hazards or
other exposure to illness or injury.’’
Instead, they supplement and clarify the
general training requirements for
particular conditions and activities.
These specific provisions ensure that
employees have the necessary
knowledge and skill to work safely with
and around cranes. Greater specificity
highlights the particular tasks (and the
125 With respect to operator testing, as discussed
in connection with § 1926.1427, Operator
qualification and certification, this standard places
special emphasis on ensuring that equipment
operators have acquired the knowledge and skills
necessary to operate their equipment safely. This
standard also includes specific assessment
requirements for signal persons (see § 1926.1428(a)).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

hazards associated with them) for which
certain types of training are necessary.
The Agency is also clarifying in
§ 1926.1430 that employers have a duty
to train each employee covered by
subpart CC, and to provide that training
at no cost to the employee. In the
introductory text to proposed
§ 1926.1430, the Agency specified that
the employer ‘‘shall provide’’ all
applicable training, which was included
to indicate that the employer would
bear the cost of training. This is
consistent with the Agency’s treatment
of training costs in the preliminary
economic analysis provided in the
preamble for the proposed rule. (See,
e.g., 73 FR 59895, Oct. 9, 2008 (operator
certification training treated as cost to
employer).) In the final rule, OSHA is
rewording each of the training
requirements to further clarify the
employer’s responsibilities with respect
to all training requirements under
subpart CC, and is adding new
§ 1926.1430(g)(3) to expressly state that
employers must provide all training at
no cost to the employee.
Several commenters recommended
that additional training be required. (ID–
0126.1; –0156.1;–0182.1; –0209.1.) One
suggested that maintenance and repair
personnel be certified by either the
manufacturer or an independent third
party that they are trained in the
maintenance and repair of the crane.
(ID–0156.1.) However, under
§ 1926.1429(b), maintenance and repair
employees are required to be qualified
persons. Those employees must be
trained on the requirements of subpart
CC as required by § 1926.1430(d) and
must have the education or experience
to be considered a qualified person as
defined in § 1926.1401. This commenter
has not presented evidence showing
that manufacturer or third party
certification would significantly
improve the qualifications of
maintenance and repair personnel who
meet the test of ‘‘qualified person.’’
Another commenter felt additional
hazard awareness training should be
required for employees. (ID–0182.1.)
OSHA determines that the training
requirements of this and other sections
of subpart CC, along with § 1926.21,
provide for adequate training of all
employees and allow employers
flexibility to provide training as needed
for each employee at various worksites.
Proposed § 1926.1430(a), Overhead
powerlines, stated that employees listed
in § 1926.1408(g) must be trained
accordance with the requirements of
that paragraph. As discussed in
§ 1926.1410, OSHA has added
§ 1926.1410(m), which requires that
operators and crew assigned to work

PO 00000

Frm 00128

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

with equipment that comes closer to
power lines than the minimum
clearance distance permitted under
§§ 1926.1408 and 1926.1409, must also
be trained in accordance with
§ 1926.1408(g). To accommodate this
change, § 1926.1430(a) also includes a
reference to § 1926.1410(m).
Under paragraph (b) of this section,
Signal persons, employees assigned to
work as signal persons and need
training to meet the requirements of
§ 1926.1428(c) must be trained in the
areas addressed in that paragraph. As
discussed in § 1926.1428(c), each
employee who serves as a signal person
must pass a verbal or written test, and
a practical test demonstrating the
required knowledge and skills. One
commenter believes the training
requirement outlined in this paragraph
could be interpreted to mean that only
training is required and the qualification
requirements of § 1926.1428 are not
applicable. (ID–0292.1.) This is
incorrect. This paragraph requires an
employer to ensure the employee
assigned as a signal person receives
training, or re-training if needed, to be
a signal person according to
§ 1926.1428. This is not a replacement
for the qualification requirements of
§ 1926.1428. This provision is
promulgated as proposed except for the
clarification of the employer’s duty to
train each employee.
Proposed paragraph (c) of this section
was entitled Operators, and set forth
training requirements for operators of
equipment covered by this subpart.
Proposed § 1926.1430(c)(1) stated that
‘‘operators who are not qualified or
certified under § 1926.1427 shall be
trained in the areas addressed in
§ 1926.1427(j). * * *’’
Several commenters believed that the
language of proposed § 1926.1430(c)(1)
indicated that operators who have not
been qualified or certified under
§ 1926.1427 may nonetheless operate
cranes. (ID–0156.1; –0182.1; –0208.1;
–0292.1.) One commenter noted it could
be interpreted to mean that certification
was not required, only training. (ID–
0182.1.)
Such interpretations are contrary to
the Agency’s intent. OSHA used the
word ‘‘operator’’ in the proposed
§ 1926.1427(c) to refer to any employee,
with the exception of maintenance and
repair workers, who operates
equipment, whether or not that
employee has completed all necessary
training. It has the same meaning when
used in final § 1926.1427(c).
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) was
intended to apply to operator trainees
who must be qualified or certified under
§ 1926.1427 to operate equipment, but

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
are not yet qualified or certified. Also in
this category are employees who need
training to become re-qualified or recertified, or who failed to pass a
qualification or certification test and
need additional training. Such
employees are only permitted to operate
cranes under the conditions specified in
§ 1926.1427(f), and the proposed rule
required them to be trained in the
operator certification/qualification
criteria provided in § 1926.1427(j).
Because the certification and
qualification requirements of
§ 1926.1427 will not be phased in until
four years after the effective date of the
standard, see § 1926.1427(k), OSHA
specified in the preamble to proposed
paragraph (c)(1) that operator training
during this phase-in period would
likewise be required to address the
criteria in § 1926.1427(j) (see 73 FR
59826, Oct. 9, 2008).
To clarify its intent in the final rule
OSHA has split proposed paragraph
(c)(1) of this section into three separate
paragraphs, (c)(1) through (3), and
renumbered proposed (c)(2) as (c)(4).
Revised paragraph (c)(1) is intended to
apply after the four-year phase in period
to employees who must be certified, or
qualified, under § 1926.1427 and are
training to do so for the first time, and
to employees who are training for recertification/re-qualification. These
employees, who will only be permitted
to operate the equipment as ‘‘operators
in training’’ and subject to several
conditions, must be trained in the areas
addressed in § 1926.1427(j) (criteria for
operator certification testing).
Paragraph (c)(1) also requires
employers to provide the necessary
additional training if the operator-intraining does not pass a qualification or
certification test. C–DAC determined,
and OSHA agrees, that it is important
for an employer to provide the training
necessary for its operators to be
qualified or certified as required by this
subpart.
C–DAC selected the criteria in
§ 1926.1427(j) as the minimum
knowledge and skill requirements
necessary for safe operation of
equipment. OSHA is therefore requiring
training in the same areas to ensure
consistency with the certification/
qualification process and to develop the
trainee’s knowledge and skills in the
areas that the record reflects are critical
to the safe operation of equipment.
New paragraph (c)(2) addresses
training during the 4-year phase-in
period in the same way for the same
people as in paragraph (c)(1): Each must
be trained in the areas addressed in
§ 1926.1427(j). Although the
certification/qualification requirements

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

do not apply until four years after the
effective date of this standard, OSHA
concludes that it makes sense for two
reasons to train employees in the same
areas that they will need to master to
pass the certification/qualification
examinations: (1) It will facilitate their
preparation for the examination, and (2)
these areas have been identified in the
record as the minimum knowledge and
skill sets that all operators should
possess.
Paragraph (c)(3) applies to operators
of equipment covered by this subpart
but are expressly excepted from the
certification and qualification
requirements of § 1926.1427. This
includes those operators for whom the
qualification or certification
requirements of § 1926.1427 do not
apply based on the type of equipment
being operated. Section 1926.1427(a)
provides: ‘‘Exceptions: Operator
qualification or certification under this
section is not required for operators of
derricks (see § 1926.1436), sideboom
cranes (see § 1926.1440), and equipment
with a maximum manufacturer-rated
hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds
or less (see § 1926.1441).’’ For the same
reasons that the Agency has concluded
that the operator certification/
qualification criteria in § 1926.1427 are
not appropriate for these operators, the
Agency concludes that training on the
same § 1926.1427(j) criteria would also
not be necessary. Instead, these
operators, must be trained in the safe
operation of the type of equipment they
will be operating.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) has been
renumbered in the final rule as
paragraph (c)(4). Final rule paragraph
(c)(4) applies to all persons operating
equipment under subpart CC, regardless
of whether that person must be certified
or qualified under § 1926.1427, and
regardless of whether it is during or
after the four-year phase-in period, and
requires operators to be trained in two
practices that C–DAC deemed worthy of
specific emphasis for the safe operation
of any equipment. Paragraph (c)(4)(i)
requires training in the testing of the
boom hoist brake on friction equipment
prior to moving a boom off a support to
determine whether the brake requires
adjustment or repair. The purpose of
this procedure is to ensure that the
brake is sufficient before the boom is at
too great an angle or height. Using this
procedure, if the brake is deficient, the
boom will fall only a short distance.
This provides an additional safety
measure related to the hazards resulting
from an uncontrolled boom. Moving the
boom when the brake is not working
properly can result in uncontrolled
lowering of the boom, which can

PO 00000

Frm 00129

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48033

endanger workers in the proximity of
the hoisting equipment. Paragraph
(c)(4)(i) also requires similar training for
testing the brake on all other equipment
with a boom. Again, this procedure
provides an additional safety measure
related to the hazards resulting from an
uncontrolled boom. For clarity, the
Agency has added a reference to
§§ 1926.1417(f) and (j) for additional
requirements related to tag-out
procedures and communication for any
necessary repairs. See discussion of
these requirements above at
§§ 1926.1417(f) and (j).
Paragraph (c)(4)(ii) requires the
operator to be trained in the
manufacturer’s emergency procedures,
when available, for stopping unintended
equipment movement. This provides
another level of protection to minimize
employee injury resulting from
unintended equipment movement.
OSHA recognizes that manufacturer’s
emergency procedures for halting
unintended equipment movement may
not always be available and therefore
this training is required only when the
procedures are available.
One commenter requested that more
specialized training, such as modelspecific training, should be required for
newly hired operators or operators
assigned to new or different models of
equipment. (ID–0199.1.) OSHA
determines that the rule addresses this
commenter’s concern. An operator
qualified or certified under § 1926.1427
has shown that he/she is qualified to
operate any type of equipment covered
by the qualification/certification. Others
must be trained in the type of
equipment they are operating under
paragraph (c) of this section.
Paragraph (d) of this section,
Competent persons and qualified
persons, requires competent persons
and qualified persons to be trained
regarding the requirements of this
subpart applicable to their respective
roles.
A person assigned by an employer to
be a ‘‘competent person’’ or ‘‘qualified
person’’ under this rule must already
have had a certain level of training (or,
in the case of a competent person, either
training or experience) to meet the
criteria applicable to such a designation.
This paragraph does not address such
training—it does not require the
employer to provide the training needed
for an employee to meet the criteria to
become a competent or qualified person.
The sole purpose of this paragraph is to
require the employer to ensure that both
competent persons and qualified
persons are trained on the requirements
of this subpart applicable to the person’s
role and responsibility. For example,

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48034

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

under § 1926.1430(d), a ‘‘competent
person’’ assigned to conduct shift
inspections required in § 1926.1412(d)
must be trained in the required elements
of a shift inspection. This training is
necessary to ensure that the competent
person or qualified person is aware of
his/her role under this subpart regarding
finding/correcting hazardous
conditions.
Another example is maintenance and
repair personnel, who may operate
equipment under limited conditions
necessary to perform the maintenance or
repair (see § 1926.1429(a)). Such an
employee must be a ‘‘qualified person,’’
§ 1926.1429(b), and must be trained in
accordance with § 1926.1430(d) to
operate the equipment as necessary to
perform the maintenance or repair. The
Agency notes, however, that
maintenance and repair workers are not
considered ‘‘operators’’ for the purposes
of paragraph (c) of this section and are
therefore not required to be trained in
all of the areas addressed in
§ 1926.1427(j), or as required under
§ 1926.1427(c)(3).
No comments were received on this
paragraph; it is promulgated without
change from the proposed rule except
for the clarification of the employer’s
duty to train each employee.
Paragraph (e) of this section, Crush/
pinch points, provides that employees
who work with equipment covered by
this subpart must be instructed to stay
clear of holes, crush/pinch points and
the hazards that are addressed in
§ 1926.1424, Work area control. See the
discussion above of hazards and
requirements addressed by § 1926.1424.
No comments were received on this
provision, and it is promulgated as
proposed except for the clarification of
the employer’s duty to train each
employee.
Paragraph (f) of this section, Tag-out,
states that operators and other
employees authorized to start or
energize equipment or operate
equipment controls (such as
maintenance and repair workers) must
be trained according to the tag-out and
start-up procedures in § 1926.1417(f)
and (g). See the discussion above of
these procedures in § 1926.1417.
On review of this paragraph, OSHA
determines that a reference to the start-

up procedures was inadvertently
omitted in the text of the proposed rule
since these employees are ‘‘authorized to
start/energize equipment.’’ OSHA has
corrected this omission in the final rule
by adding a reference to start-up
procedures in § 1926.1417(g) in the
regulatory text.
Paragraph (g) of this section requires
employers to ensure that employees
understand the required training and
provide refresher training when
necessary. Specifically,
§ 1926.1430(g)(1) requires the employee
to be evaluated to verify that he/she
understands the information provided
in training required by this subpart. The
Agency determined that, to ensure that
the training is effective, some means of
assessment for understanding is needed.
One commenter believed this
requirement was unclear and did not
understand how an employer would
determine if training was effective. (ID–
0232.1.) This commenter also indicated
that it could be interpreted that a test
would always be required to determine
whether training had been effective.
The Agency purposely does not use
the term ‘‘test’’ in this paragraph. ‘‘Test’’
may be interpreted to mean a
standardized written or a structured oral
exam, which may not be appropriate for
all situations. OSHA determines the
method of evaluating an employee’s
training for effectiveness will vary by
the subject matter of the training and the
employee, and the Agency has therefore
drafted this paragraph to provide
sufficient flexibility for the employer to
determine the most appropriate method
of evaluation. Any number of methods
could be used to determine if an
employee has understood the training
provided. For example, during
assembly/disassembly a certain method
of blocking may be needed. The
supervisor trains and instructs the
employee on the proper method. The
supervisor can then evaluate the
employee’s comprehension of training
in a number of ways. One way could be
simply to ask the employee to orally
describe how he/she would do this task,
or to have the employee physically
emulate the blocking method. Another
would be to provide blocking to the
employee and ask the employee to

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Section

Training requirement

§§ 1926.1408(g) and 1926.1410(m) ............................
§ 1926.1424(a)(2) .........................................................
§ 1926.1437(c)(2)(ii) .....................................................
§ 1926.1430(e) .............................................................
§ 1926.1430(f) ..............................................................
§ 1926.1430(f) ..............................................................
§ 1926.1430(d) .............................................................
§ 1926.1430(g)(2) .........................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

arrange the blocking in the proper
manner. Either method can give the
supervisor the necessary information to
determine if the employee understood
the proper method or if additional
training is required.
Another commenter recommended
the incorporation by reference of ANSI/
ASSE Z490.1–2001 for how to test
trainees. (ID–0178.1.) Much of sec. 6.2
of that standard reflects the same
concepts referred to above and may be
useful to employers. However, a ‘‘Note’’
to sec. E6.2.2 suggests that selfevaluations may be adequate. OSHA
does not conclude that a self-evaluation
is appropriate to meet the requirements
of § 1926.1430(g)(1). While other aspects
of the ANSI/ASSE standard may be
useful as a guide to employers, it is not
drafted in a way that is suitable for
enforcement of this provision. For these
reasons, OSHA declines to incorporate
it by reference as a requirement.
Paragraph (g)(2) of this section
requires the employer to provide
refresher training for an employee
when, based on evaluation or employee
conduct, it is indicated that retraining is
needed.
One commenter recommended a
requirement for a minimum number of
continuing education courses each year
for employees. (ID–0209.1.) Another
commenter recommended that refresher
training be done every 3 years or earlier
when based on evaluation of employee
conduct. (ID–0182.1.)
The Agency finds these comments to
be unpersuasive. As proposed, the
employer is required to retrain an
employee based on the individual’s
conduct. OSHA determines this
promotes a more effective retraining
requirement than one based on time or
type of coursework.
Therefore, paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of
this section are promulgated as set forth
in the proposed rule. As noted above,
the Agency is adding new paragraph
(g)(3) to clarify that employers are
responsible to provide the training
required under subpart CC at no cost to
employees.
The following chart summarizes the
location of the training requirements in
the final rule:

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Power line safety.
Swing radius hazards.
Swing radius hazards (floating cranes & land cranes on barges).
Crush/pinch points (Work Area Control).
Tag-out.
Start-up.
Competent and Qualified Persons.
Refresher training (general).

Frm 00130

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Section

Training requirement

§ 1926.1430(b) .............................................................

Signal person training (equipment with greater than 2,000 pound maximum rated capacity).
Signal person re-training.
Operator-in-training.
Operator training during transitional period.

§ 1926.1428(b) .............................................................
§ 1926.1427(f) ..............................................................
§§ 1926.1427(k), 1926.1430(c)(2) and
1926.1430(c)(4).
§ 1926.1430(c)(3) .........................................................
§ 1926.1430(c)(1) .........................................................
§ 1926.1430(c)(4)(i) ......................................................
§ 1926.1430(c)(4)(ii) .....................................................
§ 1926.1441(e) .............................................................
§ 1926.1441(f) ..............................................................
§ 1926.1423(k) .............................................................

Section 1926.1431

Hoisting Personnel

This section of the final rule sets forth
additional requirements when
equipment is used to hoist employees.
Because equipment covered by this
subpart is designed to move materials,
not personnel, additional requirements
are necessary for employee safety. This
section replaces the requirements of
subpart N, former § 1926.550(g). Those
requirements have been effective in
reducing accidents and as a result most
of the requirements have been
continued in this rule. However, while
continuing most of the hoisting
personnel requirements that were in
subpart N, subpart CC clarifies
requirements where needed and has
added requirements for certain
activities, such as hoisting personnel in
a drill shaft, as discussed below. With
a few exceptions, the requirements in
this final rule are the same as those
found in the proposed rule (see 73 FR
59714, 59939–59943, Oct. 9, 2008). The
following discussion will primarily
focus on the differences between the
proposed rule and this final rule.
OSHA stresses the provisions in this
section are additional requirements that
must be met when equipment is used to
hoist personnel. During such use, all
other applicable requirements of this
subpart must be met.
Paragraph (a)

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48035

This paragraph states that equipment
may be used to hoist personnel only
when all other means of reaching the
work area present a greater hazard or is
not possible because of the project’s
structural design or worksite conditions.
It reflects OSHA’s longstanding
recognition that using cranes and
derricks to lift personnel is inherently
hazardous and should only be done
when it is either the least hazardous
means or when, in light of the
configuration of the worksite, it is the
only means of performing required
work.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Operator training for equipment where qualification or certification is not required by this
subpart.
Operator training for qualification or certification.
Operator training—boom hoist brake test.
Operator training—emergency procedures (halting unintended movement).
Operator training (2,000 pound maximum rated capacity).
Signal person training (2,000 pound maximum rated capacity).
Fall protection training.

This paragraph does not apply to
work covered by 29 CFR part 1926
subpart R, Steel Erection. Subpart R, at
§ 1926.753(c)(4), allows the use of
equipment to hoist personnel in a
platform that complies with subpart CC
without the need for a showing that
other means of reaching the work area
would create a greater hazard or is
impossible. OSHA’s reasons for
including this exception in subpart R
are discussed in detail in the preamble
to the steel erection standard (66 FR
5196, 5209, Jan. 18, 2001).
One commenter asserted that
employers engaged in work covered by
29 CFR part 1926 subpart V, Power
Transmission and Distribution, should
be allowed to use equipment (with a
boom attached platform) to hoist
personnel without showing that other
means of reaching the work area creates
a greater hazard or is not possible. (ID–
0144.1.) This commenter bases this
assertion on the premise that many
manufacturers offer a platform
specifically designed to attach to the tip
of the boom which may include
platform mounted controls. The
commenter believes that when using
this type of platform, the equipment
‘‘essentially transforms the crane into a
large aerial lift.’’
The Agency finds this comparison
unpersuasive. As stated above,
equipment covered by this section is
primarily designed for hoisting
materials, not people. C–DAC
concluded that it was important to
differentiate between equipment
primarily designed for moving
personnel, such as an aerial lift, as
compared to equipment that is primarily
designed to lift materials. In the
judgment of the Committee, a personnel
platform attached to equipment covered
by this section presented a greater
hazard than a machine that is designed
for moving personnel. Therefore, the
proposed rule would have required an
employer to show that another means of

PO 00000

Frm 00131

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

reaching the work area presents a
greater hazard or is not possible. OSHA
agrees, and is retaining the same
substantive requirement in the final
rule.
Upon review of this provision, the
Agency realized the use of the word
‘‘worksite’’ in the phrase, ‘‘conventional
means of reaching the worksite’’ could
be misleading. The Agency has changed
the phrase to ‘‘conventional means of
reaching the work area.’’ The term
worksite could be interpreted to mean
the entire construction worksite. This
requirement is about an employee
working in a particular area or place on
a larger worksite. OSHA finds the use of
the phrase ‘‘work area’’ to provide
greater clarity. Therefore, the provision
is promulgated as proposed
incorporating this terminology change.
Paragraph (b) Use of Personnel
Platform
Paragraph (b)(1) of this section
generally requires the use of a personnel
platform when hoisting employees and
requires that criteria specified in
§ 1926.1431(e) be met for such
platforms. Paragraph (b)(2), Exceptions,
sets forth the construction activities in
which hoisting personnel without using
a personnel platform is allowed. These
activities are: hoisting employees into
and out of drill shafts 8 feet and smaller
in diameter, pile-driving operations,
marine worksites, storage tanks (steel or
concrete), shaft operations and chimney
operations. OSHA considers the use of
a personnel platform in these situations
to be generally infeasible or more
hazardous than other means. This
section contains specific requirements
for hoisting personnel during these
operations at §§ 1926.1431(o), (p), (r),
and (s), including alternatives to the use
of a personnel platform. Each of the
exceptions is discussed below under the
particular paragraph related to that
operation.
No comments were received on
§ 1926.1431(b); it is promulgated as

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48036

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

proposed except that ‘‘must’’ replaces
‘‘shall’’ to ensure that the sentence is
imperative, not merely descriptive.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (c) Equipment Set-Up
This paragraph sets forth the basic
criteria for equipment set-up for
personnel hoisting.
Paragraph (c)(1) of this section
requires the equipment to be on level,
firm and stable footing. A qualified
person must determine if the footing is
‘‘sufficiently firm and stable.’’ Stable
footing is essential to minimize the
hazard of the equipment tipping while
hoisting personnel. C–DAC determined
that the danger of the equipment
potentially tipping when hoisting
personnel justifies the need for a
qualified person to examine and
approve the equipment’s stability.
OSHA agrees.
Paragraph (c)(2) specifies that each
outrigger must be both extended and
locked. The amount of extension must
be the same for all outriggers and also
be in accordance with the
manufacturer’s specifications. Proper
placement and deployment of
outriggers, C–DAC concluded, is
essential to prevent the hazard of
equipment tipping while hoisting
personnel.
Equal extension of outriggers
eliminates the hazard of the operator
forgetting that one or more outriggers
has a shorter extension and swinging
into that area with a load that exceeds
the crane’s capacity. The essential factor
is to have each outrigger extended
equally within the manufacturer’s
specifications and procedures, whether
it is a full or partial extension. No
comments were received on
§ 1926.1431(c); it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (d) Equipment Criteria
This paragraph sets forth
requirements for the equipment used to
hoist personnel.
Paragraph (d)(1) of this section,
Capacity: Use of suspended personnel
platform, limits the total load to 50
percent of the equipment’s rated
capacity and specifies that the total load
includes the hook, load line, and
rigging. The 50 percent capacity limit
does not apply during equipment proof
testing.
The 50 percent limit reflects C–DAC’s
conclusion that using this equipment to
hoist personnel requires a greater
number of safety precautions than when
lifting materials. The limit provides for
an extra margin of safety to prevent
overloading the equipment, which
could cause tip-over or structural
collapse.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

One commenter asserted that a
specific boom limit of not less than 65
degrees should be added to the
requirements of this paragraph. (ID–
0178.1.) The commenter did not provide
any rationale for this recommendation.
Therefore, OSHA defers to C–DAC’s
expertise in this area and is
promulgating this provision as
proposed.
Paragraph (d)(2), Capacity: Use of
boom-attached personnel platforms,
establishes the load limit at 50 percent
of rated capacity for platforms that are
attached to the boom. It also provides an
exception to the 50 percent capacity
limit during equipment proof testing.
The same reasons for the 50 percent
limit in § 1926.1431(d)(1) apply here.
In the proposed rule, OSHA requested
public comment on whether additional
requirements (i.e., requirements other
than those specified in the proposed
rule for a suspended personnel
platform) should apply when using
boom-attached personnel platforms. No
comments were received stating that
this type of platform could present an
additional hazard to employees. One
commenter stated that this type of
platform is safer than a suspended
personnel platform. (ID–0144.1.) Since
no comments or information were
received demonstrating that precautions
beyond those already proposed are
needed for boom attached personnel
platforms, OSHA has not added any
further requirements for this type of
platform in the final rule. Therefore, this
paragraph is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(3), Capacity: Hoisting
personnel without a personnel platform,
establishes the load limit at 50 percent
of rated capacity. In calculating the
load, the weight of the personnel,
including the hook, load line, rigging
and any other equipment that imposes
a load must be included. No comments
were received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(4) requires engaging all
the equipment’s locking or braking
devices when the platform has reached
its stationary work position. The
purpose is to minimize sudden and
unintended movement or tipping of the
platform when employees have reached
the work area. No comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
The provisions of paragraph (d)(5),
Devices, require certain safety devices
for equipment addressed by this section
(see 73 FR 59829–59830, Oct. 9, 2008).
OSHA received one comment on
§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(i), which stated that a
boom angle indicator would not provide
useful information on an articulating
crane because such cranes have up to

PO 00000

Frm 00132

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

three boom sections at various angles
and numerous combinations of boom
angles will achieve the same lifting
capacities. (ID–0206.1.) OSHA agrees
that essential design of the articulating
crane precludes the use of a boom angle
indicator. However, to provide some
protection against falling and tipover
hazards, OSHA has determined that an
alternative device must be used on
articulating cranes when they are used
to hoist personnel. As discussed under
§ 1926.1400, Scope, the record indicates
that many articulating cranes are
equipped with automatic overloadprevention devices. Such a device
provides protection comparable to that
provided by a boom angle indicator,
which helps the operator prevent the
crane from becoming overloaded by
providing the boom angle information
needed to apply the crane’s load chart.
Because overload protection is
particularly vital when equipment is
used to hoist personnel, OSHA is
addressing the comment about
articulating cranes by adding
§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(ii), which specifies
that articulating cranes must be
equipped with a properly functioning
automatic overload protection device.
No comments were received on the
remaining provisions of paragraph
(d)(5); they are promulgated as
proposed, except that
§§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(ii)–(vi) have been
renumbered as §§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(iii)–
(vii) because of the addition of new
§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(ii). Additionally, with
respect to paragraph (d)(5)(vii), the
following has been added: ‘‘(See
§ 1926.1417 for tag-out and related
requirements.)’’ This sentence has been
added to ensure the reader is aware of
the applicable tag-out and related
requirements of § 1926.1417, Operation.
Paragraph (d)(6) prohibits the use of a
personnel platform directly attached to
a luffing jib. In the experience of C–DAC
members, a complete prohibition of use
of a boom-attached personnel platform
to a luffing jib was necessary in light of
the range of motion of a luffing jib and
the fact that boom-attached personnel
platforms are not designed for
attachment to a luffing jib. Thus, only a
suspended type personnel platform may
be used on a luffing jib. OSHA defers to
the expertise of the Committee. No
comments were received on these
provisions; they are promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (e) Personnel Platform
Criteria
This paragraph establishes the
minimum criteria for a personnel
platform. Paragraph (e)(1) of this section
requires that both the platform and its

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
attachment/suspension system be
designed by a qualified person who
understands structural design and be
designed for the particular function of
personnel hoisting. The purpose of this
paragraph is to clearly stipulate that the
platform must be designed for employee
safety. This addresses the hazards of
structural failure of the platform, failure
of the attachment/suspension system,
and precludes the use of designs that
would be inappropriate for hoisting
people.
Paragraph (e)(2) requires the system
used to connect the personnel platform
to the equipment to be within 10
degrees of level. This addresses the
hazard of platform tipping by
maintaining the platform close to level.
Paragraph (e)(3) requires the platform
designer to consider the movement of
employees on the platform and design
the suspension system to minimize
platform tipping from such movement.
The purpose is to design the platform in
such a way as to limit the likelihood of
platform tipping while employees are
working from the platform.
Paragraph (e)(4) requires the platform
to support its own weight plus a
minimum of five times the maximum
intended load without failure. C–DAC
selected this minimum limit because it
would provide an adequate margin of
safety for employee protection from
structural failure of the platform. The
guardrail system and personal fall arrest
system anchorages are not subject to this
requirement but instead are subject to
§ 1926.1431(e)(6).
Paragraph (e)(5) requires that welding
of any part of the platform or its
component parts be performed by a
welder who is certified and familiar
with the weld grades, types and material
specified in the particular platform’s
design. This requirement is designed to
prevent structural failure of the platform
due to improper welding.
Paragraph (e)(6) details the
requirements of the platform for
guardrails, fall arrest anchorage points
and enclosure of the platform between
the toeboard and mid-rail. Proper
guardrails and fall arrest anchorage
points are critical fall protection
devices, and the required platform
enclosure is needed to protect
employees below from falling objects. In
addition, points to which personal fall
arrest systems are attached must meet
the anchorage requirements in 29 CFR
part 1926 subpart M.
Paragraph (e)(7) requires the
placement of a grab rail within the
entire perimeter of the personnel
platform except for access gates/doors
where a grab rail can be impractical.
The grab rail provides a place for the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

employee to hold onto while in the
platform instead of using a guardrail as
a hand hold. Using a guardrail as a hand
hold exposes the employee’s hand to
being smashed by external objects.
No comments were received on
paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(7); they are
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraphs (e)(8)(i) and (ii), Access
gates/doors, specifies that access gates/
doors must be designed to not swing
outward and must also have a
mechanism that will keep the gate/door
from being opened unintentionally.
One commenter, a platform
manufacturer, stated that generally their
platforms have doors that do not swing
outward. (ID–0238.1.) However, for
certain custom platforms, such as a oneperson platform, the size and design of
the platform makes it unsafe for a
person to enter the platform and close
the gate behind the occupant when it is
an inward swinging gate. The
commenter indicated that for this type
of platform, the gates are designed to
swing outward to provide safe access for
the individual. To protect against
accidental opening of the gate, a
positive latching system is included
with an outward swinging gate.
The Agency agrees that certain types
of personnel platforms could be of a size
or configuration that would necessitate
an outward swinging access gate or door
to allow for safe entry and egress of an
occupant. Therefore, OSHA has revised
this paragraph to include an exception
for this type of platform. When it is
infeasible to have an inward swinging
gate due to the size or design of the
platform, the gate can swing outward.
However, the additional feature of a
positive latching or similar system that
prevents accidental opening must be
included. This conforms with the intent
of this requirement to prevent an
occupant from falling from the platform
due to an access gate or door opening
unexpectedly.
Paragraph (e)(9) requires adequate
headroom to allow employees to stand
upright in the personnel platform. This
provides adequate space for the
employee to work from the platform
while keeping his/her entire body
within the platform, and contributes to
greater stability during platform
movement. No comments were received
on this provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (e)(10) requires an
overhead protective cover attached to
the platform when an employee is
exposed to falling objects. It mandates
the overhead cover of the platform to be
of such material and design to provide
visibility for both the operator and the
employees on the platform, while

PO 00000

Frm 00133

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48037

maintaining adequate protection from
falling objects. The reference to a wire
mesh with 1⁄2 inch openings is an
example of a type of material and design
that could be used for the platform
cover. The nature of the worksite
conditions and likely type of falling
objects determines the type of material
and design needed to protect the
platform occupants. Full overhead
protection (i.e., no visibility through the
protective cover) is allowed when
conditions are such that a full protective
cover is necessary to protect employees
from falling objects.
Paragraph (e)(10) explicitly states that
the protection provided by the cover is
supplemental to the protection provided
by hard hats—the use of hard hats does
not obviate the requirement for the
platform cover.
One commenter noted that having
overhead protection for employees in
the power line industry interferes with
the ability to work overhead, which is
a routine occurrence. (ID–0144.)
Additionally, at the public hearing, a
representative from a labor union noted
that typically an overhead cover would
not be used on a personnel platform
when they are working near power
lines, as it is desirable to minimize the
amount of conductive material. (ID–
0344.) The Agency acknowledges that it
is common for those in the power line
industry to work overhead. However,
the use of a personnel platform attached
to a crane is not the only means of
reaching this work location. As noted in
§ 1926.1431(a), the use of a personnel
platform attached to a crane is only
permitted where the employer
demonstrates that conventional means
of reaching the worksite, such as an
aerial lift, would be either more
hazardous or impossible. OSHA notes
that aerial lifts are commonly used in
utility work, and it therefore determined
that crane-suspended personnel
platforms will be used rarely in such
work. OSHA also notes that paragraph
(e)(10) mandates overhead protection
only when an employee is exposed to
falling objects, and that should not be a
common occurrence in utility work.
Therefore, the Agency does not
determine that this provision needs to
make special accommodation for work
near power lines. Paragraph (e)(10) is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (e)(11) requires that all
edges of the platform be smooth enough
to prevent injury. The purpose is to
protect the employee from injuries such
as lacerations and puncture wounds.
Paragraph (e)(12) requires
conspicuous posting of a plate or other
permanent written notice on the
personnel platform listing the weight of

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48038

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

the platform itself and the platform’s
rated capacity. The purpose of the
provision is to make employees aware of
the platform’s limits to prevent
overloading, which could result in
structural failure of the platform or
equipment, and to facilitate compliance
with § 1926.1431(f)(1), which prohibits
loading the platform in excess of its
rated capacity.
No comments were received on
paragraphs (e)(11) or (e)(12); they are
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (f) Personnel Platform
Loading
Paragraph (f)(1) of this section
prohibits loading the platform in excess
of its rated capacity.
Paragraph (f)(2)(i) requires the
platform to be used exclusively for
personnel hoisting and not for hoisting
materials. However, it does allow the
necessary materials and tools for the
work activity to be hoisted along with
the employees. Using a personnel
platform to hoist materials can lead to
damage of the platform due to materials
shifting or excessive loading. This can
subject the platform to structural
stresses that may not be visible and
contribute to platform structural failure.
Paragraph (f)(2)(ii) provides an
exception to paragraph (f)(2)(i) to allow
materials and tools on the personnel
platform during the trial lift as long as
the materials/tools are properly secured
and distributed as specified in
§ 1926.1431(f)(3).
Paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) require
that any materials and tools that are on
the platform during the hoist be
secured, and evenly distributed within
the platform itself while the platform is
suspended. These precautions are
designed to prevent platform tipping
and injury to employees due to
movement of materials or tools during
the hoist. OSHA concludes that the
combination of paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and
(f)(3) strikes the appropriate balance by
accommodating the practical
requirements of the job while reducing
the potential for overloading.
No comments were received on
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3); they are
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (f)(4) limits the number of
employees on a personnel platform to
the lesser of either the number needed
to perform the work or the maximum
number for which the platform was
designed. The purpose is to expose the
fewest possible number of employees to
the hazards presented when hoisting
personnel and to minimize the load on
the platform to the extent possible.
One commenter stated that boom
attached personnel platforms should be

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

limited to a maximum of 4 employees.
(ID–0178.1.) Because no reason was
provided to support this requirement,
OSHA has not changed the requirement
that the maximum number of employees
on a platform is limited to the lesser of
the number the platform was designed
to hold or the number required to
perform the work. Therefore, paragraph
(f)(4) is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (g) Attachment and Rigging
Paragraph (g)(1) of this section
establishes the requirements for the
device used to connect the personnel
platform to the hoist line.
The nature and type of connector
used is critical to the overall safety of
the suspended personnel platform.
Under this paragraph, a hook used to
connect the hoist line and personnel
platform must be the type that can be
closed/locked and must be closed/
locked when attached to the platform.
When a shackle is used in lieu of a
hook, it must be of the alloy anchor type
with either: A bolt, nut and retaining
pin in place; or: The screw type with the
screw pin secured against accidental
removal. Any detachable device other
than a shackle or hook that is used must
be closable and lockable to the same
extent a hook or shackle would be when
in compliance with this section. When
used to connect the personnel platform,
such a device must be closed and locked
to ensure that the platform is secured to
the hoist line.
Paragraph (g)(2) requires that each
bridle leg in a rope bridle be connected
to the master link/shackle in a manner
that allows the platform’s load to be
equally distributed among each bridle
leg. The purpose of this type of
attachment is to avoid platform tipping.
Paragraph (g)(3) requires that all
hardware used for rigging must be able
to support five times the maximum
intended load applied to or transmitted
to that component. Additionally, slings
using rotation resistant rope must have
a safety factor of ten. These
measurements continue the
requirements that were in former
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(C).
Paragraph (g)(4) requires the eyes in
wire rope slings to be fabricated with
thimbles. The purpose of this
requirement is to prevent excessive
wear to the eyes and possible failure of
the platform’s rigging.
No comments were received on
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4); they are
promulgated as proposed with minor
grammatical clarifications.
Paragraph (g)(5) requires that bridles
and rigging used to suspend the
personnel platform be used exclusively
for hoisting personnel operations.

PO 00000

Frm 00134

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Rigging components must be dedicated
for the sole use of personnel hoisting to
help ensure that they are not damaged.
Materials hoisting can lead to damage of
the rigging components due to material
shifting or excessive loading. This can
make the rigging components
susceptible to structural stress that may
not be visible, yet contribute to failure.
To clarify that the bridles and rigging
used for hoisting personnel may only be
used if they have not ever been used for
other operations prior to being
designated for the purpose of hoisting
personnel, OSHA has modified the
regulatory text from the proposed rule to
state that the bridles and rigging ‘‘must
not have been used for any purpose
other than hoisting personnel.’’
Paragraph (h) Trial Lift and Inspection
Paragraph (h)(1) of this section
requires a trial lift without occupants
and with the platform loaded to at least
the anticipated liftweight. The purpose
of the trial lift is to confirm that: The lift
set-up works properly; the lift route is
free of obstacles; the work location is
accessible; no work location will place
the crane or derrick in such a
configuration where the intended load
would exceed 50 percent of the
equipment’s rated capacity; the soil or
other supporting surface is stable; and
that the lift route is suitable for the
intended lift. The path of the trial lift
must begin at the point the employees
enter the platform and end at the
ultimate location the platform is being
hoisted to and positioned (end point).
When there are multiple destination
locations from a single set-up point, the
trial lift must be conducted in one of
two ways.
First, individual lifts may be
conducted in which the platform is
moved to one of the end points from the
starting point, returned to the starting
point, moved to a second end point,
again returned to the starting point, and
the process repeated until each end
point has been reached. Alternatively, a
single lift may be conducted from the
starting point to all of the end points in
sequence, without returning to the
starting point until after the last end
point has been reached.
OSHA determined that the phrase ‘‘a
single trial lift for all locations’’ in the
text of the proposed rule for
§ 1926.1431(h)(1), based on C–DAC
consensus language, was not sufficiently
clear to describe the intended meaning
of this requirement (see 73 FR 59714,
59940–59941, Oct. 9, 2008). In addition,
OSHA was concerned that allowing the
trial lift to be conducted in either of
these two ways, irrespective of how the
personnel will actually be hoisted, may

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
result in the trial lift failing to reveal
problems that would be encountered in
the actual personnel lift.
To address these concerns, OSHA
suggested language in the preamble to
the proposed rule to clarify that the
employer must use a lift path and
sequence of stops in the trial lift that
will match the lift path and sequence of
stops when actually hoisting personnel.
As noted above, the purpose is to detect
any problems that could arise before
personnel are hoisted. OSHA asked for
public comment on these issues and the
suggested language (73 FR 59714,
59833, Oct. 9, 2008).
Two commenters stated that the
language in the proposed rule was
sufficient and should not be changed
(ID–0205.1; –0213.1); another
commenter stated that the text suggested
by OSHA in the preamble to the
proposed rule should be used in the
final rule (ID–0104.1). The Agency
concludes this suggested text provides a
better description of what needs to be
done to ensure safety—i.e., that the trial
lift method needs to match the actual
hoist method. Therefore, the provision
in the final rule includes this suggested
language.
Paragraph (h)(2) requires the trial lift
to take place immediately prior to each
shift when hoisting personnel, and each
time the equipment is moved and set up
in a new location or a previously used
location. This is to ensure that the
conditions for the trial lift will be nearly
identical to those of the actual
personnel lift. Additionally, a trial lift
must be done each time the lift route is
changed, unless a competent person
determines the new lift route does not
present new factors affecting safety.
Paragraph (h)(3) requires a competent
person to ensure that all required safety
devices and operational aids required by
this section are activated and properly
functioning, that nothing interferes with
the equipment or personnel platform
during the trial lift, that the lift load
does not exceed 50 percent of the
equipment’s rated capacity, and that the
load radius used is accurately
determined. These requirements ensure
that necessary safety measures are in
place and validated by a competent
person for the trial lift. It is important
for this to be the responsibility of a
competent person because such a
person not only has the knowledge
necessary to make the determinations,
but also has the authority to take any
necessary corrective action.
Paragraph (h)(4) establishes the duties
of the competent person immediately
after the trial lift. It requires the
competent person to conduct a visual
inspection of the personnel platform

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

and equipment to determine if there is
any problem or defect resulting from the
trial lift or if it produced any adverse
effect. In addition, the competent person
must ensure that the test weight used
during the trial lift has been removed
prior to personnel loading.
The purpose of these requirements is
to ensure that any defects in the
equipment, base support, or ground and
personnel platform, revealed by the trial
lift are seen by a competent person prior
to hoisting personnel. (Note that, under
§ 1926.1431(h)(6), any condition found
during the trial lift that fails to meet a
requirement of this standard or
otherwise constitutes a safety hazard
must be corrected before hoisting
personnel.) Paragraph (h)(4) continues
the requirements from former
§ 1926.550(g)(5)(iv) while adding the
requirement that the competent person
ensure that the test weight is removed.
This is needed because overloading the
personnel platform can occur if the test
weights are not removed and left on the
platform when hoisting personnel.
No comments were received on
§§ 1926.1431(h)(2) through (h)(4); they
are promulgated as proposed.
Under paragraph (h)(5)(i),
immediately prior to each personnel lift,
the competent person must inspect the
platform while it is lifted a few inches
to ensure that the platform is secure and
properly balanced.
The purpose of this procedure is to
ensure that, with the occupants and
materials/tools to be hoisted on the
platform immediately before the hoist is
to take place, the platform is secure and
properly balanced. The purpose of
having the occupants and materials/
tools on board during this check is
twofold. First, it ensures that the check
takes place just before the personnel lift,
which minimizes the chance that
damage or other problems affecting the
platform’s security will occur after the
check. In addition, it would be difficult
to ensure that the platform will be
properly balanced when in actual use
without having the employees and
materials/tools on board.
In the proposed rule, the text did not
state that personnel and materials were
to be on board during the trial lift (see
73 FR 59941, Oct. 9, 2008). In the
preamble to the proposed rule, the
Agency asked for comment on adding
the phrase ‘‘with the personnel and
materials/tools on board’’ to clarify the
intent of this requirement (see 73 FR
59833, Oct. 9, 2008).
Three comments were received in
response to the Agency’s request for
comment on this issue.
(ID–0104.1; –0205.1; –0213.1.) All three
commenters agreed with the Agency’s

PO 00000

Frm 00135

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48039

suggested revision. Therefore, the final
rule reflects this change in
§ 1926.1431(h)(5)(i).
Paragraph (h)(5)(ii) requires a
competent person to determine that
hoist ropes are free of defects, that
multiple part lines are not twisted
around each other, and that the primary
attachment is centered over the
platform. If the load rope is slack, the
competent person must inspect the
hoisting system to ensure the rope lines
are properly seated on drums and in
sheaves. Paragraphs (i) and (ii) continue
the requirements from former
§ 1926.550(g)(5)(iii), with the additional
clarification that hoist ropes must be
free of deficiencies (that is, not just free
of ‘‘kinks,’’ as was required in former
§ 1926.550(g)(5)(iii)(A)). The purpose of
these requirements is to mandate an
additional final review by a competent
person to evaluate the personnel
platform, the balance of the load, and
the lifting devices to ensure that
necessary safety requirements are met.
No comments were received on
§ 1926.1431(h)(5) (ii); it is promulgated
as proposed.
Paragraph (h)(6) establishes that any
condition that fails to meet the
requirements of this standard or
otherwise creates a safety hazard must
be corrected before personnel are
hoisted. This includes conditions found
during the trial lift or in any inspection
or subsequent review of the equipment,
platform or rigging. No comments were
received for this provision. However,
the following reference has been added
to this provision for clarification: ‘‘(See
§ 1926.1417 for tag-out and related
requirements.).’’ This sentence has been
added to ensure the employer is aware
of the applicable tag-out and related
requirements of § 1926.1417, Operation.
Paragraph (i)

[Reserved.]

Paragraph (j)

Proof Testing

This paragraph delineates the
requirements of and method for proof
testing the personnel platform and
rigging. It requires the proof test to be
done at each jobsite prior to hoisting
personnel and after any repair or
modification of the platform. The proof
test must be at 125 percent of the
platform’s rated capacity with an evenly
distributed test load. The platform must
be lowered by controlled load lowering,
braked, and held in a suspended
position for at least five minutes. After
this proof test, the competent person
must inspect the platform and rigging to
determine if it has passed the proof test.
If not, all deficiencies that pose a safety
hazard must be corrected and another
proof test performed. The competent

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48040

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

person must determine that the platform
and rigging have successfully passed the
proof test before any personnel hoisting
begins.
The purpose of this paragraph is to
determine if the structural integrity of
the personnel platform is intact or if it
has been affected by any condition,
damage, repair or modification which
could result in structural failure or other
safety hazards from the platform or
rigging. This ensures the load lowering
and braking mechanisms are
functioning properly before personnel
are lifted. In addition, § 1926.1431(j)(3)
clarifies that only deficiencies that
present a safety hazard need be
corrected; minor deficiencies bearing no
relation to safety do not need to be
corrected.
In addition, the Agency is adding a
reference to the requirements of
§ 1926.1417, Operation, to ensure the
reader is aware of the applicable tagout
and startup requirements of
§ 1926.1417, Operation. Paragraph (j)(3)
of this section is otherwise promulgated
as proposed.
One commenter stated that proof
testing should not be required for boom
attached personnel platforms, since
there is no rigging and a simple visual
inspection of the mounting hardware
would be sufficient. (ID–0144.1.)
OSHA disagrees with this comment.
The purpose of this proof test is to
ensure the sufficiency and integrity of
the system that will be hoisted by the
crane/derrick. In the case of a
suspended platform, that system
consists of the platform and the rigging
that attaches it to the crane/derrick. In
the case of a boom-attached platform,
that system consists of the platform with
its boom-mounting hardware (in such
cases OSHA considers the boommounting hardware part of the platform
itself). Therefore, even when rigging is
not used, the proof test still needs to be
performed to help ensure the adequacy
of the platform, including its attachment
system.
Therefore, §§ 1926.1431(j)(1), (2) and
(4) are promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (k) Work practices
Paragraph (k)(1) of this section
requires hoisting the personnel platform
in a slow, controlled, cautious manner,
with no sudden movements of the
equipment or platform. This precaution
minimizes the likelihood of platform
tipping, loss of footing, and loss of
control of the platform by the operator
during hoisting.
Paragraph (k)(2)(i) requires that all
occupants of the personnel platform
keep all parts of the body inside the
platform while it is being raised,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

lowered or moved horizontally. This
does not apply when a platform
occupant must position the platform.
Additionally, this does not apply when
a platform occupant is performing the
duties of a signal person. The purpose
of this requirement is to prevent an
employee from having a body part
struck by or caught in between the
personnel platform and another object.
Paragraph (k)(2)(ii) prohibits platform
occupants from standing on, sitting on,
or working from any surface other than
the floor of the personnel platform
during hoisting or when working from
the platform. It prohibits working from
a railing or toeboard or the use of any
means or device to raise the employee’s
working height. The purpose is to
ensure that the occupants benefit from
the protections of the guardrail system
and do not destabilize the platform.
Paragraph (k)(2)(iii) prohibits platform
occupants from pulling the platform out
of plumb in relation to the hoisting
equipment. The purpose is to prevent
tipping of the platform with employees
on board, which could exacerbate the
fall hazard.
Paragraph (k)(3) requires a personnel
platform that is not landed to be secured
to the structure, before employees enter
or exit the platform, to prevent
dangerous movement of the platform at
these times, which could exacerbate the
fall hazard or cause an employee’s body
part to be struck by or caught in
between the personnel platform and the
structure. Paragraph (k)(3) allows an
exception when a greater hazard is
created by securing the platform to the
structure.
Paragraph (k)(4) requires the operator
to receive confirmation that the platform
is no longer tied to the structure and is
freely suspended before the operator
moves the platform. This requirement
prevents structural damage to the
platform and/or rigging and prevents the
fall hazard that could result from
pulling the platform out of plumb if
there were an attempt to move it while
it is still attached.
Paragraph (k)(5) requires the use of tag
lines when necessary to control the
personnel platform. The purpose is to
provide an additional way to control
platform stability to decrease the risk of
injury from loss of footing or from the
platform striking an object.
Under paragraph (k)(6), where the
platform is not equipped with any
controls, the equipment operator is
required to remain at the equipment
controls at all times while the personnel
platform is occupied. Because there are
no controls in the personnel platform,
the equipment operator must be
available to make any necessary

PO 00000

Frm 00136

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

adjustments to protect the employees
from injury from any condition arising
after the platform is placed at the
working location. Paragraph (k)(6)
requires the operator to stay at the
equipment controls, and on site and in
view of the equipment, at all times the
platform is occupied, whether or not the
crane engine is running. Equipment
controls, as discussed here and in
§ 1926.1431(k)(7), include remote
controls that are used to control the
boom and swing functions of the
equipment. This subpart does not
prohibit the use of remote controls for
equipment by an operator. See
discussion of the use of remote controls
at the preamble for § 1926.1417(e)(1).
The Agency has added the ‘‘on site and
in view of the equipment’’ requirement
in the final rule to address the situation
where the operator uses a remote
control to operate the equipment. The
same requirement was included in
proposed § 1926.1431(k)(7) to address
the same issue, and is included in final
§ 1926.1431(k)(7), as discussed below.
No comments were received on
paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(6); they are
promulgated as proposed with the
exception of the addition noted for
(k)(6).
Paragraph (k)(7), Platforms with
controls, applies when a personnel
platform has controls. Controls on
certain personnel platforms enable a
platform occupant to move both the
platform and the boom. Other platform
designs enable an occupant to control
only the platform/basket itself, for
example, to level the basket as it is
boomed up or down.
Paragraph (k)(7)(i) requires the
platform occupant using the platform’s
controls to be a qualified person with
respect to their use, including the safe
limitations of the equipment and
hazards associated with its operation.
Such knowledge and skill is essential
for the safety of the platform occupants
and employees in the surrounding area.
Proposed paragraph (k)(7)(ii) required
the equipment operator to be at the
equipment controls, in the personnel
platform, or on site and in view of the
equipment. In the proposed rule, the
Agency requested public comment on
whether this paragraph should be
reworded to clarify the circumstances
for selecting a location for the
equipment operator (73 FR 59835, Oct.
9, 2008). Two commenters stated that,
regardless of which option is chosen,
the operator must be in a position that
allows him to control the boom and
swing functions of the equipment. (ID–
0205.1; –0213.1.) However, these
commenters also stated that the
proposed regulatory text did not need to

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
be revised.
(ID–0205.1; –0213.1.)
Upon reviewing the paragraph as
proposed and considering these
comments, OSHA finds that the
language used in proposed
1926.1431(k)(7)(ii) needs to be changed
to clearly specify that an operator has to
be able to control the boom and swing
functions, wherever the operator is
located. If the platform does not have
controls for the boom and swing
functions of the equipment, then it is
essential that the operator be at the set
of equipment controls which include
these functions, because they are crucial
for the safety of personnel being hoisted.
These equipment controls may be on the
platform, in the cab, or on a remote
control. The operator must be able to
take immediate action when necessary
(such as, for example, when there is
unexpected platform or equipment
movement, a sudden change in wind
conditions, or an injury to a platform
occupant). In the final rule, OSHA has
modified § 1926.1431(k)(7)(ii)
accordingly.
Paragraph (k)(7)(iii) requires the
platform’s operating manual to be on the
platform or on the equipment while the
platform is occupied. The purpose is to
have ready access to manufacturer’s
operating information when employees
are on the platform. No comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (k)(8)(i), Environmental
conditions—Wind, requires a qualified
person to determine if it is unsafe to
hoist personnel when the wind speed
(gust or sustained) exceeds 20 mph. C–
DAC selected this triggering wind speed
based in part on ASME B30.23–2005,
which prohibits personnel hoisting
operations when wind speed exceeds 20
mph. High winds increase the
likelihood of platform tipping, sudden
unexpected movement of the platform,
or structural failure of the equipment.
While OSHA is declining to set a
specific wind speed threshold at which
all hoisting operations must cease, it
agrees that 20 mph is an appropriate
point at which a safety determination be
required. If the qualified person
determines that hoisting personnel is
unsafe, hoisting operations must not
begin or, if already in progress, must be
terminated.
One commenter questioned where
and how the wind speed must be
determined. (ID–0120.) With respect to
where the measurement must be taken,
the language of this provision refers to
wind speed ‘‘at the personnel platform.’’
This means that a safety determination
is required at any time at which the
wind to which the platform is exposed

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

exceeds 20 mph, whether the platform
is on the ground or suspended.
The provision does not specify any
particular type of device or protocol for
taking the measurement. The Agency
does not determine that such specificity
is needed; any generally accepted
method that accurately measures wind
speed would suffice. Therefore, this
paragraph is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (k)(8)(ii), Environmental
conditions—Other weather and
environmental conditions, requires a
qualified person to determine if it is not
safe to hoist personnel when there are
indications of dangerous weather or any
other impending/existing dangerous
environmental condition. Upon
determination that it is unsafe,
personnel hoisting operations must not
be started or must be terminated if
already in progress.
Paragraph (k)(9) requires employees
being hoisted to remain in direct
communication with either the signal
person (where used) or equipment
operator at all times. In some instances
the platform occupants are in a better
position to see potential problems
developing than the operator, or to
recognize there is some other safetyrelated need for the operator to take
action. In addition, there are instances
when the operator becomes aware of a
developing problem and needs to
communicate that information to the
employees being hoisted. This provision
ensures that such information can be
communicated quickly between the
hoisted employees and operator.
No comments were received on
paragraphs (k)(8)(ii) or (k)(9); they are
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraphs (k)(10)(i) and (ii), Fall
protection, require employees on the
personnel platform to be provided with
and use a personal fall arrest system
attached to a structural member within
the personnel platform. The fall arrest
system (including the attachment point)
must comply with § 1926.502, Fall
protection systems criteria and
practices. When hoisting personnel over
water, a personal fall arrest system
would not be required since, in the
event that an error or failure occurred
resulting in the employees being in the
water, being tied-off exacerbates the
drowning hazard. However, the
requirements of § 1926.106, Working
over or near water, do apply. Upon
review of the rule, the Agency
determined that it would provide
greater clarity if the note referring to the
requirements of § 1926.106 was
included in paragraph (k)(10)(ii),
instead of at the end of this paragraph.
The regulatory text of the final rule
reflects this change.

PO 00000

Frm 00137

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48041

The purpose of this requirement is to
protect employees from a fall hazard
while in the personnel platform in the
event of sudden movement, tipping, or
other circumstance in which a fall
would not be prevented by the
platform’s guardrail system.
Paragraph (k)(11)(i), Other load lines,
mandates that while hoisting personnel
no other lifts may be made with any of
the equipment’s other load lines. This
provision serves several purposes. First,
it prevents platform tipping due to
entanglement with other load lines or
loads. Second, it reduces the chance
that the equipment could be overloaded.
Third, when hoisting personnel, it is
essential that the operator’s full
attention be devoted to the hoisted
personnel; use of another load line
necessarily diverts his/her attention. An
exception applies for pile driving
operations, as the pile driver is always
suspended on a load line and at times
personnel have to be hoisted on another
line to conduct work during the pile
driving operation.
In the preamble to the proposed rule,
OSHA explained that the C–DAC
consensus language for this provision
would have applied the requirement
only when personnel were suspended
on a personnel platform. However, the
standard permits personnel to be
hoisted without a personnel platform
under certain circumstances. Since the
requirement also needs to apply in those
circumstances, OSHA expanded the
language so that, in proposed paragraph
(k)(11)(i), it also applied in those
circumstances (see 73 FR 59836, Oct. 9,
2008). No comments were received on
this issue; the provision is promulgated
as proposed.
Paragraph (k)(11)(ii), Other load lines,
allows the use of a winch line while
hoisting personnel when all of the
following factors are present: the
personnel platform is a factoryproduced boom-mounted personnel
platform incorporating a winch as
original equipment, the load on the
winch line does not exceed 500 pounds,
and the load on the winch line itself
does not exceed the rated capacity of the
winch and platform. C–DAC selected
these factors based on the experience of
its members, and determined that when
all of these factors are present, there is
little chance that the use of the winch
line will compromise employee safety.
OSHA agrees.
Paragraph (k)(12)(i), Traveling—
equipment other than derricks, prohibits
any traveling by equipment with hoisted
employees except in two circumstances.
The first is where the equipment is
traveling on fixed rails. The second is
where the employer demonstrates that

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48042

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

there is no less hazardous way to
perform the work than by traveling.
However, this second exception does
not apply to rubber-tired equipment, for
which traveling is always prohibited.
Traveling with hoisted employees is
also always prohibited for derricks, as
set forth under § 1926.1431(k)(13). (See
the discussion of these provisions in the
preamble to the proposed rule, 73 FR at
59836–59837, Oct. 9, 2008.)
No comments were received on
paragraphs (k)(10), (k)(11)(ii) or
(k)(12)(i); they are promulgated as
proposed. However, the note that
appeared at the end of (k)(10) has been
added to (k)(10)(i) as described above.
Paragraph (k)(12)(ii) (A)–(E),
Traveling—equipment other than
derricks, establishes certain criteria that
must be met when traveling with
employees in the situations permitted
under paragraph (k)(12)(i).
One commenter stated the
requirement to limit travel to the boom
length was unclear. (ID–0053.1.) This
commenter believed it could be
interpreted to limit the length of the
boom itself and not the distance the
equipment can travel. The Agency
concludes the requirement as written in
the proposed rule, ‘‘Travel shall be
limited to boom length,’’ is clear.
However, in the interest of providing
additional clarity, the Agency is adding
the word ‘‘equipment’’ to the text of the
final rule so that it will read,
‘‘Equipment travel must be limited to
boom length.’’ The addition of this word
makes it clear the focus of the
requirement is the distance of travel for
the equipment.
Paragraph (k)(13), Traveling—
derricks, prohibits a derrick from
traveling while it is hoisting personnel.
In C–DAC’s experience, hoisting
employees on a traveling derrick is
dangerous because derricks are not
sufficiently stable when traveling. No
comment was received on this
provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (l)

[Reserved.]

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (m)

Pre-Lift Meeting

This paragraph requires a meeting
prior to the trial lift at each new work
location to review the requirements of
this section and the procedures to be
followed when hoisting personnel. The
pre-lift meeting would be attended by
the equipment operator, signal person
(when one is used for the lift),
employees to be hoisted, and the person
responsible for the task to be performed.
Also, this paragraph requires this
meeting to be repeated when an
employee is newly assigned to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

operation. The purpose of this
requirement is to make all employees
involved in the personnel hoisting
operation aware of the requirements of
this section and the plan for the
personnel lift. This provides an
opportunity for all employees involved
to have a common and complete
understanding of the hoisting operation
and to give uniform information and
instructions immediately prior to the
lift. This addresses hazards which result
from misunderstanding of the
requirements, particular lift conditions
or procedures. no comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (n)
Power Lines

Hoisting Personnel Near

This paragraph prohibits hoisting
personnel within 20 feet of a power line
350 kV and below or within 50 feet of
a power line over 350 kV, except for
work that is covered by 29 CFR part
1926, subpart V, Power Transmission
and Distribution.
The purpose of this requirement is to
establish a safe clearance distance from
power lines to protect employees from
an electrocution hazard that could result
if the personnel, a personnel platform,
or equipment makes electrical contact
with a power line. The clearance
distances are similar to those in
§§ 1926.1407 and 1926.1408 for
equipment operating near power lines.
However, under §§ 1926.1407 and
1926.1408, clearances less than 20 and
50 feet are permitted for certain voltage
ranges. However, C–DAC determined
that when personnel are hoisted near a
power line it is necessary to require the
minimum distances of 20 feet for lines
350 kV or less and 50 feet for lines over
350kV. Note that all other requirements
in subpart CC regarding power line
safety must also be met, including
§§ 1926.1406–1409. No comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (o)
Drill Shafts

Hoisting Personnel in

This paragraph provides requirements
when hoisting personnel in drill shafts
that are 8 feet and smaller in diameter.
Drill shafts of this size may be either too
small to use a personnel platform, or use
of a personnel platform might not allow
the room needed to perform the
necessary work. Therefore, due to the
limitations of a drill shaft of this size,
use of a personnel platform would
typically be infeasible and a boatswain’s
chair may be the only practical means
of hoisting personnel and performing
the necessary work.

PO 00000

Frm 00138

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

One commenter stated that personnel
should not be hoisted into a drill shaft
unless the employer determined that
use of a video camera was both
impractical and infeasible. (ID–0120.0.)
However, this commenter did not
provide any explanation or supporting
documentation of how this would
improve safety beyond what the
proposed rule required. As discussed at
paragraph (a) of this section, equipment
may be used to hoist personnel only
when all other means of reaching the
work area presents a greater hazard or
is not possible because of the project’s
structural design or worksite conditions.
Because no information was provided
to justify an additional restriction on an
employer, OSHA is promulgating this
provision as proposed.
Section 1926.1431(o)(1) allows the
employer to use either a personnel
platform or a boatswain’s chair for
hoisting personnel.126 When an
employer elects to use a boatswain’s
chair instead of a personnel platform,
particular supplementary requirements
in paragraph (o)(3) must be met. Those
requirements address the heightened
danger that the employee may fall from
the chair or contact the wall of the drill
shaft.
Paragraph (o)(2) requires the employer
to follow requirements (a) through (n) of
§ 1926.1431 when using a personnel
platform to hoist employees.
Section 1926.1431(o)(3) sets out
additional requirements that must be
met when the employer elects to use a
boatswain’s chair instead of a personnel
platform for hoisting personnel.
Paragraph (o)(3)(i) identifies which of
the provisions in § 1926.1431 (a)–(n)
apply when using a boatswain’s chair.
For the applicable provisions, the
phrase ‘‘boatswain’s chair’’ is substituted
for either ‘‘personnel platform’’ or
‘‘platform.’’
The § 1926.1431 paragraphs not listed
in § 1926.1431(o)(3)(i) do not apply
when a boatswain’s chair is used. This
is because those requirements are either
specifically applicable to personnel
platform design and use, or are
otherwise not relevant when hoisting
personnel in a drill shaft.
Paragraph (o)(3)(ii) requires a signal
person to be stationed at the opening of
126 Note that, under § 1926.1431(a), an employer
may only use equipment to hoist personnel when
other means of reaching the work area would
present a greater hazard or would not be possible
because of the project’s structural design or
worksite conditions. Therefore, before using either
means to hoist personnel in drill shafts, the
employer would need to determine and
demonstrate that hoisting personnel instead of
using other means of access to the work area is the
least hazardous, or the only, means to gain access
to the work area.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

the shaft during personnel hoisting. The
purpose is to ensure that a signal person
is used and stationed at the best
position to watch the employee being
hoisted, since the hoisted employee is
out of the view of the operator.
Paragraph (o)(3)(iii) requires the
employee to be hoisted in a slow,
controlled descent and ascent. This is to
limit swinging or sudden movement of
the boatswain’s chair to prevent a fall
from the chair or impact with the walls
of the drill shaft.
Paragraph (o)(3)(iv) requires the
employee in the boatswain’s chair to use
personal fall arrest equipment,
including a full body harness, that is
attached independent of the crane/
derrick. The purpose of requiring a tie
off point independent of the equipment
is to protect the employee from a
sudden drop or fall due to equipment
failure or other problem associated with
the operation of the crane/derrick, and
to protect the employee from falls when
accessing and egressing the boatswain’s
chair.
Paragraph (o)(3)(v) requires fall
protection equipment to comply with
§ 1926.502, Fall protection systems
criteria and practices.
Paragraph (o)(3)(vi) requires the
boatswain’s chair (excluding the
personal fall arrest anchorages) to be
capable of supporting, without failure,
its own weight plus a minimum of five
times the maximum intended load. This
is similar to the requirement for
personnel platforms at
§ 1926.1431(e)(4). The strength
requirement applicable to personal fall
arrest anchorages is in
§ 1926.502(d)(15).
Paragraph (o)(3)(vii) mandates that
only one person can be hoisted at a time
when using a boatswain’s chair. No
comments were received on paragraphs
(o)(1)—(o)(3); they are promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (p) Hoisting Personnel for
Pile Driving Operations
This paragraph provides requirements
for hoisting personnel in pile driving
operations. Section 1926.1431(p)(1)
requires the employer to use either a
personnel platform or boatswain’s chair
when hoisting personnel in pile driving
operations. As with drill shafts, use of
a personnel platform will often be
infeasible in this type of operation, and
§ 1926.1431(p)(1) gives the employer the
option of choosing which method to
use. No comments were received on this
provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Section 1926.1431(p)(2) delineates the
alternatives to using an anti twoblocking device during pile driving

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

operations, since the heavy vibrations of
the pile driver typically damage this
device. (See § 1926.1431(d)(45)(v), Anti
two-block). The language C–DAC
developed for this provision did not
distinguish between lattice boom cranes
and telescopic boom cranes. Its language
would have required, for either type of
equipment, that the cable used to hoist
personnel be clearly marked so that they
equipment operator would have
sufficient time to stop hoisting to
prevent two-blocking, or to use a spotter
to warn the operator in time to prevent
two-blocking. However, in reviewing
the C–DAC language, OSHA realized
that marking the cable is not a sufficient
means of preventing two-blocking in
telescopic boom cranes when extending
the boom because extending the boom
while the load hoist remains stationary
can cause two-blocking. Instead, a
spotter is always needed to warn against
two-blocking for telescopic boom
cranes.
Consequently, for the proposed rule,
OSHA modified the language used by
C–DAC and addressed lattice boom
cranes and telescopic boom cranes
separately. Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(2)
requires employers, when using lattice
boom cranes, to clearly mark the cable
used to hoist personnel at the point on
the cable that allows the equipment
operator to stop hoisting in time to
prevent two-blocking, or to use a spotter
to warn the operator in time to prevent
two-blocking. When using lattice boom
cranes, in addition to marking the cable
as above, a spotter must also be used.
(See the discussion of the proposed
provision at 73 FR 59838, Oct. 9, 2008.)
In the preamble to the proposed rule,
OSHA asked for public comment on this
change to the C–DAC language, but no
comments were received on this issue.
Therefore, the provision is promulgated
as proposed.
Section 1926.1431(p)(3) requires the
employer to follow §§ 1926.1431(b)
through (n) when using a personnel
platform to hoist employees. Section
1926.1431(a) does not apply because the
employer is not required to demonstrate
that the other means of access listed in
§ 1926.1431(a) are infeasible before
being permitted to hoist personnel
during pile driving operations.
Demonstrating infeasibility prior to
using a personnel platform is not
required because in most instances
another means of access is not feasible
for this operation. No comments were
received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Section 1926.1431(p)(4) establishes
the requirements for use of a
boatswain’s chair instead of a personnel
platform for hoisting personnel.

PO 00000

Frm 00139

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48043

Section 1926.1431(p)(4)(i) identifies
which of the provisions in
§§ 1926.1431(a)–(o) apply when using a
boatswain’s chair in a pile driving
operation. For the applicable provisions,
the phrase ‘‘boatswain’s chair’’ is
substituted for either ‘‘personnel
platform’’ or ‘‘platform.’’
The § 1926.1431 paragraphs not listed
in § 1926.1431(p)(4)(i) do not apply
when a boatswain’s chair is used. This
is because those requirements are either
specifically applicable to personnel
platform design and use, or are
otherwise not relevant when hoisting
personnel in a pile driving operation.
Section 1926.1431(p)(4)(ii) requires
the employee to be hoisted in a slow,
controlled descent and ascent. This is to
limit swinging or sudden movement of
the boatswain’s chair to prevent a fall
from the chair or impact with
equipment or other structures.
Section 1926.1431(p)(4)(iii) specifies
that the employee in the boatswain’s
chair use personal fall arrest equipment,
including a full body harness. The fall
arrest system must be attached to either
the lower load block or the overhaul
ball. The purpose of having the fall
protection equipment and tie off point
independent of the boatswain’s chair
and rigging used to hoist the employee
is twofold: it protects the employee from
a sudden drop or fall due to failure of
that equipment and protects the
employee when accessing and egressing
the boatswain’s chair.
Section 1926.1431(p)(4)(iv) requires
fall protection equipment to comply
with § 1926.502, Fall protection systems
criteria and practices. This ensures that
the fall protection equipment is
sufficient to safely arrest the employee’s
fall.
No comments were received on
paragraphs (p)(4)(i)—(p)(4)(iv); they are
promulgated as proposed.
The C–DAC consensus document did
not include provisions to require a
minimum strength for the boatswain’s
chair and to require that only one
person be hoisted at a time, when using
a boatswain’s chair in pile driving
operations. As explained in the
preamble to the proposed rule, the
Agency determined these were
unintended omissions by the
Committee. OSHA stated that it planned
on including such provisions in the
final rule, and asked for comment. No
comments were received on this issue.
Therefore, the final rule includes
§ 1926.1431(p)(4)(v), which requires the
boatswain’s chair to be capable of
supporting its own weight and at least
five times the maximum intended load,
and § 1926.1431(p)(4)(vi), which states

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48044

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

that only one person may be hoisted at
a time.
Paragraph (q)

[Reserved.]

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (r) Hoisting Personnel for
Marine Transfer
This paragraph addresses the
particular hazards related to hoisting
personnel for transfer to or from a
marine construction worksite. This
paragraph applies when hoisting
employees solely for such transfer.
Section 1926.1431(r)(1) requires the
employer to use either a traditional
personnel platform or a marine-hoisted
personnel transfer device. This
paragraph allows an employer to use a
marine-hoisted personnel transfer
device instead of a personnel platform
for several reasons. Transferring
personnel to or from a marine
construction site poses special problems
due to the effects of waves and gusting
wind. These effects, which can be
unpredictable, can result in a situation
where the equipment operator will not
be able to adequately control the
equipment. In such a situation, the
device used to transfer the employees
may suddenly wind up in the water.
Another situation is when employees
may need to jump into the water to
avoid a collision with the ship or an
object on the construction site. A third
situation is when the operator is unable
to control the equipment while the
employees are attempting to board or
disembark. The longer it takes to get on
or off, the greater this risk becomes. In
all of these scenarios the employees
need to be able to enter and exit the
device being used to transfer them
quickly and easily.
A personnel platform, which is
designed, in part, to keep the employees
inside, would, in most marine
situations, compound the hazard faced
by the employees, since they can be
difficult to enter and exit quickly. In
contrast, a marine-hoisted personnel
transfer device is designed specifically
to facilitate the employees’ rapid entry
and exit. The employer has the option
of using such a device so that it may be
used when the conditions are such that
the risk of being prevented from
entering or exiting quickly is greater
than the risk of unintentionally falling.
In the proposed rule, OSHA requested
public comment on whether paragraph
(r)(1) should require the employer to
first establish that use of a marinehoisted personnel-transfer device was
not less safe than a personnel platform.
No comments were received on this
issue.
Paragraph (r)(2) requires the employer
to follow the requirements of paragraphs

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(a) through (n) of § 1926.1431 when
using a personnel platform to hoist
employees. As discussed previously,
these provisions are designed to ensure
that hoisting personnel is the safest
means of the employees gaining access
to the work and that the personnel
platform’s design and use are adequate
from a safety standpoint.
Paragraph (r)(3) establishes the
requirements when the employer elects
to use a marine-hoisted personneltransfer device instead of a personnel
platform for hoisting personnel.
Paragraph (r)(3)(i) identifies which of
the provisions in §§ 1926.1431 (a)
through (q) apply when using a marinehoisted personnel-transfer device. For
the applicable provisions, the phrase
‘‘marine-hoisted personnel-transfer
device’’ is substituted for either
‘‘personnel platform’’ or ‘‘platform.’’
The § 1926.1431 paragraphs not listed
in § 1926.1431 (r)(3)(i) do not apply
when a marine-hoisted personneltransfer device is used. This is because
those requirements are either
specifically applicable to personnel
platform design and use, or are
otherwise not relevant when hoisting
personnel at a marine worksite.
Paragraph (r)(3)(ii) requires the
marine-hoisted personnel-transfer
device to be used exclusively for
transferring employees. One purpose of
this provision is to prevent the device
from being used as a work platform. The
device’s design, which specifically
facilitates easy and rapid entry and exit,
is ill suited to providing a safe work
platform. In particular, it is not designed
to prevent a fall when an employee is
using his or her hands for working
rather than holding on to the device.
Also, it is ill suited as a material transfer
device because it is not designed to
prevent materials from falling from it,
and could be damaged by such use.
Paragraph(r)(3)(iii) limits the number
of employees on the marine-hoisted
personnel-transfer device to the
maximum number the device is
designed to hold. This prevents
overloading, which can result in
structural failure of the device. It also
prevents overcrowding, which can
cause an unintended fall or preclude a
worker from entering or exiting as
rapidly as when used properly.
Paragraph (r)(3)(iv) requires each
employee being transferred on a marinehoisted personnel-transfer device to
wear a U.S. Coast Guard personal
flotation device that is approved for
industrial use. The purpose is to protect
the employee from drowning if the
device enters the water, or if the
employee falls or needs to jump into the
water.

PO 00000

Frm 00140

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

No comments were received on
paragraphs (r)(1)—(r)(3); they are
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (s) Hoisting Personnel for
Storage-Tank (Steel or Concrete), Shaft
and Chimney Operations
This paragraph establishes
requirements when hoisting personnel
in storage-tanks (steel or concrete), shaft
operations and chimney operations. Use
of a personnel platform, while usually
feasible, is infeasible in some
circumstances involving these
operations due to the nature of the work
activity. Consequently, boatswain’s
chairs are allowed instead of a
personnel platform in such instances,
but only when the employer can
demonstrate that use of a personnel
platform is infeasible. For these reasons,
§ 1926.1431(s)(1) allows the employer to
use a boatswain’s chair only when the
employer has determined that use of a
personnel platform is infeasible.
Section 1926.1431(s)(2) requires the
employer to follow the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (n) of
§ 1926.1431 when using a personnel
platform to hoist employees. Under
§ 1926.1431(a), an employer may only
use equipment to hoist personnel when
other means of reaching the work area
presents a greater hazard or is not
possible because of the project’s
structural design or worksite conditions.
Therefore, before using a personnel
platform to hoist personnel in storage
tanks (steel or concrete), shaft
operations and chimney operations, the
employer must determine that hoisting
personnel instead of using other means
of access to the work area is the least
hazardous, or the only, means to gain
access to the work area.
Section 1926.1431(s)(3) establishes
the requirements when the employer
uses a boatswain’s chair instead of a
personnel platform for hoisting
personnel.
Section 1926.1431(s)(3)(i) identifies
which of the provisions in
§§ 1926.1431(a) through (r) apply when
using a boatswain’s chair. For the
applicable provisions, the phrase
‘‘boatswain’s chair’’ is substituted for
either ‘‘personnel platform’’ or
‘‘platform.’’
The § 1926.1431 paragraphs not listed
in § 1926.1431(s)(3)(i) do not apply
when a boatswain’s chair is used. This
is because those requirements are either
specifically applicable to personnel
platform design and use, or are
otherwise not relevant when hoisting
personnel on a boatswain’s chair in
storage tanks (steel or concrete), shaft
operations and chimney operations.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Section 1926.1431(s)(3)(ii) requires
the employee to be hoisted in a slow,
controlled descent and ascent. This is to
limit swinging or sudden movement of
the boatswain’s chair to prevent a fall
from the chair or impact with the walls
or other areas or structures involved in
these operations.
No comments were received on
paragraphs (s)(1) through (s)(3)(ii); they
are promulgated as proposed.
Section 1926.1431(s)(3)(iii) requires
the employee in the boatswain’s chair to
use personal fall arrest equipment,
including a full body harness, that is
attached independent of the crane/
derrick. Having the tie off point
independent of the equipment protects
the employee from a sudden drop or fall
due to equipment failure or other
problems associated with the operation
of the crane/derrick, and to protect the
employee from falls when accessing and
egressing the boatswain’s chair.
One commenter noted that in certain
construction projects there is no
structure in place for independent
attachment of personal fall arrest
equipment. (ID–0130.l; –0343.1.) This
commenter further requested that for
activities related to construction of
storage tanks, concrete shafts and
chimneys, the requirement be changed
to allow attachment to the lower load
block or overhaul ball. The Agency
found the information provided
persuasive and has revised the
regulatory language for the final rule.
The Agency is limiting the change to
those situations in which there is no
adequate structure available for
independent attachment. While there
may be no available tie-off point during
new construction, construction
activities sometimes take place in
storage tanks, concrete shafts and
chimneys after the structure is in place.
Therefore, the requirement has been
changed to add a sentence specifying
that when there is no adequate structure
for attachment of personal fall arrest
equipment as required in
§ 1926.502(d)(15), the personal fall
arrest equipment should be attached to
the lower load block or to the overhaul
ball.
Section 1926.1431(s)(3)(iv) requires
fall protection equipment to comply
with § 1926.502, Fall protection systems
criteria and practices. This ensures that
the fall equipment is sufficient to safely
arrest the employee’s fall.
Section 1926.1431(s)(3)(v) requires
the boatswain’s chair to be capable of
supporting, without failure, its own
weight plus a minimum of five times the
maximum intended load. This is
consistent with the requirement for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

48045

personnel platforms at
§ 1926.1431(e)(4).
Section 1926.1431(s)(3)(vi) mandates
that only one person be hoisted at a time
when using a boatswain’s chair. No
comments were received on paragraphs
(s)(3)(iv) through (s)(3)(vi); they are
promulgated as proposed.

more than one crane; involving nonroutine or technically difficult rigging
arrangement; hoisting personnel with a
crane or derrick; or that the crane
operator believes should be considered
critical. EM 385–1–1, pg. 293. The
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s definition is different:

Section 1926.1432 Multiple-Crane/
Derrick Lifts
Final § 1926.1432 lists additional
requirements for operations involving
multiple cranes and derricks. As
discussed in the proposed rule
preamble, this section addresses hazards
arising from operations that use more
than one crane/derrick to lift a load (see
73 FR 59840–59841, Oct. 9, 2008). After
reviewing comments on the proposed
rule, the Agency is promulgating
§§ 1926.1432(a) and 1926.1432(b)(1) as
proposed. Section 1926.1432(b)(2) is
nearly identical to the proposed text,
but includes the following changes: the
use of the terms ‘‘directed’’ and ‘‘lift
director’’ instead of ‘‘supervised’’ and
‘‘supervisor,’’ respectively, and language
to clarify that the lift director must
review the multiple crane/derrick lift
plan with all workers ‘‘in a meeting.’’
Several commenters expressed the
view that OSHA should add specific
requirements and procedures for the
protection of employees engaged in
‘‘critical lifts,’’ which were not
addressed separately in the proposed
rules. (ID–0182.1; –0207.1.) One of these
commenters requested that OSHA add
‘‘critical lifts’’ to the title of § 1926.1432,
and define ‘‘critical lift’’ to include any
lift that exceeds 75 percent of the rated
capacity of the crane or derrick, requires
the use of more than one crane or
derrick, involves hoisting personnel, or
is otherwise determined by a qualified
person to involve an exceptional level of
risk. (ID–0182.1.) OSHA disagrees with
these commenters for the reasons
discussed below.
C–DAC specifically considered
whether to use the term ‘‘critical lift’’ for
triggering additional requirements, such
as planning and oversight. (OSHA–
S030–2006–0663–0485.) There are a
variety of differing views as to what
ought to be considered a critical lift in
this regard. For example, the Army
Corps of Engineers, in its 2008 U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Safety and
Health Requirements Manual, defines
‘‘critical lift’’ as ‘‘a non-routine crane lift
requiring detailed planning and
additional or unusual safety
precautions.’’ This manual describes
critical lifts, in part, as lifts: (1) In which
the load weighs 75% of the rated
capacity of the crane; in which the load
is out of the operator’s view; involving

Critical lifts are lifts where failure/loss of
control could result in loss of life, loss of or
damage to flight hardware, or a lift involving
special high dollar items, such as spacecraft,
one-of-a-kind articles, or major facility
components, whose loss would have serious
programmatic or institutional impact. Critical
lifts also include the lifting of personnel with
a crane, lifts where personnel are required to
work under a suspended load, and operations
with special personnel and equipment safety
concerns beyond normal lifting hazards.

PO 00000

Frm 00141

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

NASA Standard for Lifting Devices and
Equipment, NASA STD–8719.9,
pg. 5.127
C–DAC identified and addressed the
particular situations that necessitate
special planning and procedures rather
than using a more generalized ‘‘critical
lift’’ approach based on a percent of
rated capacity. For example, the
Committee developed specific
requirements for hoisting personnel,
operating equipment when power lines
are present, and in §§ 1926.1417(o)(3)(ii)
and 1926.1417(s), for hoisting loads that
exceed 75 percent of rated capacity or
are 90 percent or more of rated capacity.
This enabled the Committee to
separately address the specific hazards
associated with each type of operation.
The advantage of this approach is that
the standard’s requirements could be
specifically tailored to each type of
situation, promoting both effectiveness
and clarity. Therefore, OSHA defers to
the expertise of C–DAC and declines to
adopt the commenters’ suggestions.
Paragraph (a)

Plan Development

Section 1926.1432(a) requires an
employer to develop a plan 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 criteria set forth in
§§ 1926.1432(a)(1) through (3). The
purpose of the requirement for a plan is
to help ensure that the hazards involved
127 In OSHA’s steel erection standard, 29 CFR
1926 subpart R, critical lift is defined as ‘‘a lift that
(1) exceeds 75 percent of the rated capacity of the
crane or derrick, or (2) requires the use of more than
one crane or derrick’’ (See § 1926.751). However, the
steel erection standard does not require planning or
other additional precautions whenever there is a
critical lift. A critical lift plan is only required in
subpart R when the employer elects to do a sitespecific erection plan as an alternative to the
requirements of §§ 1926.753(c)(5), 1926.757(a)(4), or
1926.757(e)(4).

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48046

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

with a multiple lift are identified and
eliminated. The Committee determined
that a plan-based requirement would be
the most appropriate and effective
means of reducing the risks associated
with these operations.
Section 1926.1432(a) does not,
however, require the multiple crane/
derrick lift plan to be documented. One
commenter suggested that the final rule
require the plan to be in writing to
ensure that the plan would be well
designed and could be clearly
communicated to all affected personnel.
(ID–0182.1.) C–DAC carefully
considered where to recommend
including documentation requirements
throughout the standard, and did not
recommend including one for this
provision. The commenter did not
provide any explanation of how a
documentation requirement would
enhance the review of the plan or the
communication of the plan to the
parties involved, and OSHA has
decided to defer to the expertise of the
Committee and declines to include a
documentation requirement for
§ 1926.1432.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (a)(3)
Section 1926.1432(a)(3) requires
engineering expertise to be provided by
the employer whenever the qualified
person determines that it is necessary.
One commenter believed that all
multiple-crane/derrick lifts should be
planned by a licensed professional
engineer due to the technical
complexity of such lifts. (ID–0156.1.) As
discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, in the view of the
Committee, some, but not all, multiplecrane/derrick lifts need to be planned
with engineering expertise so that the
lift can be performed safely (73 FR
59841, Oct. 9, 2008). Similarly, the
Committee determined that it is not
practical to set criteria in the rule for
identifying which lifts need such
expertise. OSHA defers to the expertise
of the Committee on this issue and has
decided not to adopt the commenter’s
suggestion.
Paragraph (b) Plan Implementation
Under this paragraph, the employer is
required to take specific steps designed
to ensure that the decisions and
precautions built into the plan are
effectively implemented.
Section 1926.1432(b)(1) requires
direction of plan implementation by
competent and qualified persons, or by
one person who meets the definitions of
both. OSHA has decided to replace the
word ‘‘supervised’’ in this paragraph
with the word ‘‘directed.’’ (For a detailed
explanation of competent and qualified

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

persons and the reason for replacing
‘‘supervised,’’ refer to the preamble
discussion of § 1926.1404(a),
Supervision—competent-qualified
person).
One commenter suggested that the
final rule require a ‘‘lift director’’ for
each multiple-crane/derrick lift and that
the ‘‘lift director must be present for
each critical lift.’’ (ID–0178.1.) OSHA
agrees and, to also be consistent with
the identification of the A/D director in
§ 1926.1404(a), has denoted the person
directing the multiple-crane/derrick lift
as the ‘‘lift director.’’
Paragraph (b)(2)
OSHA has decided to replace the term
‘‘supervisor’’ in § 1926.1432(b)(2) with
the term ‘‘lift director.’’ This decision
was made to be consistent with the
similar change from ‘‘A/D supervisor’’ to
‘‘A/D director’’ in § 1926.1404(a) and the
change from ‘‘lift supervisor’’ to ‘‘lift
director’’ in §§ 1926.1419(c)(2),
1926.1421(a), and 1926.1421(c). (For a
detailed explanation of this change,
refer to the preamble discussion of
§ 1926.1404(a), Supervision—
competent-qualified person).
Section 1926.1432(b)(2) mandates that
the director review the plan with all
employees who will be involved with
the operation before lift operations
begin. The Committee determined that it
is important for employees to know how
the plan will work, including their
responsibilities and the responsibilities
of others, to help ensure that the diverse
aspects of the operation will be
coordinated (see the more complete
discussion of this provision in the
proposed rule preamble at 73 FR 59841,
Oct. 9, 2008).
One commenter suggested adding an
additional provision to proposed
§ 1926.1432(b) to enable the person
directing the lift, or the operator, to halt
operations if at any time the lift director
determined the lift could not be safely
executed pursuant to the lift plan.
(ID–0182.1; –0357.1.) If such a halt to
operations occurred, the suggested
provision would require the lift director
to modify the lift plan and review any
such modifications with all workers
involved with the operation.
(ID–0182.1.)
Adding such a provision is
unnecessary because § 1926.1432 and
other provisions in subpart CC already
incorporate the commenter’s
suggestions. As discussed above,
§ 1926.1432(b) requires the lift director
to be a competent person. As defined in
§ 1926.1401, a competent person ‘‘is a
person who is capable of identifying
* * * hazards * * * and who has
authorization to take prompt corrective

PO 00000

Frm 00142

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

measures to eliminate them.’’ This
ensures that the lift director has the
authority to both halt operations and
modify the plan if he or she determined
the lift could not be executed safely
according to the lift plan. Also, under
§ 1926.1418, the equipment operator has
the authority to stop operations
whenever there is a concern as to safety.
Thus, both the lift director and
equipment operator have the authority
to halt a multiple-crane/derrick lift if
either determines the lift cannot be
executed safely pursuant to the lift plan.
Furthermore, if the lift director
modified the plan, a review of the
modified plan with the workers is
required under § 1926.1432(b)(2)
because it is a different plan from the
one that had been used initially.
OSHA also received a comment
suggesting that the plan-review
requirement in proposed
§ 1926.1432(b)(2) did not make clear the
intention that the review take place in
a meeting so that the plan could be
reviewed collectively with the workers
as a group. (ID–0182.1.) Because a
collective review is more likely to be
effective than separate, individual
reviews, OSHA agrees with the
commenter’s clarification and has
inserted the phrase ‘‘in a meeting’’ into
final § 1926.1432(b)(2).
Other than this additional language,
the replacement of ‘‘supervised’’ with
‘‘directed,’’ and the inclusion of the term
‘‘lift director,’’ the Agency is
promulgating this provision as
proposed.
Section 1926.1433 Design,
Construction and Testing
Previously, subpart N included
design, construction, and testing
requirements for specific types of
equipment that either incorporate pre1970 consensus standards or that
require equipment to conform to
manufacturer’s specifications. The
former category includes: crawler,
locomotive, and truck cranes (ANSI
B30.5–1968, incorporated by former
§ 1926.550(b)(2)); overhead and gantry
cranes (ANSI B30.2.0–1967,
incorporated by former
§ 1926.550(d)(4)); and derricks (ANSI
B30.6–1969, incorporated by former
§ 1926.550(e)). The latter includes
hammerhead tower cranes (former
§ 1926.550(c)(5)) and floating cranes and
derricks (former § 1926.550(f)(2)(iii)).
Except for crawler, locomotive, and
truck cranes, design, construction and/
or testing requirements for each of these
categories of equipment is addressed in
a section of this standard that is
dedicated to that type of equipment.
This section contains certain

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
requirements applicable only to crawler,
locomotive, and truck cranes and, in
addition, contains requirements that
apply to all of the equipment covered by
this subpart.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (a)
Paragraph (a) of this section requires
that crawler, truck and locomotive
cranes manufactured prior to the
effective date of this standard meet the
applicable requirements for design,
construction, and testing prescribed in
ANSI B30.5–1968, safety code for
‘‘Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck
Cranes,’’ PCSA 128 Std. No. 2 (1968), the
requirements in paragraph (b), or the
applicable DIN (Deutsches Institut fu¨r
Normung e.V., or German Institute for
Standardization) standards that were in
effect at the time of manufacture.
This provision allows employers to
continue to use equipment that
complies with former § 1926.550(b)(2) of
subpart N and also gives them the
flexibility to use equipment that was
built to conform to applicable DIN
standards.
One commenter objected to the
inclusion of DIN standards, stating that
those standards are less stringent than
the ANSI standard. (ID–0178.1.) The
commenter did not elaborate on this
objection, and OSHA does not find
merit in it. Many cranes currently in use
in the United States were manufactured
in Europe to DIN standards, and OSHA
has no reason to conclude that these
cranes are any less safe than those
manufactured domestically.
Accordingly, paragraph (a) is
promulgated without substantive
change. OSHA has clarified the
paragraph by splitting the options for
compliance into separate paragraphs (1)
through (4), but has not changed any of
the requirements.
Paragraph (b)
Paragraph (b) of this section uses the
phrase ‘‘mobile and locomotive cranes’’
to reflect the current terminology used
in ASME B30.5–2004. It specifies that
such cranes must meet certain
provisions of ASME B30.5–2004.
As drafted by C–DAC, paragraph (b)
required that mobile (including crawler
and truck) and locomotive cranes
manufactured on or after the effective
date of this standard meet certain
provisions of ASME B30.5–2000 with
addenda ASME B30.5a–2002, ‘‘Safety
Code for Mobile and Locomotive
Cranes.’’ Here, as elsewhere in the
proposal, OSHA updated the provision
to refer to the 2004 version of ASME
128 ‘‘PCSA’’ is the acronym for the Power Crane
Shovel Association.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

B30.5, which was published after C–
DAC completed its draft and was the
most current ASME standard available
at the time OSHA prepared the
proposed rule for publication. For the
proposed rule, OSHA compared the
2004 and earlier version and, as
discussed below, requested public
comment on whether certain changes in
the 2004 version should be adopted.
Two commenters objected to the
revisions to incorporate the 2004
standards. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1.) Neither
of these commenters provided specific
reasoning or analysis for their positions
beyond saying that the 2004 standard
was not available at the time the
consensus document was created.
OSHA concludes that in the absence of
any reason for not referring to the
updated ASME standard, the most
recent version of the standard available
prior to the publication of the proposed
rule should be used in this provision.
Therefore, this provision is promulgated
as proposed.
The incorporation by reference of the
listed provisions of ASME B30.5–2004
in paragraph (b) of this section does not
mean that other provisions found in
ASME B30.5–2004 do not apply to
equipment under this subpart. Some
other provisions of ASME B30.5–2004
are not incorporated into this section
because they deal with issues addressed
elsewhere in this standard. For example,
two-block protection, which is required
by sec. 5–1.9.9.1 of the ASME standard,
is addressed in § 1926.1416 of this
proposed standard. In addition, the
issues addressed in paragraph (e) below
are addressed in ASME B30.5–2004 but,
instead of making those provisions
applicable solely to mobile and
locomotive cranes, C–DAC drafted
corresponding provisions that would be
applied to all of the equipment subject
to this proposed standard.
The sections of ASME B30.5
referenced in §§ 1926.1433(b)(1) and
(b)(13) contain requirements for
equipment with outriggers partially
extended that are not found in the
earlier version of the ASME standard. In
the discussion of § 1926.1433(b) of the
proposed rule, OSHA noted that
§ 1926.1404(q)(1) permits partial
deployment of outriggers when
manufacturer procedures permit, and
expressed its conclusion that
incorporating the provisions on partially
deployed outriggers in the 2004 version
of ASME B30.5 would be consistent
with § 1926.1404(q)(1). OSHA requested
public comment on this issue. In
response, one commenter recommended
requiring a system or device that would
sense the positions of the outriggers and
interact with the crane’s onboard

PO 00000

Frm 00143

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48047

computer system (LMI, RCL, etc.) to
automatically reduce the crane’s
capacity based on the outrigger
positions. (ID–0131.1.) Although this
might well be a desirable addition,
OSHA cannot find evidence in this
rulemaking record to indicate that such
a system/device is currently available
and feasible. The Agency therefore
declines to add such a requirement.
Paragraph (c)
Proposed paragraph (c) of this section,
Prototype testing, required that mobile
(including crawler and truck) and
locomotive cranes manufactured on or
after the effective date of this standard
meet the prototype testing requirements
in § 1926.1433(c)(1), Test Option A or
§ 1926.1433(c)(2), Test Option B of this
section. Test Option A continues the
prototype testing methodology that was
previously required under subpart N for
crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes
through the incorporation of ANSI
B30.5–1968. Test Option B permits, as
an alternative, the use of computer
modeling technology for prototype
evaluation. C–DAC agreed to allow
computer modeling testing under the
European CEN standard only on the
condition that the requirements of
proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2), discussed
below, are met to ensure the reliability
of the computer modeling. OSHA is
incorporating this option into the final
rule with the same condition. OSHA has
updated the reference to the CEN
standard to BS EN 13000:2004. This
change was made because for purposes
of incorporation by reference OSHA
must point to a specific document and
OSHA has selected the English language
version of EN 13000. In addition, for
clarity, a note to paragraph (c) states that
prototype testing of crawler, locomotive
and truck cranes manufactured prior to
the effective date of the standard must
conform to paragraph (a). No comments
were received on the provisions of
paragraph (c) that apply to mobile
cranes.
OSHA noted in the proposal that
neither proposed § 1926.1433(c) nor any
other proposed provisions would apply
prototype testing requirements to tower
cranes. It appeared to the Agency that
this was an oversight on the part of C–
DAC. OSHA requested public comment
on whether there should be prototype
testing requirements for tower cranes,
and, if so, what requirements should
apply. All four commenters on this
issue recommended inclusion of
computer modeling and/or verification
for tower crane prototypes in
accordance with BS EN 14439:2006.
(ID–0156.1; –0180.1; –0205.1; –0213.1.)
OSHA agrees with these comments and

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48048

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

has added these requirements to the
final version of § 1926.1433(c).
Another commenter suggested that
the standard require equipment
manufacturers to obtain independent
verification that the prototype testing
was performed. (ID–0156.1.) C–DAC
addressed the prototype issues directly
and did not recommend this approach.
Based on the evidence in the record, the
Agency is not convinced that placing
this burden on the manufacturer is
warranted.
Paragraph (d)
Paragraph (d) of this section mandates
that all equipment covered by this
subpart meet the requirements listed in
§§ 1926.1433(d)(1) through (d)(13) of
this section. The issues listed in
paragraph (d) are addressed by ASME
B30.5–2004. However, as explained in
the proposed rule, C–DAC determined
that these requirements were also
appropriate for other equipment, and
the proposed rule applied them to all
equipment (see 73 FR 59843–59845,
Oct. 9, 2008). The Agency did not
receive any comments opposing this
approach. Therefore, instead of applying
these requirements solely to mobile and
locomotive cranes, paragraph (d) applies
them to all equipment covered by this
subpart.
Section 1926.1433(d)(1), Load
capacity/ratings and related
information, requires the employer to
ensure that the information available in
the cab (see § 1926.1417(c)) regarding
load capacity/ratings and related
information include the data listed in
§§ 1926.1433(d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(xvi).
These equipment specifications need to
be made available for the operator to
reference in the cab so that the operator
has immediate access to information
needed to ensure safe operation.
Section 1926.1433(d)(2) requires that
load hooks (including latched and
unlatched types), ball assemblies and
load blocks be of sufficient weight to
overhaul the line from the highest hook
position for boom, or boom and jib
lengths, and the number of parts of the
line in use. This requirement is
necessary to prevent any incidents that
could occur when ball assemblies, load
blocks, and load hooks are of
insufficient weight to keep the load line
from being unintentionally pulled up
the boom due to the weight of the load
line itself.
Section 1926.1433(d)(3) requires that
hook and ball assemblies and load
blocks be marked with their rated
capacity and weight. Marking this
equipment with their rated capacities
and weights is needed to help ensure
that they are not overloaded and is

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

necessary to help enable employers to
comply with proposed
§ 1926.1433(d)(2).
Section 1926.1433(d)(4), Latching
hooks, requires that hooks meet the
requirements in §§ 1926.1433(d)(4)(i)–
(ii) of this section.129 Section
1926.1433(d)(4)(i) requires that hooks be
equipped with latches, except where the
requirements of § 1926.1433(d)(4)(ii) are
met. It also requires that latches close
the throat openings of hooks and that
they be designed to retain slings or other
lifting devices/accessories in the hooks
when the rigging apparatus is slack.
This requirement is included to ensure
that the rigging will not be
unintentionally dislodged from the hook
when the rigging apparatus is slack.
Section 1926.1433(d)(4)(ii) prohibits
hooks without latches, or with latches
removed or disabled, from being used
unless two criteria are met. First, to
ensure that the hazards are weighed
appropriately, a qualified person must
determine that it is safer to hoist and
place the load without latches (or with
the latches removed/tied-back). Second,
routes for the loads must be pre-planned
to ensure that no employee is required
to work in the fall zone except for
employees necessary for the hooking or
unhooking of the load. The reason for
generally requiring hooks to be
equipped with latches is to prevent the
load from accidentally disengaging from
the hook. C–DAC determined that the
use of hooks with latches is an industry
recognized practice, but also recognized
that there are some circumstances where
the use of a hook with a latch presents
a greater hazard. The exceptions in
§ 1926.1433(d)(4)(ii) are included to
address the latter circumstances. For
example, if an employee would have to
climb up or out onto an unsecured,
elevated member to unhook the load
after its placement, the employee would
be exposed to a fall hazard. The criteria
in § 1926.1433(d)(4)(ii) for permitting a
hook to be used without a latch are
designed to ensure that the operation
can still be conducted safely.
Section 1926.1433(d)(5), Posted
warnings, states that posted warnings
required by this subpart, as well as
those originally supplied with the
equipment by the manufacturer,130 must
129 Pursuant to a commenter’s suggestion on the
structure of this section as proposed (ID–0172.1),
this section was reorganized in the final rule for
clarity but was not changed substantively.
130 Two commenters stated that posted warnings
originally supplied with the equipment by the
manufacturer should not be included in this
provision and were not agreed to by C–DAC; they
believed that C–DAC required only original posted
warnings related to electrical hazards. (ID–0205.1;
–0222.1.) These commenters are mistaken; the
proposed language is unchanged from the C–DAC

PO 00000

Frm 00144

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

be maintained in legible condition.
Compliance with this requirement will
increase the likelihood that employees
will recognize the hazard identified on
the posted warning and avoid or protect
themselves from that hazard.
Section 1926.1433(d)(6) requires that
an accessible fire extinguisher be on the
equipment to eliminate small fires
quickly. This provision continues a
similar requirement that was in the
former § 1926.550(a)(14)(i).
Section 1926.1433(d)(7), Cabs, states
that equipment with cabs must meet the
requirements listed in
§ 1926.1433(d)(7)(i) through (v) of this
section. These provisions ensure that
the crane operator is provided with a
safe work station that has adequate
ventilation, safe means of access and
egress, good visibility, protection
against window breakage, and sufficient
roof strength. Most of these
requirements continue the protections
provided under OSHA’s prior rules for
crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes,
which incorporated by reference various
sections of ANSI B30.5–1968.
Section 1926.1433(d)(7)(i) requires
that cabs be designed with a form of
adjustable ventilation and method for
clearing the windshield for maintaining
visibility and air circulation. Examples
of means for adjustable ventilation
include an air conditioner or window
that can be opened (for ventilation and
air circulation); examples of means for
maintaining visibility include heater
(for preventing windshield icing),
defroster, fan, and windshield wiper.
This provision ensures adequate air
circulation, both for the operator’s
health and for good visibility.
Under § 1926.1433(d)(7)(ii), cab doors
(whether swinging or sliding) must be
designed to prevent inadvertent opening
or closing while traveling or operating
the machine. Swinging doors adjacent to
the operator must open outward. Sliding
operator doors must open rearward.
Standardization of the direction for
opening doors helps ensure that an
operator will be able to exit the cab
quickly in an emergency.
Section 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii),
Windows, requires that cab windows
meet the requirements listed in
§§ 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(A) through (C).
Section 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(A)
requires that the cab have windows in
front and on both sides of the operator.
Forward vertical visibility must be
sufficient to give the operator a view of
the boom point at all times.
consensus document. In any event, OSHA believes
that maintenance of manufacturers’ original posted
warnings is critical to safe operation of equipment
and is promulgating this provision as proposed.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Section 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(B) allows
windows to have sections designed to
be opened or readily removed. Windows
with sections designed to be opened
must be designed so that they can be
secured to prevent inadvertent closure.
Compliance with this provision ensures
that the operator can adequately
ventilate the cab should conditions
within the cab affect the safe operation
of the crane.
Section 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(C)
specifies that windows be constructed
of safety glass, or material with similar
optical and safety properties, that
introduces no visible distortion or
otherwise obscures visibility. In the
final rule, OSHA has deleted the phrase
‘‘that interferes with the safe operation
of the crane’’ from the end of this
paragraph as proposed to eliminate an
ambiguity that might arise in
interpreting this provision.
Section 1926.1433(d)(7)(iv) requires
that a clear passageway be provided
from the operator’s station to an exit
door on the operator’s side. This
provision will enable the operator to
enter and exit the equipment safely and
will enable the operator to escape from
the cab quickly in the event of an
emergency.
Section 1926.1433(d)(7)(v) states that
areas of the cab roof that serve as a
workstation for rigging, maintenance or
other crane-related tasks must be
capable of supporting 250 pounds
without permanent distortion.
Section 1926.1433(d)(8) requires that
belts, gears, shafts, pulleys, sprockets,
spindles, drums, fly wheels, chains, and
other parts or components that
reciprocate, rotate or otherwise move be
guarded where contact by employees
(except for maintenance and repair
workers) is possible in the performance
of normal duties. The exception permits
maintenance and repair workers to
remove the guards when their work
requires access to the parts being
guarded.
Section 1926.1433(d)(9) requires that
all exhaust pipes, turbochargers, and
charge air coolers be insulated or
guarded where contact by employees is
possible in the performance of normal
duties. As with § 1926.1433(d)(8), an
exception is provided when
maintenance and repair workers need to
remove the guards to perform their
work. This provision is included to
protect workers against injuries that can
occur if they contact components that
are hot enough to cause burns.
Section 1926.1433(d)(10) requires that
hydraulic and pneumatic lines be
protected from damage to the extent
feasible. For example, where hydraulic
or pneumatic lines are subject to chafing

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

from vibration or movement of the
equipment, they must be secured,
protected with anti-chafing gear, or
otherwise protected from chafing
damage. Denting, crushing, puncturing,
or nicking a hydraulic or pneumatic line
could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the line and compromise the
safe operation of the affected systems
and the crane as a whole.
Section 1926.1433(d)(11) requires that
equipment be designed so that exhaust
fumes are not discharged in the cab and
are discharged in a direction away from
the operator. This provision ensures that
exhaust gases that are likely to adversely
affect or incapacitate the operator will
not accumulate in the cab because of the
design of the equipment. For the same
reason, OSHA is amending the final rule
to clarify that the exhaust fumes must
also be discharged away from any air
intake source for the cab.
Section 1926.1433(d)(12), Friction
mechanisms, states that where friction
mechanisms (such as brakes and
clutches) are used to control the boom
hoist or load line hoist, they must be: of
a size and thermal capacity sufficient to
control all rated loads with the
minimum recommended reeving; and
adjustable to permit compensation for
lining wear to maintain proper
operation. The words ‘‘all rated’’ have
been added back into paragraph
(d)(12)(i) of this section in response to
several comments who correctly pointed
out that the phrase was included in the
C–DAC consensus document. (ID–
0180.1; –0205.1; –0213.1.) This phrase
was inadvertently deleted from the
proposal and is needed to clarify the
requirement.
Section 1926.1433(d)(13), Hydraulic
load hoists, specifies that hydraulic
drums have an integrally mounted
holding device or internal static brake to
prevent load hoist movement in the
event of hydraulic failure. This
requirement will protect employees
against unintended movement of the
load hoist caused by a hydraulic failure.
As noted above,
§§ 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(C) and
1926.1433(d)(11) were amended to
clarify those provisions, and
§ 1926.1433(d)(12)(i) was amended to
address comments received. All other
provisions of paragraph (d) are
promulgated as proposed with minor
grammatical corrections and changes in
numbering.
Paragraph (e)
Section 1926.1433(e) permits
employers to rely on documentation
from manufacturers to show that they
are in compliance with §§ 1926.1433(a)–
(c) and 1926.1433(d)(7)–(d)(13) where

PO 00000

Frm 00145

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48049

the equipment has not been modified 131
since it was manufactured, except in
accordance with § 1926.1434,
Equipment modifications. Sections
1926.1433(d)(1)–(d)(6) are excluded
from this provision because the
employer can easily verify compliance
with them without recourse to
documentation provided by the
manufacturer. An employer’s failure to
have such documentation in its
possession would not, in itself,
constitute a violation of these
provisions. Rather, § 1926.1433(e) is
intended to make clear that crane users
need not independently determine
whether their equipment meets certain
provisions of this section but may rely
on manufacturer documentation for that
purpose. No comments were received
on this paragraph, and it is promulgated
as proposed.
Section 1926.1434 Equipment
modifications
This section addresses the procedures
an employer must follow when
equipment is modified in a way that
affects its capacity or safe operation. Its
purpose is to safeguard against unsafe
modifications and to ensure that the
equipment’s instructions and
specifications are updated to reflect the
modifications so that the equipment
may be used safely.
This section uses the term
‘‘modification/addition’’ to refer to
‘‘modification or addition’’ to clarify that
an addition to the equipment is a type
of modification and needs to be subject
to the same approval procedures as
other types of modifications. For
example, the addition of a generator to
the back of the cab of a crane needs to
be subject to the approval procedures
because it will alter the crane’s
backward stability.
Paragraph (a)
Paragraph (a) of this section prohibits
modifications or additions to equipment
which affect the capacity or safe
operation of the equipment except
where any of five options set out in
§§ 1926.1434(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5)
are met. Options outlined in (a)(4) and
(a)(5) were not in the proposed rule; see
discussion below.
Option (1)—Manufacturer Review and
Approval
Under paragraph (a)(1)(i), the
employer must get the manufacturer of
the equipment to approve the
modifications/additions in writing.
131 For clarification, the phrase in the final
standard: ‘‘where the equipment has not been
modified’’ replaces the phrase in the proposed
standard: ‘‘where the equipment has not changed.’’

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48050

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) requires that load
charts, procedures, instruction manuals,
and instruction plates/tags/decals be
modified in accordance with the
modification/addition. Under (a)(1)(iii),
the original safety factor of the
equipment must not be reduced.
Meeting the requirements of this
paragraph ensures that the original
safety factor is not reduced and that all
affiliated materials related to safe
operation of the equipment
(instructions, charts) are updated to
reflect the changes made. Paragraph
(a)(1) is promulgated as proposed.
Option (2)—Manufacturer Refusal To
Review Request
Under paragraph (a)(2), the employer
must provide a detailed description of
the proposed modification to the
manufacturer and ask it to approve the
modification/addition. If the
manufacturer declines to review the
technical merits of the proposal or fails,
within 30 days, to acknowledge the
request or initiate the review, the
employer may proceed with the
modification/addition if it complies
with the other requirements in
paragraph (a)(2). In these conditions, the
employer may utilize a registered
professional engineer who is a qualified
person with respect to the equipment to
approve the modification/addition in
lieu of the manufacturer. See
§ 1926.1401 for the definition of
qualified person. C–DAC found it
important to clarify that this individual
needs to be a qualified person ‘‘with
respect to the equipment involved,’’
since specialized knowledge beyond
that of a general registered professional
engineer is needed to make the required
assessments regarding the particular
equipment that is being modified.
The Committee recommended this
option because it determined that the
refusal of a manufacturer to review a
request, or a manufacturer’s failure to
act on the request within a reasonable
time, would not preclude an employer
from making a modification if adequate
precautions are followed. The
Committee concluded that 30 days
would give the manufacturer a
reasonable amount of time to decide
whether to simply decline to review the
request or to proceed with evaluating it.
Also, the Committee concluded that a
failure to respond at all in this period
would fairly reflect an intention not to
act on the request in a timely manner.
Under paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) OSHA
requires that the approval by the
registered professional engineer specify
the equipment configurations to which
it applies. Cranes typically can be
configured in a variety of ways.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Modifications may have different effects
depending on the configuration. C–DAC
determined that it was essential for
purposes of ensuring safe operation that
the approval specify the configurations
to which it applies. An example of an
approval satisfying this would be the
following: ‘‘This is an approval to add
an additional boom section of the abovedescribed design for a brand K lattice
boom crane, model 1. This approval
applies only when the crane is
configured without a jib.’’
Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) requires that the
registered professional engineer modify
load charts, procedures, instruction
manuals, and instruction plates/tags/
decals as necessary to accord with the
modification/addition. Under paragraph
(a)(2)(ii), the original safety factor of the
equipment must not be reduced.
One local jurisdiction commented
that local governments should have the
option of reviewing and approving
cranes that are not modified in
conjunction with the manufacturer. (ID–
0156.1.) The commenter did not explain
how such a requirement would work in
practice or how it would enhance
employee safety. OSHA defers to C–
DAC’s judgment that having a registered
professional engineer (who is a qualified
person with respect to the equipment
involved) approve the modification in
accordance with the requirements of
paragraph (a)(2) will provide adequate
protection. See, e.g., Building & Constr.
Trades Dep’t, AFL–CIO v. Brock, 838
F.2d 1258, 1271 (DC Cir. 1988) (‘‘[A]
party challenging an OSHA standard
must bear the burden of demonstrating
that the variations it advocates will
* * * provide more than a de minimis
benefit. * * *’’). Paragraph (a)(2) is
adopted without change from the
proposal.
Option (3)—Unavailable Manufacturer
Paragraph (a)(3) addresses a scenario
in which the manufacturer of equipment
is unavailable to review proposed
modifications/additions because, for
example, it has gone out of business
(and has not been taken over by a
successor company). In this situation, if
the employer wishes to modify its
equipment in a way that affects its
capacity or safe operation, it can get
approval from a registered professional
engineer in accordance with the
requirements of (a)(2)(i) and (ii) above.
This paragraph is adopted as proposed.
Option (4)—Manufacturer Does Not
Complete the Review Within 120 Days
of the Request
Paragraph (a)(4) has been added to
this section of the final rule based on a
particular scenario raised by a

PO 00000

Frm 00146

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

commenter where a manufacturer agrees
to review a proposed modification/
addition, but fails to complete that
review within 120 days of the date on
which it was provided with a detailed
description of the proposed
modification/addition. (ID–0187.1.)
OSHA agrees with the commenter that
in that scenario the employer should
have the option of seeking approval
from a registered professional engineer
in accordance with the requirements of
(a)(2)(i) and (ii) above. OSHA concludes
that 120 days will generally be sufficient
for manufacturers to complete reviews;
for proposed modifications/additions
that are particularly extensive or
complex, OSHA assumes that the length
of time needed to review the proposal
will be longer and will be addressed as
a contractual matter between the parties.
Option (5)—Multiple Manufacturers of
Equipment Designed for Use on Marine
Work Sites
Paragraph (a)(5) has been added to
this final rule in response to a comment
regarding equipment used on marine
work sites. (ID–0187.1.) According to
this commenter, in the marine
construction industry, contractors
routinely hire shipyards to build
specialized barges or modify existing
barges used as floating platforms for
hoisting equipment. Custom-made
hoisting equipment for such operations
is frequently assembled using
component parts manufactured by
multiple manufacturers and then
installed on the floating platform. In
such cases, it is impossible to identify
a single ‘‘manufacturer’’ from which to
seek approval for a modification/
addition; therefore OSHA concludes
that it was reasonable to provide
employers in these instances with the
ability to seek approval for a proposed
modification/addition from a registered
professional engineer in accordance
with paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) above.
The term marine worksite is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a construction worksite
located in, on, or above the water.’’
Paragraph (b)
Paragraph (b) of this section prohibits
modifications or additions which affect
the capacity or safe operation of the
equipment where the manufacturer,
after a review of the technical safety
merits of the proposed modification/
addition, rejects the proposal and
explains the reasons for the rejection in
a written response.
OSHA concludes, as did C–DAC, that
it was important to expressly state the
need for the manufacturer to explain
why it rejected the employer’s proposed
modification. Such an explanation both

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
demonstrates that the manufacturer
reviewed the technical safety merits of
the request and gives the employer the
opportunity to modify the proposal to
address the manufacturer’s objections. If
the manufacturer does not provide the
reasons for its rejection in writing, the
employer may consider this a refusal to
review a request under paragraph (a)(2)
above.
No comments were received for this
paragraph; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (c)
Paragraph (c) of this section states that
the provisions in §§ 1926.1434(a) and
(b) do not apply to modifications made
or approved by the U.S. military. During
C–DAC negotiations, a representative of
the U.S. Navy indicated to C–DAC that
such an exception is needed in the
event of military exigencies. OSHA
defers to the Committee’s expertise on
this issue. No comments were received
for this paragraph; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Section 1926.1435

Tower Cranes

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Definition of Tower Crane
OSHA’s proposed definition reflected
three changes from the Committee draft.
First, a characteristic of tower cranes
that was missing from the C–DAC
definition was that the working boom is
in an elevated position above the
ground. Second, the working boom on
some tower cranes, even of the nonluffing type, may not be at a 90 degree
angle to the tower, and so the term
‘‘fixed horizontally’’ may not always be
appropriate for a non-luffing jib. Third,
tower cranes do not always rotate about
the tower center to swing loads. There
are ‘‘top slewing’’ tower cranes—those in
which the working boom rotates on the
top of a fixed tower, and ‘‘bottom
slewing’’ tower cranes—those in which
the tower itself (with the working boom
fixed to it) rotates on its base, and for
the latter, the boom does not rotate
about the tower center. OSHA requested
public comment on the changes it made
to the Committee draft definition.
One commenter agreed with the
proposed definition of ‘‘tower crane,’’
saying that OSHA’s changes removed
any ambiguity in the definition. (ID–
0187.1.) Three commenters suggested
adding the words ‘‘or near vertical’’ to
the first sentence of the definition so
that it would say, ‘‘a type of lifting
structure which utilizes a vertical, or
near vertical, mast or tower. * * *’’ (ID–
0180.1; –0205.1; –0213.1.) These
commenters were evidently concerned
that a tower crane could, under
§ 1926.1435(b)(5), Plumb tolerance,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

permissibly deviate from being perfectly
vertical by a slight amount. As
explained below in the discussion of
§ 1926.1435(b)(5), the crane’s tower
must be plumb to the manufacturer’s
tolerance or, where the manufacturer
does not specify the plumb tolerance,
plumbed to a tolerance of at least 1:500.
OSHA concludes that adding the
words ‘‘or near vertical’’ to the definition
of tower crane is not necessary.
Although a tower crane may deviate
from being perfectly vertical by the
amount of the manufacturer’s tolerance
or, where the manufacturer does not
specify a tolerance, at least 1:500, the
tower crane would still be ‘‘vertical’’
within the ordinary meaning of that
word. Adding the words ‘‘or near
vertical’’ could create additional
ambiguity and is not necessary to avoid
misleading tower crane users into
thinking that their equipment does not
fall within OSHA’s definition if the
tower deviates from perfect vertical by
the amount permitted by the rule.
Two commenters suggested adding
the following sentence at the end of the
definition:
Mobile cranes that are configured with
luffing jib and/or tower attachments are not
considered tower cranes under this section.

(ID–0205.1; –0213.1.)
The provisions in this section for
tower cranes are not appropriate for
application to a mobile crane configured
with a luffing jib. This conclusion is
equally applicable to mobile cranes
used with tower attachments. Such
attachments typically consist of devices
that fix the mobile crane’s main boom
at a near-vertical position and use of a
luffing jib. OSHA therefore agrees that a
mobile crane configured in either
manner should not be treated as a tower
crane, since the supplemental provision
for tower cranes in this section are not
designed for such applications.132
Therefore, the Agency has added the
language suggested by the commenters
to the definition.
Paragraph (a)
Section 1926.1435(a) states that
§ 1926.1435 contains supplemental
requirements for tower cranes and that
all other sections of this standard apply
to tower cranes unless specified
otherwise. This paragraph makes clear
that all provisions of this subpart apply
to tower cranes unless a specific
provision states that they are
inapplicable. As discussed below, two
sections of this standard that do not
132 Note, however, that some tower cranes are
mobile, i.e., truck-mounted (such as truck-mounted
self-erecting tower cranes). These are considered
tower cranes under this standard.

PO 00000

Frm 00147

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48051

apply to tower cranes are §§ 1926.1415
(safety devices) and 1926.1416
(operational aids). Instead, this section
lists the safety devices and operational
aids that are required for tower cranes.
In addition, this section contains
additional requirements for erecting,
climbing, dismantling, and inspections
that are specific to tower cranes. No
comments were received on this
paragraph, and it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (b) Erecting, Climbing and
Dismantling
Section 1926.1435(b)(1) requires the
employer to comply with the assembly
and disassembly requirements set out in
§§ 1926.1403–1926.1406, except as
otherwise specified in this section.
Section 1926.1435(b)(1) notes that the
industry generally refers to the assembly
and disassembly of tower cranes as
erecting, climbing and dismantling.
Therefore, when the term ‘‘assembly’’ is
used in §§ 1926.1403 through
§ 1926.1405, it is replaced with ‘‘erecting
and climbing’’ when referring to tower
cranes. Similarly, where the term
‘‘disassembly’’ is used, it is replaced
with ‘‘dismantling’’ when referring to
tower cranes.
Section 1926.1435(b)(2), Dangerous
areas (self-erecting tower cranes),
addresses the hazards associated with
crew members located in certain areas.
Employees must not be in or under the
tower, jib, or rotating portion of the
crane during erecting, climbing and
dismantling operations until the crane is
secured in a locked position and the
competent person indicates it is safe to
enter these areas. The only exception to
this is where the manufacturer’s
instructions direct otherwise and the
employer limits access to necessary
employees only.
These areas are hazardous because, in
the event of unintended movement of
components, there is a heightened
chance that an employee could be
struck or crushed. The exception
accounts for those situations in which,
due to the design of the equipment, it
is infeasible for all employees to be out
of these areas during erecting, climbing
and dismantling operations. No
commenters addressed
§ 1926.1435(b)(2). It is promulgated
without change.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3),
Foundations and structural supports,
provided: ‘‘Tower crane foundations and
structural supports shall be designed by
the manufacturer or a registered
professional engineer.’’
When a tower crane is mounted to
portions of a structure, it is vital for safe
operation that the structure be able to

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48052

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

withstand the forces imposed by both
the crane and the loads the crane will
handle throughout the job. Accordingly,
when portions of a structure are used to
support a tower crane, the manufacturer
or registered professional engineer who
designs the crane’s structural supports
must ensure not only that the structure
is adequate to support the crane when
it is mounted but that it will continue
to support the crane under all
anticipated conditions of use.
In the proposal, OSHA noted that it
interpreted ‘‘structural supports’’ in this
provision to include both the portions of
the structure used for support and the
means of attaching the tower to the
structure, and requested public
comment on whether proposed
§ 1926.1435(b)(3) stated this intent with
sufficient clarity.
Five commenters recommended that
OSHA clarify that ‘‘structural supports’’
means both the portions of the structure
used for support and the means of
attachment. (ID–0120.0; –0156.1;
–0180.1; –0205.1; –0213.1.) OSHA has
modified paragraph (b)(3) of this section
of the final rule accordingly.
Section 1926.1435(b)(4), Addressing
specific hazards, requires the employer
to comply with §§ 1926.1404(h)(1)
through (9), which pertain to erecting,
climbing and dismantling. In particular,
§ 1926.1404(h) requires that the A/D
Director address certain hazards, which
are discussed above in the discussion of
§ 1926.1404. Section 1926.1435(b)(4)
lists additional hazards, specific to
tower cranes, that the A/D Director also
must address. These additional hazards
are those associated with (i) the
foundations and structural supports for
tower cranes, (ii) the loss of backward
stability, and (iii) wind speed.
Proposed § 1926.1435(b)(4)(i) required
the A/D Director to ‘‘verify’’ that the
foundation and structural supports are
installed in accordance with their
design. This paragraph is designed to
ensure that the design of these
components by the manufacturer or
registered professional engineer is
followed when they are installed.
Three commenters stated that the
A/D Director is not qualified to perform
this function and that the registered
professional engineer who designed the
support should verify that the
foundation and structural supports are
properly installed. (ID–0180.1; –0205.1;
–0213.1.)
OSHA determines that the
commenters are assuming that, by the
use of the term ‘‘verify,’’ the proposed
provision meant that the A/D Director
would have to independently assess the
foundation and supports to determine if
they were installed in accordance with

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

their design. OSHA is not, however,
requiring the A/D Director to make such
an independent assessment. For
example, the intent of the provision is
met when the A/D Director determines
from the engineer of record that the
installation was done correctly. To make
this clear, OSHA has, in the final rule,
changed the word ‘‘verify’’ to
‘‘determine.’’
Paragraph (b)(4)(ii) requires that the
A/D Director address the backward
stability of the crane before self erecting
tower cranes or cranes on traveling or
stationary undercarriages are swung.
OSHA has removed the words ‘‘must be
considered’’ that were in the proposed
paragraph to avoid ambiguity. Paragraph
(b)(4) requires the A/D Director to
‘‘address’’ certain issues, including the
stability issue in paragraph (b)(4)(ii),
and the words ‘‘must be considered’’
could be read as limiting or modifying
that duty. This provision is similar to
the assembly/disassembly requirement
in § 1926.1404(h)(11) except that it
applies only to self erecting tower
cranes and cranes that are on traveling
or static (stationary) undercarriages. It
applies to these types of tower cranes to
highlight the fact that, because they do
not have a base that is fixed to the
ground, the backwards stability safety
issue needs to be addressed. No
comments were received on this
provision, and it is promulgated with
only the one revision.
Proposed § 1926.1435(b)(4)(iii)
provided that erecting, climbing, and
dismantling not take place when the
wind speed recommended by the
manufacturer is exceeded. Where the
manufacturer does not recommend a
maximum wind speed, a qualified
person is required to establish the
maximum wind speed that must not be
exceeded. This provision was included
because the horizontal force caused by
wind during erecting and dismantling
can have a substantial effect on the
stability of a tower crane.
One commenter suggested that
climbing should not be allowed if the
wind speed perpendicular to the jib is
in excess of 20 miles per hour. (ID–
0137.1.) This commenter stated that
most manufacturers will allow climbing
in winds up to 40 miles per hour but are
not specific on winds that are
perpendicular to the jib. OSHA
concludes that any manufacturer who
specifies wind speed will assume that
the wind might be blowing in any
direction, including perpendicular to
the jib, and take that into account in the
recommendation. OSHA further
concludes that manufacturers (and
qualified persons) are well qualified to
determine the maximum wind speed

PO 00000

Frm 00148

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

and finds no basis in the record to set
a maximum wind speed during erection
of 20 miles per hour. Accordingly,
OSHA is promulgating
§ 1926.1435(b)(4)(iii) as proposed.
Paragraph (b)(5) of this section, Plumb
tolerance, requires that the crane’s
tower be plumb to the manufacturer’s
tolerance and verified by a qualified
person. Where the manufacturer does
not specify the plumb tolerance, this
provision requires that the tower be
plumb to a tolerance of at least 1:500.
The tower needs to be plumb within the
manufacturer’s tolerance to ensure the
crane’s stability and prevent it from
collapsing. The Committee noted that a
tolerance of at least 1:500 is generally
what manufacturers specify and that for
any type of vertical structure this
generally is the accepted plumb
tolerance in the engineering and
construction industries. No comments
were received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (b)(6), Multiple tower crane
jobsites, requires construction jobsites
with more than one fixed jib
(hammerhead) tower crane installed to
be located so that no crane can contact
the structure of another crane. However,
the jibs of multiple hammerhead tower
cranes are permitted to pass over/under
one another. This provision is designed
to ensure that multiple tower cranes on
a construction site do not collide with
each other. No comments were received
on this paragraph. OSHA has replaced
the word ‘‘may’’ with ‘‘can’’ in the final
rule to clarify that it must be physically
impossible for the structure of one crane
to contact the structure of another. The
text is otherwise unchanged in the final
rule.
Paragraph (b)(7), Climbing
procedures, contains special
requirements that have to be followed
during the climbing process. Climbing is
defined in § 1926.1401. Paragraph (b)(7)
requires that prior to, and during, all
climbing procedures the employer (i)
Comply with all manufacturer
prohibitions; (ii) have a registered
professional engineer verify that the
host structure is strong enough to
sustain the forces imposed through the
braces, brace anchorages and supporting
floors; and (iii) ensure that no part of the
climbing procedure takes place when
wind exceeds the speed recommended
by the manufacturer or, where the
manufacture does not specify the wind
speed, the speed determined by a
qualified person. No comments were
received on this paragraph; it is
unchanged in the final rule. The Agency
notes that several commenters did
object generally to the mandatory
compliance with manufacturer

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
requirements. These arguments are
addressed in the discussion of
§ 1926.1417.
Paragraph (b)(7)(ii) requires the
employer to have a registered
professional engineer verify that the
host structure is strong enough to
sustain the forces imposed through the
braces, brace anchorages and supporting
floors. Examples of typical host
structures include a building, parking
garage, bridge or pier. If the host
structure is not strong enough, the host
structure could collapse and cause the
tower crane to collapse as well. No
comments were received on this
paragraph; it is unchanged in the final
rule.
Proposed paragraph (b)(7)(iii)
required the employer to ensure that no
part of the climbing procedure takes
place when wind exceeds the speed
recommended by the manufacturer or
by a qualified person if the
manufacturer does not specify this
information. The Agency noted that
§ 1926.1435(b)(4)(iii) requires wind
speed to be addressed during erecting,
climbing and dismantling in the same
manner as § 1926.1435(b)(7)(iii) and
requested public comment on whether
§ 1926.1435(b)(7)(iii) should be omitted
as redundant. Three commenters agreed
that § 1926.1435(b)(7)(iii) was
redundant and should be deleted. (ID–
0180.1; –0205.1; –0213.1.) OSHA agrees
and has deleted § 1926.1435(b)(7)(iii)
from the final rule.
One commenter suggested that all
rigging used during the climbing
process should follow the rules
provided in § 1926.1431 (Hoisting
personnel), and in particular the
requirement that the lift not exceed 50%
of the equipment’s rated capacity. (ID–
0137.1.) This commenter said that such
a requirement is appropriate because
climbing frames are often hoisted or
lowered by the crane while workers are
on them. OSHA is aware of no reason
why workers need to be on a climbing
frame while it is being hoisted and it
notes that such a practice would violate
a number of provisions of § 1926.1431.
As discussed in § 1926.1431, cranes are
designed to hoist material, not
personnel, and may only be used to
hoist personnel when stringent
requirements to ensure safety are
followed, including the requirement
that the lift not exceed 50% of the
equipment’s rated capacity. OSHA is
not requiring that all rigging used in
climbing a tower crane meet this
requirement because it does not
determine that workers should be, or
commonly are, hoisted while on the
climbing frame.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

The same commenter stated that the
swing should be disabled during
climbing and that a pre-test of the
hydraulic system should be performed
when the upper structure is initially
raised. This commenter did not offer
any rationale in support of these
suggestions, and OSHA does not
conclude they are needed to ensure the
safety of the climbing process.
Section 1926.1435(b)(8),
Counterweight/ballast, addresses the
hazard of instability that can result from
improper installation or removal of
counterweight/ballast, which can cause
a collapse. Sections 1926.1435(b)(8)(i)
and (ii) require that tower cranes not be
erected, dismantled or operated without
the amount and position of
counterweight or ballast in place as
specified by the manufacturer or a
registered professional engineer familiar
with the equipment and that the
maximum amount of counterweight or
ballast not be exceeded. No comments
addressed this paragraph, and it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c) Signs
Section 1926.1435(c) requires
employers to comply with the
manufacturer’s specifications regarding
the size and location of signs. This
requirement addresses the hazards that
can result from attaching signs (such as
signs with the company’s name) to
tower cranes. The force of the wind
bearing against a large sign can
significantly increase the horizontal
force the wind exerts on the crane.
According to the Committee, most
manufacturers specify the maximum
size and permissible location of signs so
that the stability of the tower crane is
not compromised. Where the
manufacturer does not specify this
information or where such information
is unavailable, this provision requires a
registered professional engineer who is
familiar with the specific type of tower
crane involved to give written approval
of the size and location of any signs.
The provision applies irrespective of
whether the sign was installed during or
after erecting/climbing. No comments
were received on this provision, and it
is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraphs (d) Safety Devices and (e)
Operational Aids
These paragraphs set out the safety
devices and operational aids that are
required on tower cranes. Sections
1926.1415 and 1926.1416, which
require safety devices and operational
aids on other types of cranes, are not
applicable to tower cranes. Instead,
§§ 1926.1435(d) and (e) apply. Although
some of the safety devices and

PO 00000

Frm 00149

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48053

operational aids for tower cranes are the
same as those that §§ 1926.1415 and
1926.1416 require for other equipment,
others are unique to tower cranes. C–
DAC determined it would promote
clarity to list all the devices and aids for
tower cranes in this section.
Safety devices must be in proper
working order. Where a safety device is
not in proper working order, the crane
must be taken out of service until it is
again functioning properly. The
Committee determined that the
protection offered by safety devices is
critical to safe operation and that there
is no alternative way to achieve the
same level of safety that the safety
devices provide. By contrast, if an
operational aid is malfunctioning,
operations may continue where the
employer implements specified
temporary alternative measures. Where
the tower crane manufacturer specifies
more protective alternative measures
than those specified in this section, the
employer is required to follow those
more protective alternative measures.
Safety Devices: Paragraph (d)(2)
requires the safety devices on tower
cranes discussed below.
Boom stops on luffing boom type
tower cranes (§ 1926.1435(d)(2)(i)) and
jib stops on luffing boom type tower
cranes if equipped with a jib attachment
(§ 1926.1435(d)(2)(ii)) are required.
These are comparable to the boom and
jib stops required for other cranes under
§ 1926.1415 (discussed above) and are
intended to prevent the boom and jib
from being raised to too high an angle
and toppling over backwards.
Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) requires travel
end rail stops at both ends of the travel
rail. These are comparable to the rail
stops required for equipment on rails
under § 1926.1415 and are designed to
keep the crane from overshooting the
boundaries on the rail within which it
is supposed to operate, which could
cause the crane to collapse.
Paragraph (d)(2)(iv) requires travel rail
clamps on all travel bogies. A ‘‘travel
bogie (tower cranes)’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘an assembly of two or
more axles arranged to permit vertical
wheel displacement and equalize the
loading on the wheels.’’ When tower
cranes travel on rails, they are mounted
on travel bogies. The rail clamps that are
required by this paragraph enable the
bogies to be clamped to the rail to
prevent the crane from lifting off the
rail.
Paragraph (d)(2)(v) requires integrally
mounted check valves on all load
supporting hydraulic cylinders. A check
valve permits fluid to flow in one
direction only. When installed on load
supporting hydraulic cylinders, such as

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48054

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

the cylinders used to climb the crane,
they protect against the loss of load
support in the event of a hydraulic
pressure failure by preventing the
reverse flow of the hydraulic fluid
supporting the cylinder.
Paragraph (d)(2)(vi) requires a
hydraulic system pressure limiting
device.
A pressure limiting device, such as a
relief valve, would prevent the pressure
in a hydraulic system from exceeding its
design limit, which can cause the
system to fail.
Paragraph (d)(2)(vii) requires the
following brakes, which must
automatically set in the event of
pressure loss or power failure: A hoist
brake on all hoists; a swing brake; a
trolley brake; and a rail travel brake.
These types of brakes are needed to
enable the motion of the crane and load
to be controlled safely. Under this
paragraph, they must set automatically
to avoid uncontrolled movement of the
crane or load in the event of pressure
loss or power failure that prevents their
operation.
Paragraph (d)(2)(viii) requires a
‘‘deadman’’ control or forced neutral
return control (hand) levers. These
devices ensure that the crane does not
move unless the movement is being
controlled by the operator. In the case
of a deadman control, the motion being
controlled, such as hoisting or
trolleying, ceases when the operator
releases the control. Forced neutral
return control levers automatically
return to the neutral position when they
are released.
Paragraph (d)(2)(ix) requires an
emergency stop switch at the operator’s
station. This safety device is needed to
enable the operator to immediately stop
all crane functions in the event of an
emergency.
Paragraph (d)(2)(x) requires trolley
end stops as safety devices because
trolley travel limiting devices, which are
required by § 1926.1435(e)(5)(i), will not
work without trolley end stops.
Paragraph (d)(3) requires that all of
the safety devices listed in
§ 1926.1435(d)(2) be in proper working
order for the crane to be operated.
Where a device stops working properly
during operations, the operator would
have to safely stop operations, and
operations are prohibited from resuming
until the device is once again in proper
working order. In the final rule, OSHA
is adding text and a cross-reference to
§ 1926.1417 to make it clear that the
equipment must be taken out of service,
and tagged as such, when a safety
device is not operational.
Three commenters stated that several
of the proposed safety devices—the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

hydraulic system pressure limiting
device required by § 1926.1435(d)(2)(vi),
the brakes required by
§ 1926.1435(d)(2)(vii), and the deadman
control required by
§ 1926.1435(d)(2)(viii), should be listed
as design features rather than safety
devices because they cannot be checked
every shift, as safety devices must under
§ 1926.1412(d)(1)(xiv). (ID–0180.1;
–0205.1; –0213.1.) OSHA declines to
adopt this suggestion because it agrees
with C–DAC’s determination that these
devices must be working properly for
the crane to operate safely, and they
therefore need to be listed as safety
devices under the standard. Moreover,
the commenters who said these devices
cannot be checked every shift did not
explain why they believed this was so,
and C–DAC’s inclusion of them as safety
devices shows that C–DAC determined
that checking these devices for proper
operation, as § 1926.1412(d)(1)(xiv)
requires, is feasible.133
Operational aids: Like § 1926.1416 for
other equipment, § 1926.1435(e) divides
operational aids for tower cranes into
Category I aids and Category II aids,
with the two categories differing in the
amount of time that temporary
alternative measures can be used until
the aids are repaired. For Category I aids
that period is seven days, and for
Category II it is 30 days. Also like
§ 1926.1416, if a required part is ordered
within seven days of the occurrence of
the deficiency and not received in time
to complete the repair in seven and
thirty days, respectively, the employer
would have seven days from receiving
the part to complete the repair. The
rationale for these time periods is
discussed under § 1926.1416. For
purposes of clarification, the Agency
has added a reference to
§ 1926.1435(e)(3) noting that the
requirements of § 1926.1417(j) are
applicable. See further discussion at
§ 1926.1417(j).
Section 1926.1435(e)(4) specifies that
operational aids must work properly
during operations and, if an aid stops
working, the operator is required to
safely stop operations until the aid is
working properly again or until the
temporary alternative measures
specified in this section are
implemented. Where a replacement part
for an operational aid is not available,
the substitution of a device that
133 The three commenters included one C–DAC
member and two organizations that nominated
members who served on C–DAC. As discussed
above, OSHA gives reduces weight to comments
offered by C–DAC members and organizations that
nominated C–DAC members when those comments
oppose the position those members took in C–DAC
deliberations.

PO 00000

Frm 00150

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

performs the same function would not
be considered a modification subject to
§ 1926.1434, i.e., it would not need to be
approved by the manufacturer or a
registered professional engineer. (See
the discussion above regarding
§ 1926.1416 for an explanation of the
Committee’s rationale for this approach
to operational aids.)
Three of the operational aids
discussed below are required on tower
cranes manufactured more than one
year after the effective date of the
standard. The remainder are required on
all cranes. It was C–DAC’s
understanding that the three aids not
required on existing cranes represent
technology only recently available to the
industry, while the aids that are
required on all cranes have routinely
been used in the industry for some time.
Paragraph (e)(5) requires the Category
I operational aids discussed below and
specifies the alternative measures that
would have to be followed if they are
not working properly. If these
operational aids are not working
properly, they must be repaired no later
than 7 days after the deficiency occurs.
However, if the employer documents
that it has ordered the necessary parts
within 7 days of the occurrence of the
deficiency, the repair must be
completed within 7 days of receipt of
the parts.
OSHA noted in the proposed rule
preamble that the term ‘‘days’’ could
mean either business days or calendar
days. For the reasons outlined in the
discussion of § 1926.1416 above, in the
final rule OSHA has changed ‘‘days’’ to
‘‘calendar days’’ to reflect the
Committee’s intent.
Paragraph (e)(5)(i) requires trolley
travel limiting devices. These devices
are required at both ends of the jib to
prevent the trolley from running into
the end stops. If the trolley were to run
into an end stop, injuries or fatalities
could result in a variety of ways. For
example, the sudden stopping of the
trolley at the outward end stop could
cause the load to swing significantly
past the crane’s maximum working
radius, causing a collapse. Another
example is where the load swing from
the sudden stopping of the trolley could
cause the load to fall and strike
employees.
If this operational aid were not
working properly, the employer would
have to use one of two temporary
alternative measures: (A) Mark the
trolley rope so it can be seen by the
operator at a point that will give the
operator sufficient time to stop the
trolley prior to the end stops, or (B) use
a spotter who is in direct
communication with the operator when

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
operations are conducted within 10 feet
of either end of the travel rail end stops;
the spotter must inform the operator of
the distance of the travel bogies from the
end stops or buffers.
Proposed § 1926.1435(e)(5)(i)(B) did
not explicitly require the spotter to be
in direct communication with the
operator. The Agency proposed adding
this language as necessary to make the
provision work effectively and as the
Committee intended and requested
public comment on whether to add
specific language to that effect. Five
commenters supported the addition of
an explicit requirement that the spotter
be in direct communication with the
operator; no commenters opposed the
change. (ID–0069.1; –0156.1; –0180.1;
–0205.1; –0213.1.) OSHA has amended
§ 1926.1435(e)(5)(i)(B) accordingly.
A similar change has been made to
§§ 1926.1435(e)(5)(ii), (e)(5)(iii),
(e)(5)(iv), and (e)(5)(vii) discussed
below, which also provide for the use of
a spotter as a temporary alternative
measure when certain operational aids
are not functioning.
In addition, one commenter suggested
there should be visual acuity
requirements for spotters. (ID–0069.1.)
For the reasons discussed earlier under
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii), OSHA is not
specifying such a requirement in this
rule.
Paragraph (e)(5)(ii) requires a boom
hoist limiting device. As defined in
§ 1926.1401, the word ‘‘boom’’ used in
reference to tower cranes refers to a
luffing boom. Therefore, under this
paragraph, a boom hoist limiting device
would only be required on cranes with
luffing booms. A boom hoist limiting
device automatically prevents the boom
hoist from pulling the boom past the
minimum allowable radius (maximum
boom angle), which can result in boom
failure (see the discussion above of
boom hoist limiting device with respect
to § 1926.1416(d)(1)). The temporary
alternative measures for this operational
aid are similar to the ones for the trolley
travel limiting device and the boom
hoist limiting device in
§ 1926.1416(d)(1): the employer has the
option of clearly marking the cable at a
point that would give the operator
sufficient time to stop the boom hoist
within the minimum and maximum
boom radius or use a spotter who is in
direct communication with the operator
to inform the operator when this point
is reached.
Paragraph (e)(5)(iii) requires an anti
two-blocking device. This is comparable
to the requirement for anti two-blocking
devices for other cranes required by
§ 1926.1416. This operational aid is
required on tower cranes to prevent

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

damage from contact between the load
block, overhaul ball, or similar
component, and the boom tip (or fixed
upper block or similar component).
Where the operational aid is not
working properly, the employer has the
option of clearly marking the cable at a
point that would give the operator
sufficient time to stop the hoist to
prevent two-blocking, or use a spotter
who is in direct communication with
the operator to inform the operator
when this point is reached. (See the
discussion of the need for this type of
device, and rationale for including it as
an operational aid, above with respect to
§ 1926.1416(d)(3)).
Paragraph (e)(5)(iv) requires a hoist
drum lower limiting device. This
paragraph requires that tower cranes
manufactured more than one year after
the effective date of this standard be
equipped with a device that prevents
the last two wraps of hoist cable from
being spooled off the drum. Such a
device prevents the entire rope from
being spooled off the drum, which can
cause the rope to separate (and the load
to fall) from the drum due to the shock
from the load suddenly stopping.
Paragraph (e)(5)(v) requires a load
moment limiting device. ‘‘Load moment
(or rated capacity) limiter’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401. This type of device detects
and prevents a potential overload
condition which could cause the load to
fall, the crane to collapse or other failure
of the crane.
Where the load moment limiting
device is not in proper working
condition, two types of measures are
required. The first type of measure is
designed to ensure that the operator
determines the radius. If the crane is
equipped with a radius indicating
device, it is required to be used. If the
crane is not so equipped, the radius is
required to be measured (such as with
a tape measure) to ensure that the load
is within the rated capacity of the crane.
The second type of measure is
designed to ensure that the operator
accurately determines the weight of the
load. The load weight is required to be
determined from a source recognized by
the industry (such as the load’s
manufacturer), or by a calculation
method recognized by the industry
(such as calculating a steel beam from
measured dimensions and a known per
foot weight). This information must be
provided to the operator prior to the lift.
The proposed rule had provided for
calculations based on a ‘‘reliable’’ source
or calculation method, or ‘‘by other
equally reliable means.’’ To avoid
potentially subjective interpretations of
‘‘reliable,’’ OSHA is instead requiring

PO 00000

Frm 00151

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48055

that the measurements be from a source
typically relied on in the industry.
Paragraph (e)(5)(vi) requires a hoist
line pull limiting device so that the load
applied to the hoist drum will not
exceed the hoist’s capacity. If the hoist
is equipped with a multiple speed hoist
transmission, the device would have to
limit the hoist’s lifting capacity in each
individual gear ratio. If the hoist line
pull were to exceed the hoist’s capacity,
the hoist could fail and unspool the
line, causing the load to drop suddenly.
The temporary alternative measure for
this operational aid is that the operator
ensure that the weight of the load does
not exceed the capacity of the hoist,
taking into account each individual gear
ratio if the crane is equipped with a
multiple speed hoist transmission. For
example, this could be done by the
operator checking the hoist capacity in
the equipment manual and verifying
that the load will not exceed that
capacity.
Paragraph (e)(5)(vii) requires a rail
travel limiting device in each direction
to prevent the travel bogies from
running into the end stops or buffers. As
noted above, rail stops that keep the
crane from overshooting the section of
rail within which it is supposed to
operate is one of the safety devices
required for tower cranes that travel on
rails. A rail travel limiting device is a
device that limits the crane’s travel to
keep a travel bogie from running into a
rail stop. C–DAC determined that rail
stops should not be the exclusive means
of ensuring that the crane stays within
its intended limits because the travel
bogie could jump the tracks if it were to
strike the rail stops at a high enough
speed. The temporary alternative to a
rail travel limiting device that is not in
proper working order is to use a spotter
who is in direct communication with
the operator when operations are
conducted within 10 feet of either end
of the travel rail end stops; the spotter
must inform the operator of the distance
of the travel bogies from the end stops
or buffers.
Proposed paragraph (e)(5)(viii)
required the boom hoist drum to be
equipped with a device that would
positively lock the boom hoist drum.
One example of such a device is a
ratchet and pawl mechanism. The
purpose of the device is to prevent the
boom hoist (and therefore the load as
well) from inadvertently lowering. The
temporary alternative measure that was
proposed was to require the device to be
set manually if an electric, hydraulic, or
automatic device is not working.
In the proposed rule, OSHA noted
that the temporary alternative proposed
in paragraph (e)(5)(viii) addressed the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48056

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

situation where the mechanism to
automatically set the locking device was
malfunctioning but did not address the
situation where the locking device itself
was not working properly. The Agency
requested public comment on whether
this provision should include a
temporary measure that would be
required if the positive locking device is
not working properly (regardless of
whether it is attempted to be set
automatically or manually) and, if so,
what temporary measure is available in
such a situation.
Several commenters responded that
boom hoist drum should have either a
positive locking device, an integrally
mounted holding device, a secondary
braking device, or an internal static
brake to prevent boom hoist movement
in the event of hydraulic or main brake
failure. (ID –0180.1; –0205.1; –0213.1.)
According to these commenters, any of
these devices would prevent the boom
hoist drum from spinning freely and
allowing the boom to free fall in the
event the main boom hoist brake
(required by § 1926.1435(d)(vii)(A))
fails.
OSHA concludes that any of the
devices mentioned by these
commenters, if working properly, would
comply with this provision. However,
the commenters did not address the
question posed in the proposal as to
whether there is a temporary measure
that should be required if the device is
not working properly. If the drum was,
for example, equipped with a ratchet
and pawl locking device, the record
does not show that it would be practical
to install another type of device in the
event the ratchet and pawl device is not
working properly.
Upon further reviewing proposed
paragraph (e)(5)(viii), OSHA determines
it was C–DAC’s intent to require a
positive locking mechanism that could
be set from a control at the operator’s
station and to require, as a temporary
alternative measure if the control is not
working, that the device be set
manually. Moreover, OSHA concludes
that such an alternative would provide
an adequate temporary alternative. Such
a device would be analogous to the
parking brake of a car, which can
normally be actuated from the driver’s
seat but, in the event that control fails,
the car can be kept from moving by
chocking the wheels. To express this
intent more clearly, OSHA is modifying
paragraph (e)(5)(viii) accordingly.
Paragraph (e)(6) requires the category
II operational aids discussed below and
specifies the alternative measures that
would have to be followed if they are
not working properly. If these
operational aids are not working

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

properly, they must be repaired no later
than 30 days after the deficiency occurs.
However, 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 must be completed
within 7 days of receipt of the parts. As
noted above, the word ‘‘days’’ in the
proposed rule has been changed to
‘‘calendar days’’ in the final rule.
Paragraph (e)(6)(i) requires a boom
angle or hook radius indicator as
specified in §§ 1926.1435(e)(6)(i)(A) and
(B). Under these provisions, luffing
boom tower cranes are required to have
a boom angle indicator readable from
the operator’s station. Hammerhead
tower cranes manufactured more than
one year after the effective date of this
standard are required to have a hook
radius indicator readable from the
operator’s station. These devices are
needed because the information they
provide is necessary for the operator to
determine the crane’s capacity under its
load chart. As with the similar devices
required under § 1926.1416, the
temporary alternative is to measure the
boom angle or hook radius with a
measuring device
(§ 1926.1435(e)(6)(i)(C)).
Section 1926.1435(e)(6)(ii) requires
tower cranes to have a trolley travel
deceleration device that would
automatically reduce the trolley speed
before the trolley reaches the end limit
in both directions. Section
1926.1435(e)(6)(iii) requires tower
cranes to have a boom hoist deceleration
device, which would automatically
reduce the boom speed before a luffing
boom reaches the minimum or
maximum radius limit. Section
1926.1435(e)(6)(iv) requires tower
cranes to have a load hoist deceleration
device, which would automatically
limit the load speed before the load
hoist reaches the upper limit. In the
proposed rule, the temporary alternative
measure for each of these operational
aids was for the operator to reduce the
speed when approaching the limits.
In specifying temporary alternative
measures generally for operational aids,
C–DAC sought to identify some measure
in each instance that would assist the
operator in performing the necessary
task (in this case, slowing the action of
a crane component before it reaches a
limiting point). However, in the case of
these deceleration devices, the
Committee was unable to identify or
develop that type of alternative
measure. The temporary alternatives
listed in the proposed rule instruct the
operator to do manually what the
operational aids are supposed to do

PO 00000

Frm 00152

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

automatically but do not assist the
operator in carrying out this function.
Because the temporary alternatives
specified in the proposed rule did not
meet the usual criteria for temporary
alternative measures, the Agency
requested public comment on whether
there are any alternative measures that
could be used to assist the operators if
these deceleration devices malfunction.
Four commenters stated there are no
temporary alternative measures for these
devices. (ID–0172.1; –0180.1; –0205.1;
–0213.1.) No commenters suggested that
there are available measures.
As neither C–DAC nor public
commenters have been able to identify
appropriate temporary alternative
measures, OSHA has considered
whether to continue to characterize
these devices as operational aids or to
treat them as safety devices and prohibit
operation of the equipment unless they
are working properly. OSHA has also
considered whether to retain them as
Category II operational aids, which must
be repaired within 30 days, or to change
them to Category I operational aids,
which must be repaired within 7 days.
OSHA has decided to retain them as
Category II operational aids but to
modify the temporary alternative from
that in the proposed rule to ensure that
the operator is able to operate the crane
safely even if a deceleration device is
not working.
As noted above, the proposed rule
specified as a ‘‘temporary alternative
measure’’ that the operator reduce speed
when approaching a limit (such as a
trolley’s end limit) if a deceleration
device is not working properly. In fact,
reducing the speed near a limit is a
work practice that crane operators
generally follow even if the deceleration
devices are working properly because
serious damage, such as the load falling,
can result if a deceleration device
should fail suddenly while the
component is moving too fast at the end
of its travel. The deceleration devices
serve as backup devices that slow down
the components in the event the
operator fails to do so properly, but
operator control is the primary means of
slowing the trolley, boom hoist, and
load hoist before they reach the end of
their travel.
As noted above, OSHA is retaining C–
DAC’s characterization of these
deceleration devices as Category II
operational aids. C–DAC determined
that the crane could be operated safely
if the deceleration devices were
malfunctioning as long as the operator
follows the normal practice of manually
slowing the trolley, boom hoist, and
load hoist when they are near the end
of their travel. No commenter or witness

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
suggested that a different
characterization was proper.
To address operations when the
deceleration device is malfunctioning,
OSHA is requiring the employer to
make sure that the operator is aware of
the malfunctioning deceleration device
and of the need to take extra care when
the component is near the end of its
travel, instead of requiring the
temporary alternative measures listed in
the proposed rule. OSHA is therefore
specifying, in the final rule, that as a
temporary alternative measure for each
deceleration device, the employer must
post a notice in the cab of the crane
notifying the operator that the device in
question is malfunctioning and
instructing the operator to reduce speed
when approaching a limit
corresponding to the malfunctioning
device. OSHA concludes that an
operator who knows that the
deceleration device is not working
properly will take the extra care needed
to ensure that the component is moving
at a safe speed. OSHA modified
paragraphs (e)(6)(ii)—(iv) in the final
rule accordingly.
Paragraph (e)(6)(v) requires tower
cranes to have a device that displays the
wind speed, mounted above the upper
rotating structure. On self erecting tower
cranes, which typically rotate at the
tower base and do not have an ‘‘upper
rotating superstructure,’’ it would have
to be mounted at or above the jib level
to be in a position to give a useful
reading. The temporary alternative
measure is for the wind speed to be
obtained from a properly functioning
device on another tower crane on the
same site or to be estimated by a
qualified person.
One commenter suggested that
paragraph (e)(6)(v) be modified to make
it clear that the qualified person
performing the estimate of the wind
speed must be located at the same
height as the operator of the crane. (ID–
0199.1.) OSHA does not determine such
a change is needed. First, the operator’s
station is not always at the level of the
jib; in some cranes the operator cab is
well below the jib, and in others the
operator may even be at ground level.
Second, a qualified person is expected
to use his or her judgment and expertise
to perform numerous functions
throughout this rule, and OSHA
concludes that the qualified person at
the site is best able to determine how
best to estimate the wind speed if called
upon to do so under this paragraph.
Section 1926.1435(e)(6)(vi) requires
tower cranes manufactured more than
one year after the effective date of this
standard to have a device that displays
the magnitude of the load on the hook.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

This could be either a separate device or
one that is part of the load moment
limiting device (discussed above) that
displays magnitude of the load on the
hook. By informing the operator of the
weight of the load, this device helps the
operator ensure that the crane is
operated within its rated capacity. The
temporary alternative is for the weight
of the load to be determined from a
source recognized by the industry (such
as the load’s manufacturer), by a
calculation method recognized by the
industry (such as calculating the weight
a steel beam from measured dimensions
and a known per foot weight), or by
other equally reliable means. This
information must be provided to the
operator prior to the lift. The proposed
rule had provided that the weight of the
load and calculations be based on a
‘‘reliable source.’’ To avoid the
potentially subjective interpretations of
‘‘reliable,’’ OSHA is instead requiring in
the final rule that these be from a source
typically relied on in the industry.
One commenter believed that most of
the operational aids listed in this
section are so vital to safe operation that
the crane should not be operated if they
are not functioning properly. (ID–
0172.1.) In effect, this commenter would
convert these devices from operational
aids to safety devices. This commenter
also believed the time period for other
operational aids to be repaired should
be shortened.
It was C–DAC’s considered judgment
that safety would not be compromised
if the employer follows the temporary
alternative measures specified for the
various operational aids and that the
time periods for getting malfunctioning
devices repaired was reasonable. This
commenter has offered no basis for
OSHA to override C–DAC’s judgment on
these issues.
Paragraph (f) Inspections
Proposed paragraph (f)(1) of this
section did not state that § 1926.1413
(Wire rope—inspection) applies to
tower cranes. OSHA notes that the wire
rope inspections required under
§ 1926.1413 must also be conducted for
tower cranes and determines it is useful
to reference all tower crane inspection
requirements in § 1926.1435(f).
Therefore, OSHA modified
§ 1926.1435(f)(1) of the final rule to
specify that 1926.1413 applies to tower
cranes.
Under paragraph (f)(1), the posterection, shift, monthly, and annual
inspections required under
§§ 1926.1412 and 1926.1413 must be
conducted for tower cranes.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3)
specified additional requirements for

PO 00000

Frm 00153

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48057

the post-erection and monthly
inspections for tower cranes beyond
those required under § 1926.1412.
OSHA received no comments objecting
to those requirements but did receive
comments suggesting that a pre-erection
inspection should be required and
recommending that additional items be
included in the monthly inspection.
OSHA will first address the pre-erection
inspection issue.
Two commenters and witnesses at the
hearing urged OSHA to add a
requirement for a pre-erection
inspection of the crane’s component
parts. (ID–0182.1; –0199.1.) One of the
commenters reasoned that a thorough
inspection of a tower crane’s component
parts is more difficult once the crane is
erected because the inspector would
have to be jacked or hoisted into place
and access to the parts would be more
restricted. (ID–0199.1.) A witness
testified that shift inspections are not
adequate to detect damage from
previous use, dismantling, handling, or
shipping, and such damage could
remain undetected until the next
comprehensive inspection unless a preerection inspection is conducted. (ID–
0341.)
Several witnesses who use tower
cranes also testified in favor of preerection inspections and said that they
routinely conduct such inspections.
(ID–0344.) For example, a representative
from a steel erection contractor and
crane vendor was asked by a public
participant if there is a benefit to require
a pre-erection inspection of all
component parts by a qualified person.
In response, he testified that a preerection inspection is done routinely
anyway because his company is
required to inspect the crane
components before erection to make
sure the components were not damaged
during shipping. (ID–0344.)
In addition, one commenter noted
that ASME B30.3 (2003), Construction
Tower Cranes, includes a provision on
pre-erection inspections, which suggests
that such inspections are routinely
conducted in the industry. (ID–0405.1.)
The ASME B30.3 provision reads:
3–1.1.2(g). Before crane components are
erected, they shall be visually inspected for
damage from shipping and handling. Dented,
bent, torn, gouged, or otherwise damaged
structural members shall not be erected until
repaired in accordance with the
manufacturer’s or a qualified person’s
instructions, or replaced.

Although the record contains
substantial support for pre-erection
inspections, it also reflects different
views regarding the appropriate scope of
such an inspection. One commenter
recommended an inspection of ‘‘the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48058

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

tower crane’s component parts.’’ (ID–
0182.1.) As noted above, the ASME
B30.3 standard similarly refers to ‘‘crane
components.’’ Another commenter listed
the turntable, jib, and boom as items to
be inspected. (ID–0199.1.) One witness
at the hearing stated that the preerection inspection should include the
tower, turntable, jib, counterjib,
machinery, masts, boom, and pendants.
(ID–0341.) However, the organization
represented by that witness submitted a
considerably longer list of items it
believed should be inspected. (ID–
0333.) Another witness favored preerection inspections of ‘‘major
components’’ but could not offer a more
specific definition than ‘‘components
that, if they failed, would have a
catastrophic result.’’ (ID–0344.)
In light of the record, OSHA
concludes that pre-erection inspections
should be required for tower cranes,
with such inspections focused on
discovering defects that would be
difficult to detect during the shift
inspections that will be conducted
regularly after the crane is put in
service. By focusing the inspection on
such components, the pre-erection
inspection will address the concern
expressed by commenters that some
defects will be difficult to detect during
shift inspections after the crane is
erected.
OSHA is requiring the pre-erection
inspection to be conducted by a
‘‘qualified person.’’ The final rule
requires that certain other inspections
be conducted by a qualified person,
including the post-erection inspection
required by § 1926.1412(c) and the
annual/comprehensive inspection
required by § 1926.1412(f). As discussed
below, under the pre-erection
inspection required by this final rule,
the individual conducting the
inspection must make decisions similar
to those that must be made during the
annual/comprehensive inspection, i.e.,
deciding whether a deficiency would be
an immediate safety hazard or whether
it requires scrutiny during the monthly
inspections. Since the pre-erection
inspection requires the same degree of
expertise as the annual/comprehensive
inspections, paragraph (f)(2) is similarly
requiring the pre-erection inspection to
be conducted by a qualified person.
Paragraph (f)(2)(i) requires the
qualified person to pay particular
attention to components that will be
difficult to inspect thoroughly during
shift inspections. As noted above,
inspection of such components was a
special concern of commenters who
believed that pre-erection inspections
should be required.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

The shift, monthly, and annual
inspections required under § 1926.1412
leave it up to the individual conducting
the inspection to determine if a
deficiency revealed by an inspection
constitutes a safety hazard that requires
either immediate correction or further
scrutiny. In particular,
§§ 1926.1412(f)(4)–(6) on annual
inspections require the qualified person
who conducts the inspection to
determine whether a deficiency is a
safety hazard that requires immediate
correction or whether it is not yet a
safety hazard but is of sufficient concern
to be monitored in the monthly
inspections.
OSHA determines that a similar
approach is appropriate here because a
deficiency revealed in a pre-erection
inspection may be sufficiently serious
that a component should not be used at
all, or it may not presently be a safety
hazard but may be a matter of concern
to the inspector so as to require periodic
scrutiny. Accordingly, paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) requires the qualified person
who conducts the inspection to
determine, before a component is
erected, whether the component would
create a safety hazard if used on the
crane. If so, the component cannot be
used unless it is repaired and upon reinspection is found not to constitute a
safety hazard.
Paragraph (f)(2)(iii) specifies that, if
the qualified person determines that,
though not presently a safety hazard, the
component needs to be monitored, the
employer must ensure that the
component is checked in the monthly
inspections. To ensure that any
individual who conducts a monthly
inspection knows that the component
must be monitored during that
inspection, paragraph (f)(2)(iii) requires
that any such determination be
documented and the documentation
made available to any person who
conducts a monthly inspection.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2) specified
two additional post-erection inspection
requirements in addition to those
required under § 1926.1412(c). It
required a load test using certified
weights, or scaled weights using a
certified scale with a current certificate
of calibration, after each erection. It also
specified that the load test be conducted
in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions, or if no instructions are
available, in accordance with written
load test procedures developed by a
registered professional engineer. No
adverse comment was received on these
provisions, and proposed paragraph
(f)(2) is promulgated as proposed but
renumbered as paragraph (f)(3).

PO 00000

Frm 00154

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Proposed paragraph (f)(3) required
that additional items be included in the
monthly inspections of tower cranes.
These include tower (mast) bolts and
other structural bolts (for loose or
dislodged condition) from the base of
the tower up or, if the crane is tied to
or braced by the structure, those above
the upper-most brace support
(§ 1926.1435(f)(3)(i)). The monthly
inspection must also include the uppermost tie-in, braces, floor supports, and
floor wedges where the tower crane is
supported by the structure
(§ 1926.1435(f)(3)(i)), for loose or
dislodged components.
One commenter’s suggestion
addressed the suitability of the bolts
used to erect the tower and to support
the turntable. (ID–0172.1.) Although
OSHA agrees with the commenter that
these bolts serve an important safety
function, the commenter did not
provide any supporting information that
would enable OSHA to evaluate
whether the detailed requirements
proposed by the commenter are needed
to improve tower crane safety. However,
OSHA does determine that the bolts
should be included as components to be
inspected and is adding paragraph (f)(5)
requiring them to be inspected for
proper condition and torque as part of
the annual inspection.134
A commenter suggested that the
upper rotation structure should undergo
a special, thorough inspection before
climbing. (ID–0137.1.) This commenter
did not state why it believed such an
inspection was needed. Accordingly,
OSHA has no basis in the record to
conclude that the additional inspection
requested by this commenter would
improve the safety of the climbing
operation.
Proposal for Tower Crane Tracking
System
A witness at the hearing suggested
that OSHA adopt a tracking system
whereby any major part of a tower crane
that suffered a structural failure would
be able to be identified even if that part
was moved to another jurisdiction. (ID–
0342.) The witness explained that the
proposed system would require the
serial number of parts that failed to be
reported to the manufacturer so that
localities such as New York City could
contact the manufacturer to determine
whether a particular crane was safe to
operate within that jurisdiction.135
134 Accordingly, OSHA is promulgating proposed
paragraph (f)(3) but renumbering it as paragraph
(f)(4).
135 This commenter also called for prototype
testing of tower cranes. (ID–0156.1.) As explained
in § 1926.1433, OSHA has added such a
requirement to § 1926.1433(c).

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
OSHA is not promulgating
requirements to implement the system
proposed by this witness. Such a
scheme is complex, and appears to
require the development of new tracking
systems and required reporting to
manufacturers that might be beyond the
scope of OSHA’s authority. It also goes
far beyond any provisions of the
proposed standard, and its adoption
would require OSHA to reopen the
rulemaking record to allow other
interested persons to comment on it.
OSHA does not conclude that such a
reopening is justified on the basis of the
witness’s testimony. The Agency notes,
however, that it is not preempting a
locality’s authority to establish such a
scheme within its jurisdiction. (See
discussion of preemption under
federalism in section V.D of this
preamble.)
Section 1926.1436

Derricks

This section contains requirements for
derricks that supplement the other
requirements of this standard. Subpart
N, at former § 1926.550(e), required
derricks to comply with applicable
provisions for design, construction,
installation, inspection, testing,
maintenance, and operation in ANSI
B30.6–1969, safety code for ‘‘Derricks,’’
as well as the general provisions of
subpart N that applied to all equipment.
C–DAC’s experience, and its review of
injury and fatality statistics, did not
indicate a need to deviate significantly
from the requirements of subpart N. For
the most part, the most recent version of
the ANSI standard, ASME B30.6–2003,
does not differ substantively from the
1969 version, so the requirements of this
new section differ substantively in only
limited respects from previous subpart
N. Where substantive differences exist,
they are discussed in the context of that
requirement.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (a)
Section 1926.1436 contains
supplemental requirements for derricks,
whether temporarily or permanently
mounted; all sections of this subpart
apply to derricks unless specified
otherwise. Section 1926.1436(a) defines
a derrick as powered equipment
consisting of a mast or equivalent
member that is held at or near the end
by guys or braces, with or without a
boom, and its hoisting mechanism. The
mast/equivalent member and/or the
load is moved by the hoisting
mechanism (typically base-mounted)
and operating ropes. Derricks include:
A-frame, basket, breast, Chicago boom,
gin pole (except gin poles used for
erection of communication towers), guy,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

shearleg, stiffleg, and variations of such
equipment.
Paragraph (a) excludes the gin poles
when used for the erection of
communication towers. This mirrors the
exclusion of such equipment from the
scope of the standard under
§ 1926.1400(c)(12). See discussion of
this exclusion in § 1926.1400(c)(12). No
comments were received; therefore this
provision is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (b) Operation—Procedures
Paragraph (b)(1) of this section states
that § 1926.1417 (Operation) of this
standard applies to derricks except for
§ 1926.1417(c) (Accessibility of
procedures). C–DAC concluded and
OSHA agreed that it was appropriate to
keep the operation requirements for
derricks consistent with those of cranes
as much as possible because they both
present many of the same hazards and
operational issues. However,
§ 1926.1417(c) requires the operating
procedures, including load charts, to be
located in ‘‘the cab’’ of the equipment
and derricks often do not have a cab.
Therefore, it was not appropriate to
require that § 1926.1417(c) apply to
derricks. The discussion of
§ 1926.1436(b)(3) sets forth the
requirements for the accessibility of the
load chart for derricks.
Paragraph (b)(2) of this section, Load
chart contents, lists the information that
must be included on load charts.
Subpart N incorporated similar load
chart requirements via sec. 6–1.1.2 in
ANSI B30.6–1969, which remains the
same in the 2003 version of the
consensus standard.
Paragraph (b)(2)(i) requires the load
chart contain the rated capacity at
corresponding ranges of boom angle or
operating radii. This information is
necessary to prevent overloading of the
derrick.
Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requires the load
chart to list the specific lengths of
components to which the rated
capacities apply. This information is
necessary because the derrick’s load
capacity varies with different
component lengths.
Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) requires the load
chart to list required parts for hoist
reeving. By listing the reeving parts
considered during the tabulation of
available load charts, the derrick
operator can determine if available load
charts are applicable to the
configuration of the derrick at the work
site. As with paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and
(ii), meeting the requirement of
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) will help prevent
accidents that could occur as a result of
errors in determining the equipment’s
rated capacity.

PO 00000

Frm 00155

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48059

Paragraph (b)(2)(iv) requires the size
and construction of rope to be included
on the load chart or in the operating
manual. This requirement prevents
hoisting accidents that might occur if a
rope fails because it was the wrong size
or construction for the load being lifted.
Paragraph (b)(3) of this section, Load
chart location, sets forth the
requirement for the location of load
charts. Section 1926.1436(b)(3)(i),
Permanent installations, requires
permanently installed derricks with
fixed lengths of boom, guy, and mast, to
have a load chart posted where it is
visible to personnel responsible for the
operation of the equipment. Section
1926.1436(b)(3)(ii), Non-permanent
installations, requires derricks that are
not permanently installed to have the
load chart readily available at the job
site to personnel responsible for the
operation of the equipment. These
requirements ensure the critical
information contained on these charts is
readily available on the worksite
enabling the calculation of the
parameters for a safe lift. No comments
were received for § 1926.1436(b); it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c)—Construction
Paragraph (c) of this section contains
supplemental engineering and
fabrication requirements that address
hazards specific to derricks. Paragraph
(c)(1), General requirements, lists
general construction requirements that
apply to the use of all types of derricks.
These requirements are similar to sec.
6–1.2.1 of ANSI B30.6–1969 and ASME
B30.6–2003 and would help the
employer prevent accidents caused by
inadequate structural design and
fabrication.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) states that derricks
must be constructed to meet all stresses
imposed on members and components
when installed and operated in
accordance with the manufacturer’s/
builder’s procedures and within its
rated capacity. ‘‘Builder’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘the builder/constructor
of equipment.’’ This definition
distinguishes a ‘‘builder’’ of equipment
(a derrick that is erected at the worksite
by an employer) from a manufacturer,
who sells products that may be used at
any worksite. Section 1926.1436(c)(1)(i)
uses the word ‘‘builder’’ in addition to
‘‘manufacturer’’ because it will often be
the builder’s procedures, rather than the
manufacturer’s, that must be followed to
ensure that derricks are constructed
properly. In the proposed rule, the
definition of builder included the word
employer. Upon review of the definition
proposed, OSHA determines that the
word employer did not enhance the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48060

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

definition and could possibly lead to
confusion. Therefore, OSHA has
modified the definition in the final rule.
Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) specifies that the
welding of load sustaining members
must conform to recommended
practices in ANSI/AWS D14.3–94 or
AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2002. This is similar
to sec. 6–1.2.1(b) of ASME B30.6–2003
which relies on newer welding
standards than ANSI B30.6–1969.
Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) will prevent
structural failures when the derrick is
used within its rated capacity.
One commenter wanted the
referenced consensus standards to be
included as an appendix for ease of
compliance. (ID–0214.1.) Including all
the consensus standards relevant to this
final rule would make the regulatory
text or an appendix cumbersome.
Moreover, OSHA determines that
employers using this equipment are
likely to have ready access to the
pertinent standards referenced in
paragraph (c)(1)(ii). For these reasons,
OSHA is not adding the full text of
referenced consensus standards to the
regulatory text or an appendix. This
paragraph is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c)(2) of this section, Guy
derricks, lists the additional
requirements applicable to the
construction of guy derricks. (See the
preamble to the proposed rule for a
short description of guy derricks, 73 FR
59853, Oct. 9, 2008.)
Paragraph (c)(2)(i) specifies the
minimum number of guys to be six,
with equal spacing, except where a
qualified person or derrick
manufacturer approves variations from
these requirements and revises the rated
capacity to compensate for such
variations. This requirement is
comparable to sec. 6–1.2.2 of ANSI
B30.6–1969 and ASME B30.6–2003.
This paragraph is adopted as proposed.
Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) states that guy
derricks must not be used unless the
employer has the following guy
information from a manufacturer or
from a qualified person when not
available from the manufacturer: (A)
The number of guys; (B) the spacing
around the mast; and (C) the size, grade,
and construction of rope to be used for
each guy. Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) requires
that for guy derricks manufactured after
December 18, 1970, in addition to the
information required by
§ 1926.1436(c)(2)(ii), the employer must
have the following guy information from
a manufacturer or from a qualified
person when not available from the
manufacturer: (A) The amount of initial
sag or tension; and (B) the amount of
tension in guy line rope at anchor.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

These provisions are substantially
different from requirements in the
relevant ANSI/ASME standards. The
corresponding ANSI/ASME provisions
are sec. 6–1.2.2 of ANSI B30.6–1969 and
ASME B30.6–2003. The ANSI/ASME
standards require the derrick
manufacturer to furnish complete
information recommending the guy
specifications listed in
§§ 1926.1436(c)(2)(ii) and (c)(2)(iii).136
The OSHA standard, by contrast,
imposes an obligation on derrick users
to possess the necessary information. No
comments were received on this
deviation from the consensus standard
and OSHA has deferred to C–DAC’s
judgment that it is better to place this
responsibility on the derrick user rather
than the manufacturer.
Paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (c)(2)(iii)
have been revised from the proposal. As
proposed, these paragraphs simply
required the employer to have the listed
pieces of information before using the
guy derrick. OSHA requested comments
on whether the standard should require
guy specifications to be developed by a
qualified person if they are not available
from the manufacturer. Several
comments were received supporting the
proposed revision. (ID–0180.1; –0205.1;
–0213.1.) No comments were received
that opposed this proposed revision. In
the final rule the regulatory text in both
paragraphs has been updated to clarify
that the required information must come
from the manufacturer or from a
qualified person when that information
is not available from a manufacturer.
Paragraph (c)(2)(iv) states that the
mast base must permit the mast to rotate
freely with allowance for slight tilting of
the mast caused by guy slack. No
comments were received for this
provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (c)(2)(v) requires that the
mast cap must: (A) permit the mast to
rotate freely; (B) withstand tilting and
cramping caused by the guy loads; (C)
be secured to the mast to prevent
disengagement during erection; and (D)
be provided with means for attaching
guy ropes. Paragraphs (c)(2)(iv) and (v)
track similar provisions in secs. 6–
1.2.2(c) and (d) of ANSI B30.6–1969 and
ASME B30.6–2003. No comments were
received on (c)(2)(v); it is promulgated
as proposed
Additional installation requirements
for guy derricks that are specific to the
anchoring of its guys are addressed in
§ 1926.1436(d).
136 The 1969 version of the ANSI standard does
not include the pieces of information described in
§ 1926.1436(c)(2)(iii), but later versions of the B30.6
standard, including the 2003 version, list those
items.

PO 00000

Frm 00156

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

In the proposed rule, §§ 1926.1436(c)
and 1926.1436(d) both contained
requirements related to guy derricks.
OSHA asked for public comment as to
whether having specifications for guy
derricks in both paragraphs (c) and (d)
of this section could lead to confusion
or impede compliance with its
provisions. Several commenters
believed that the two sets of proposed
requirements for guy derricks should be
combined. (ID–0180.1; –0205.1;
–0213.1.) However, the commenters did
not offer an explanation for how this
would prevent confusion or enhance
compliance. Upon consideration, OSHA
disagrees with the commenters and
therefore, requirements for guy derricks
will be found in both paragraphs (c) and
(d) of this section, just as in the
proposed rule.
Paragraph (c)(3), Stiffleg derricks,
provides additional requirements
specific to stiffleg derricks to help
ensure their safe use. These
requirements which have not been
changed from the proposal are similar to
those in secs. 6–1.2.2(c) and (d) of ANSI
B30.6–1969 and ASME B30.6–2003.
Paragraph (c)(3)(i) requires the mast to
be supported in the vertical position by
at least two stifflegs; one end of each
must be connected to the top of the mast
and the other end securely anchored.
Paragraph (c)(3)(ii) specifies that
stifflegs must be capable of
withstanding the loads imposed at any
point of operation within the rated load
chart range.
Paragraph (c)(3)(iii) specifies that the
mast base must: (A) permit the mast to
rotate freely (when necessary); and (B)
permit deflection of the mast without
binding.
Paragraph (c)(3)(iv) states that the
mast must be prevented from lifting out
of its socket when the mast is in tension.
Paragraph (c)(3)(v) requires the stiffleg
connecting member at the top of the
mast to: (A) permit the mast to rotate
freely (when necessary); (B) withstand
the loads imposed by the action of the
stifflegs; and (C) be secured so as to
oppose separating forces.
OSHA requested public comment on
whether the provisions in paragraphs
(c)(3) and (d)(3), which both contained
requirements for stiffleg derricks,
needed to be changed or modified to
avoid potential confusion. As discussed
above, with respect to the requirements
for guy derricks in both paragraphs (c)
and (d), OSHA has decided to adhere to
the proposal; requirements for stiffleg
derricks will be found in both
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
Paragraph (c)(4) of this section, Gin
pole derricks, contains additional
requirements specific to gin pole

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
derricks to help ensure their safe use.
Similar requirements are found in sec.
6–1.2.4 of ASME B30.6–2003. No
comments were received for paragraph
(c)(4); it is promulgated as proposed.
Under paragraph (c)(4)(i), guy lines
must be sized and spaced so as to make
the gin pole stable in both boomed and
vertical positions. If the size and/or
spacing of guy lines does not result in
the gin pole being stable in both boomed
and vertical positions, the employer
must ensure that the derrick is not used
in an unstable position.
Paragraph (c)(4)(ii) requires that the
base of the gin pole permit movement of
the pole (when necessary).
Under paragraph (c)(4)(iii), the gin
pole must be anchored at the base
against horizontal forces (when such
forces are present).
Paragraph (c)(5) of this section,
Chicago boom derricks, states that the
fittings for stepping the boom and for
attaching the topping lift must be
arranged to: (i) Permit the derrick to
swing at all permitted operating radii
and mounting heights between fittings;
(ii) accommodate attachment to the
upright member of the host structure;
(iii) withstand the forces applied when
configured and operated in accordance
with the manufacturer’s/builder’s
procedures and within its rated
capacity; and (iv) prevent the boom or
topping lift from lifting out under
tensile forces. Similar requirements,
which will help ensure that such
derricks are used safely, are found in
sec. 6–1.2.5 of ASME B30.6–2003. No
comments were received for paragraph
(c)(5); it is promulgated as proposed.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (d)

Anchoring and Guying

Paragraph (d) of this section lists
requirements for anchoring and guying
derricks to the surfaces that support
them.
Paragraph (d)(1) requires the use of
load anchoring data developed by the
manufacturer or a qualified person.
Subpart N, via sec. 6–1.4.3 of ANSI
B30.6–1969, required load anchoring
data for non-permanent installations,
which include most derricks used for
construction work, to be determined by
the user. The 2003 version of ASME
B30.6 requires the data to be determined
by a qualified person. C–DAC
concluded that, to better ensure safety,
a qualified person (as defined in
§ 1926.1401) is needed to develop such
data. The final rule affords the employer
the additional flexibility of relying on
data provided by the derrick
manufacturer rather than relying
exclusively on a qualified person to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

develop such data.137 No comments
were received for this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(2) of this section, Guy
derricks, lists additional requirements,
for anchoring and guying, that are
specific to the use of guy derricks. These
provisions are similar to sec. 6–1.4.1 of
ANSI B30.6–1969 and ASME B30.6–
2003. Under paragraph (d)(2)(i) the mast
based must be anchored. Paragraph
(d)(2)(ii) provides that the guys must be
secured to the ground or another firm
anchorage. And under paragraph
(d)(2)(iii) the anchorage and guying
must be designed to withstand
maximum horizontal and vertical forces
encountered when operating within
rated capacity with the particular guy
slope and spacing specified for the
application. No comments were
received for paragraph (d)(2); it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(3) of this section,
Stiffleg derricks, lists anchoring and
guying requirements that are specific to
the use of stiffleg derricks. This
paragraph is similar to sec. 6–1.4.2 in
ANSI B30.6–1969 and ASME B30.6–
2003.
Under paragraph (d)(3)(i) the mast
base and stifflegs must be anchored.
Additionally, (d)(3)(ii) provides that the
mast base and stifflegs must be designed
to withstand maximum horizontal and
vertical forces encountered when
operating within rated capacity with the
particular stiffleg spacing and slope
specified for the application. Paragraph
(d)(3) had no comments and is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (e) Swingers and Hoists
Paragraph (e) of this section lists
requirements for swinger mechanisms
and hoists that are used as part of a
derrick. Paragraph (e)(1) requires that
the boom, swinger mechanisms, and
hoists be suitable for the derrick work
intended and be anchored to prevent
displacement from the imposed loads.
This provision is similar to sec. 6–1.5.1
of ANSI B30.6–1969 and sec. 6–1.5 of
ASME B30.6–2003. No comments were
received for paragraph (e)(1); it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (e)(2) of this section,
Hoists, specifies the minimum
requirements for hoists used for
derricks. This paragraph of the proposed
rule was originally titled and related to
base-mounted drum hoists. However, a
tank building institute whose members
use derricks routinely commented that
137 C–DAC believed that derrick users should be
able to rely on data developed by the manufacturer
or a qualified person for any type of installation and
therefore did not distinguish between fixed and
temporary installations for this purpose.

PO 00000

Frm 00157

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48061

confusion will result in their industry
from the use of the term ‘‘Base-Mounted
Drum Hoists,’’ in this context. (ID–
0130.1.) Hoists used are not limited to
the base-mounted type. The commenter
requested that the regulatory text of
§ 1926.1436(e)(2) be revised to replace
the words ‘‘base mounted drum hoists’’
with the word ‘‘hoist’’ to eliminate
ambiguity.
OSHA determines that it is
appropriate to revise § 1926.1436(e)(2)
to replace the reference to ‘‘basemounted drum hoist’’ with the term
‘‘hoist.’’ This revision recognizes that
there may be designs of hoists, other
than base-mounted drum, that are used
with derricks.
Additionally, the commenter
suggested that § 1926.553 be revised in
conjunction with this final rule. (ID–
0130.1.) See discussion in the preamble
explanation of the amendment to
subpart M.
Paragraphs (e)(2)(i)(A) through (D)
require base-mounted drum hoists to
meet requirements in specified sections
of ASME B30.7–2001. Paragraph (e)(2)(i)
does not apply to other types of hoists.
No comments were received on these
provisions and the provisions are
adopted as proposed.
Paragraph (e)(2)(ii), Load tests for new
hoists, outlines the requirements for
load testing new hoists used with a
derrick. The employer must ensure that
new hoists are load tested to a minimum
of 110% of rated capacity, but not more
than 125% of rated capacity, unless
otherwise recommended by the
manufacturer. This requirement is met
where the manufacturer has conducted
this testing. ASME B30.7–2001, in
section 7–2.2.2(a), requires similar
testing but requires the test to be
conducted by the manufacturer. OSHA
recognizes that the manufacturer will
usually be the party who conducts the
test and allows the manufacturer to do
so, but paragraph (e)(2)(ii) permits the
test to be conducted by any party as
long as it is performed correctly. This
paragraph received no comments and it
is adopted as proposed.
Paragraph (e)(2)(iii), Repaired or
modified hoists, outlines the
requirements for use of a hoist that has
been repaired or modified. If a hoist has
had repairs, modifications or additions
that affect its capacity or safe operation
it must be evaluated by a qualified
person to determine if a load test is
necessary If a load test is necessary, load
testing must be conducted in
accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)
and (iv). This requirement parallels
section 7–2.2.2(b)(1) of ASME B30.7–
2001. OSHA received no comments on

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48062

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

this provision and it is adopted as
proposed.
Paragraph (e)(2)(iv), Load test
procedure, outlines how tests required
by paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) or (iii) must be
conducted. Under paragraph
(e)(2)(iv)(A) the test load must be
hoisted a vertical distance to assure the
load is supported by the hoist and held
by the hoist brakes. Paragraph
(e)(2)(iv)(B) requires the test load to be
lowered, stopped and held with the
brake(s). These provisions are
comparable to section 7–2.2.2(b)(2) of
ASME B30.7–2001.
Paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(C) states that the
hoist must not be used unless a
competent person determines that the
test has been passed. ASME B30.7–2001
does not specify who must determine if
a hoist passes its load test. C–DAC
concluded, however, that to ensure the
load test is properly assessed, this
determination needs to be made by a
competent person. The requirement that
a competent person determine whether
the hoist has passed a load test is
consistent with the requirement,
discussed below under § 1926.1436(g),
that a competent person determine
whether a derrick has passed a load test.
A commenter recommended that
§ 1926.1436(e)(2)(iv) be revised to add a
paragraph requiring derrick users to
simulate test/trial lifts in similar
working cycle durations for actual field
work cycles. (ID–0120.1.) The
commenter provided no explanation for
this suggestion nor any information on
how the practice would improve safety
beyond the requirements proposed.
OSHA defers to C–DAC’s judgment that
the load test procedures specified in
paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of this section will
provide the necessary level of safety to
employees.
For these reasons, OSHA did not
modify the proposed text of
§ 1926.1436(e)(2)(iv) to add a paragraph
(D). No other comments were received
on paragraph (e)(2)(iv); it is promulgated
as proposed.
Paragraph (f) Operational Aids
Paragraph (f) of this section specifies
the types of operational aids that must
be used on derricks during construction
activities.
Paragraph (f)(1) is adopted as
proposed and states that § 1926.1416
(Operational aids) applies, except for
§§ 1926.1416(d)(1), (e)(1) and (e)(4).
Under § 1926.1436(f)(1), two operational
aids—an anti two-block device and a
hoist drum rotation indicator (if the
drum is not visible from the operator’s
station)—are required on a derrick
manufactured more than one year after
the effective date of this subpart. See

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

discussion of § 1926.1416 for
information about the safety functions
served by these operational aids.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2) of this
section, Boom angle aid, provided that
the employer had to ensure that either:
(i) the boom hoist cable is marked with
caution and stop marks, corresponding
to maximum and minimum allowable
boom angles, that are within view of the
operator or a spotter who is in direct
communication with the operator, or (ii)
an electronic or other device that signals
the operator in time to prevent the boom
from moving past its maximum and
minimum angles, or automatically
prevents such movement, is used.
C–DAC intended these precautions to
be taken in lieu of requiring boom angle
indicators and that they are unnecessary
if the derrick has such a device.
Therefore, OSHA requested public
comment on whether proposed
§ 1926.1436(f)(2) should be modified by
adding the words, ‘‘If the derrick is not
equipped with a functioning boom angle
indicator.’’
Several commenters supported
OSHA’s recommended revision of
§ 1926.1436(f)(2) but noted that the
language should be more explicit in
stating that a boom angle indicator is
not required. (ID–0180.1; –0213.1;
–0205.1.) They also asked OSHA to
clarify that the options provided in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section are not required when boom
angle indicators are used. To address
these concerns, OSHA has modified the
language of § 1926.1436(f)(2) to clarify
that while a boom angle indicator is not
required, if the derrick has a boom angle
indicator, the employer need not use the
options provided in paragraphs (e)(2)(i)
and (ii) unless the boom angle indicator
is not functioning.
Paragraph (f)(3) of this section, Load
weight/capacity devices, requires that
derricks manufactured more than
November 8, 2011 with a maximum
rated capacity over 6,000 pounds have
at least one of the following: load
weighing device, load moment
indicator, rated capacity indicator, or
rated capacity limiter. This paragraph
adopts, for derricks, a requirement
comparable to that required for cranes
under § 1926.1416(e)(4). Because this
paragraph imposes a requirement not
previously applied to derricks by an
industry standard, OSHA concludes, as
did C–DAC, that it is appropriate to
allow one year after this standard
becomes effective for new derricks to be
equipped with such devices.
Paragraph (f)(3) sets temporary
alternative measures that must be used
when the load weight/capacity device is
not working properly. In that case the

PO 00000

Frm 00158

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

weight of the load must be determined
from a source recognized by the
industry (e.g., the load’s manufacturer),
or by a calculation method recognized
by the industry (e.g., calculating a steel
beam from measured dimensions and a
known per foot weight). This
information must be provided to the
operator before the lift. These temporary
alternatives are the same as those
required by § 1926.1416(e)(5) for
equipment generally and under
§ 1926.1435(e)(6)(vi) for tower cranes
specifically. For purposes of
clarification, the Agency has added a
reference to § 1926.1436(f)(3)(i) noting
that the requirements of § 1926.1417(j)
are applicable. (See further discussion at
§ 1926.1417(j).)
Under §§ 1926.1416(e) and
1926.1435(e)(6), a load weight/capacity
device is a category II operational aid
and, as such, it must be repaired within
30 days if it is not working properly.
OSHA requested comment on
whether to apply that same 30-day
requirement, along with the exception
for a situation in which a part is ordered
within 7 days of the malfunction but is
not received in time to complete the
repair within 30 days.
Several commenters supported a
revision of paragraph (f)(3) of this
section to include the recommended
time limits. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1; –0343.)
OSHA concludes it is reasonable to
make this revision for consistency with
alternatives that are available to crane
users during the repair of similar
operational aids. Section 1926.1436(f)(3)
has been revised to reflect this
modification.
Paragraph (g) Post-Assembly Approval
and Testing—New or Reinstalled
Derricks
Paragraph (g) of this section lists the
minimum testing and approval
requirements that an employer must
meet to assure that its derrick will be
structurally and functionally able to
perform within the manufacturer’s
specifications and recommendations. C–
DAC determined that by meeting these
minimum requirements, the employer
would provide its workers with a safe
derrick that will not endanger the
workers during hoisting operations.
Paragraph (g)(1), Anchorages, lists
minimum requirements for an anchor
used to support a derrick. Section
1926.1436(g)(1)(i) requires that the
anchorages, including the structure to
which the derrick is attached (if
applicable), be approved by a qualified
person.
A commenter recommended that
§ 1926.1436(g)(1)(i) be revised to require
design inspection by a registered

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
professional engineer instead of a
qualified person as proposed. (ID–
0120.1.) However, the commenter
submitted no explanation for the
recommendation nor any information as
to why the use of a registered
professional engineer would result in a
higher level of safety than the use of a
qualified person. Since no information
supporting this position was presented,
OSHA finds no reason to modify the
provision based on this comment; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (g)(1)(ii) requires the
qualified person to determine whether
any special testing of the anchorage is
needed when rock or hairpin
anchorages are used. If so, it must be
tested accordingly.
The provisions of paragraph (g)(1) are
similar to what was required by subpart
N through its incorporation of section
6–2.2.1b in ANSI B30.6–1969 and also
what is currently in section 6–2.2.1(b) in
its newest revision, ASME B30.6–
2003.138 These requirements will help
the employer ensure that the derrick
does not collapse due to insufficient
anchoring and injure or kill workers
who must use or be in the vicinity of the
derrick. Paragraph (g)(1) is adopted
without change from the proposal.
OSHA received no comments on
paragraph (g)(2), Functional test, and it
is adopted as proposed. The provision
requires that, prior to initial use, new or
reinstalled derricks must be tested by a
competent person with no hook load to
verify proper operation as outlined in
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (v). The test
must 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); and (v)
actuating locking, limiting and
indicating devices (if provided). These
provisions are similar to section 6–2.2.1
of ASME B30.6–2003.
OSHA received no comments on
paragraph (g)(3), Load test, and it is
adopted as proposed. The provision
requires that, prior to initial use, new or
reinstalled derricks must be load tested
by a competent person. Subpart N
required operational tests prior to initial
use of all new and altered derricks
through the incorporation of section 6–
2.2.1 of ANSI B30.6–1969, but a load
test was not explicitly required. C–DAC
138 The OSHA standard differs from ASME
B30.6–2003 in the following respect: The ASME
section states that rock or hairpin anchorages ‘‘may
require’’ special testing. C–DAC believed that it is
necessary to explicitly require that a qualified
person determine whether such testing is needed.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

recommended that OSHA adopt the
revised guidance provided in section 6–
2.2.2 of ASME B30.6–2003, which
includes a requirement to load test all
new and reinstalled derricks prior to
initial use and specifies the elements
such a test should include. OSHA
determines, as did C–DAC, that
compliance with the load test
requirements listed in paragraph (g)(3)
will help the employer identify defects
in the derrick prior to its actual use. The
requirements for the load test are
outlined in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through
(g)(3)(iii).
Under paragraph (g)(3)(i) test loads
must 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 must the test load be less than
the maximum anticipated load. Under
paragraph (g)(3)(ii) the test must 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; and (D) lowering, stopping
and holding the load with the brake(s).
Paragraph (g)(3)(iii) provides that the
derrick must not be used unless the
competent person determines that the
test has been passed.
Paragraph (g)(4), Documentation,
requires that tests conducted under this
paragraph must be documented. The
document must contain the date, test
results, and the name of the tester. The
document must be retained until the
derrick is re-tested or dismantled,
whichever occurs first. Because a load
test meeting the criteria listed in the
standard is so important to the safe use
of the derrick, C–DAC determined that
documentation of the test was needed to
show that the test had been conducted
properly. Section 6–2.2.2(a)(1) of ASME
B30.6–2003 similarly requires that a
written report of the load test be
prepared and maintained. OSHA
received no comments on this
paragraph. OSHA is adding language to
clarify that all inspection
documentation must be available to
inspectors in accordance with
§ 1926.1412(k).
Paragraph (h) Load Testing Repaired
or Modified Derricks
Paragraph (h) of this section requires
that derricks that have had repairs,
modifications, or additions affecting the
derrick’s capacity or safe operation be
evaluated by a qualified person to

PO 00000

Frm 00159

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48063

determine if a load test is necessary. If
so, load testing must be conducted and
documented in accordance with
§ 1926.1436(g). Subpart N, through
incorporation of section 6–2.3.3 of ANSI
B30.6–1969, required all replaced and
repaired parts to have at least the
original safety factor. However, there
was no explicit requirement to load test
the derricks after parts were repaired or
replaced. ASME B30.6–2003 does
address load testing of repaired, altered
or modified derricks in section 6–
2.2.2(b), specifying that the need for
such a test be determined by a qualified
person. Paragraph (h) is consistent with
the ASME requirement. Such testing
will help the employer identify safety
defects in a repaired or modified derrick
prior to its actual use. No comments
were received for (h); it is promulgated
as proposed.
Paragraph

(i) [Reserved.]

Paragraph (j)

Power Failure Procedures

Paragraph (j) of this section requires
the derrick operator to safely stop
operation if the power fails during
operations and lists additional steps that
must be taken. Section 1926.1436(j)(1)
requires setting all brakes or locking
devices. Section 1926.1436(j)(2) requires
moving all clutch and other power
controls to the off position. These steps
will prevent inadvertent movement of
the load during the power outage or
upon restoration of power. These
precautions are found in section 6–
3.2.3(h) of ANSI B30.6–1969 and are
reiterated in ASME B30.6–2003. No
comments were received for (j); it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (k)

Use of Winch Heads

Paragraph (k) of this section specifies
minimum requirements for the safe use
of a winch during hoisting operations.
Paragraph (k)(1) requires that ropes not
be handled on a winch head without the
knowledge of the operator. Section
1926.1436(k)(2) requires the operator to
be within reach of the power unit
control while a winch head is being
used. These requirements are in sec. 6–
3.3.5 of ANSI B30.6–1969 and are
continued in sec. 6–3.3.6 of ASME
B30.6–2003. No comments were
received for (k); it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (l) [Reserved.]
Paragraph (m)

Securing the Boom

Paragraph (m) of this section lists
minimum requirements for ensuring the
stability of a derrick’s boom when at rest
to prevent injuries and deaths that could
occur if it inadvertently shifted or fell.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48064

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (m)(1) requires that when
the boom is being held in a fixed
position, dogs, pawls, or other positive
holding mechanisms on the boom hoist
be engaged. Section 1926.1436(m)(2)
requires that when taken out of service
for 30 days or more, the boom be
secured by one of the following
methods: (i) By laying down the boom;
(ii) by securing the boom to a stationary
member, as nearly under the head as
possible, by attachment of a sling to the
load block; (iii) for guy derricks, by
lifting the boom to a vertical position
and securing it to the mast; or (iv) for
stiffleg derricks, by securing the boom
against the stiffleg.
The comparable ASME B30.6–2003
provision (sec. 6–3.3.7) would require
the boom to be secured when the
derrick is ‘‘not in use.’’ C–DAC
concluded the intent of the ANSI
provision was to require the boom to be
secured when the derrick was not in
service but concluded that the ASME
wording could be misconstrued to mean
that the boom had to be secured
whenever the derrick was not in the
process of lifting a load. To avoid
misunderstanding and establish an
objective requirement for when the
boom had to be secured, C–DAC
proposed that the boom be secured
whenever the derrick is taken out of
service for 30 days or more. No
comments were received for paragraph
(m); it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (n)
‘‘Jumping the derrick’’ is the practice
of moving structural components of the
derrick to different locations, such as to
the upper floors as a building is
constructed, and is essential to some
construction activities. Section
1926.1436(n) requires that the process of
jumping the derrick be supervised by
the A/D (assembly/disassembly)
director. As defined in § 1926.1401, the
A/D director must either be a person
who meets the criteria for both a
competent person and a qualified
person, or a competent person who is
assisted by one or more qualified
persons.
As discussed above, paragraph (g) of
this section requires a derrick to be load
tested to confirm that the derrick and its
support can withstand rated loads. C–
DAC discussed whether load testing
should be required when a derrick is
jumped, but ultimately concluded that a
jumped derrick need not be load tested
and determined that the A/D director
could be relied upon to see that the
jumped derrick is properly erected and
anchored and complies with the
applicable requirements of this
standard. OSHA is satisfied with C–

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

DAC’s rationale and agrees that giving
the A/D director the responsibility for
supervising the jumping of a derrick
will ensure that the jumped derrick is
safe to use.
Several labor representatives objected
to the use of the word ‘‘supervisor’’ in
the term ‘‘A/D supervisor’’ used in
proposed § 1926.1404(a). (ID–0182.1;
–0199.1; –0172.1.) As explained in the
discussion of assembly/disassembly,
OSHA has decided to replace the term
A/D supervisor with ‘‘A/D director’’ in
§ 1926.1404(a). Accordingly, OSHA has
revised this paragraph to replace the
term A/D supervisor with the term A/D
director.
A commenter recommended that
§ 1926.1436(n) be revised to add a
requirement to include a ‘‘site-specific
jumping plan approved by a registered
professional engineer.’’ (ID–0120.1.)
However, the commenter provided no
explanation for this recommendation,
nor did the commenter provide any
information to establish how this would
be an improvement over the rule’s
requirement to have the jumping
process directed by an A/D director.
Since no information supporting this
revision was presented, OSHA finds no
persuasive reason to modify the
provision based on this comment; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (o)
Paragraph (o) of this section requires
that derrick operations be supervised by
a competent person. No comments were
received for this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed. Subpart N
incorporated sec. 6.3.1.1 of ANSI B30.6–
1969, which requires derrick operations
to be directed by a designated
individual. ASME B30.6–2003 contains
a similar requirement, and both
consensus standards specify the
requirements and practices of that
designated individual. OSHA
concludes, as did C–DAC, that the
definition of competent person meets
the objectives of the ANSI/ASME
designated individual requirements to
competently perform the specific duties
involved in supervising derrick
operations. The experience and
knowledge possessed by the competent
person and his/her ability to recognize
and correct potential hazardous
conditions will help ensure the safety of
derrick operations.
Paragraph (p) Inspections
Under paragraph (p) of this section,
the inspection requirements of
§ 1926.1412 apply to derricks. In
addition to the items that must be
inspected under § 1926.1412, this
paragraph requires certain additional

PO 00000

Frm 00160

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

items to be inspected. These additional
items, when combined with the items
that must be inspected under
§ 1926.1412, are consistent with ANSI
B30.6–1969 and ASME B30.6–2003.
Paragraph (p)(1), Daily, requires the
inspection of guys for proper tension.
Guy wires are critical elements of the
support system for derricks.
Paragraph (p)(2), Annual, contains
two requirements. Paragraph (p)(2)(i)
requires inspection of the gudgeon pin
for cracks, wear, and distortion.
Paragraph (p)(2)(ii) requires inspection
of the foundation supports for
continued ability to sustain the imposed
loads. Since a derrick is more likely to
remain stationary and supported by the
same foundation throughout the
duration of its use than the majority of
the equipment covered by this standard,
C–DAC determined it was necessary to
require the foundation to be inspected
annually in addition to the items
specified in § 1926.1412. No comments
were received for this paragraph; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (q) Operator Qualification
and Training
Paragraph (q) of this section,
Qualification and Training, requires
that derrick operators be trained in the
safe operation of the specific type of
equipment that operator will be using.
Section 1926.1427 does not apply.
C–DAC discussed whether there
should be a certification requirement for
derrick operators, but decided against
recommending such a provision. The
Committee noted that there are no
accredited testing criteria to use for
testing derrick operators. Nor are there
nationally recognized accredited testing
facilities readily available. C–DAC
questioned whether testing providers
would find it cost-effective to establish
accredited testing programs for derrick
operators, noting that most training for
derricks must be site specific because
the types of derricks used, their support
structures, and the hazards associated
with specific projects vary from
company to company. Moreover, the
accident investigation data reviewed by
C–DAC did not indicate that there was
a need to require derrick operators to
meet certification requirements similar
to those proposed for crane operators.
One commenter opposed excluding
derrick operators from the certification
requirements of § 1926.1427 of this
subpart because derrick operations
require similar skills to make a safe pick
as those required for cranes. (ID–
0172.1.) Testimony from hearing
participants confirmed that the industry
was unable to accommodate a need for
accredited testing facilities or applicable

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
testing criteria for derrick operators.
(ID–0343.) A commenter asserted there
were no organizations that provided
accredited testing for derrick operators
in the industry. (ID–0130.1.) Overall
OSHA did not find sufficient evidence
in the record to support a requirement
for derrick operators to meet the
certification requirements of
§ 1926.1427. More general discussion of
this topic is provided in § 1926.1427.
In reviewing the C–DAC language of
§§ 1926.1430 and 1926.1436, OSHA
realized that the Committee did not
specify any training requirements for
derrick operators, which OSHA
concludes was an inadvertent omission.
The Agency noted in the preamble to
the proposed rule that it was planning
to add a training requirement to
§ 1926.1436 and requested public
comment on the addition of such a
provision.
Commenters supported OSHA’s
recommended addition, so this section
now includes a requirement that derrick
operators be trained on the specific type
of equipment being used. (ID–0130.1;
–0205.1; –0213.1.) This provision has
been modified from the proposed rule to
specifically address the training that is
required for derrick operators.
A commenter asked that employers be
allowed to train and qualify their
operators and that the qualification be
valid for a limit of five years. (ID–
0130.1.) Since this final rule does not
require qualification for derrick
operators beyond that of the training
requirement, OSHA disagrees with this
proposition. For additional information
on comments received about training to
particular types of equipment, see the
discussion at § 1926.1427(j)(1)(i).

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Section 1926.1437 Floating Cranes/
Derricks and Land Cranes/Derricks on
Barges
Section 1926.1437 covers two types of
equipment in a marine environment.
The first type is referred to as ‘‘floating
cranes/derricks,’’ defined in
§ 1926.1401, Definitions, as ‘‘equipment
designed by the manufacturer (or
employer) for marine use by permanent
attachment to a barge, pontoons, vessel,
or other means of flotation.’’ The second
type, ‘‘Land cranes/derrick’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘equipment not
originally designed by the manufacturer
for marine use by permanent attachment
to barges, pontoons, vessels, or other
means of flotation. Section
1926.1437(m) applies only to floating
cranes/derricks, and § 1926.1437(n)
applies only to land cranes/derricks
used on barges, pontoons, vessels or
other means of flotation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Paragraph (a)
Paragraph (a) of this section specifies
that the requirements of § 1926.1437 are
supplemental requirements; therefore,
all other requirements of this subpart
apply unless specifically noted
otherwise. Section 1926.1437(a)
exempts equipment operating on jacked
barges from the requirements of
§ 1926.1437 when the jacks are
deployed to the river, lake, or sea bed
and the barge is fully supported by the
jacks.
A jacked barge deployed in this
manner has four ‘‘spuds’’ on its corners
that are grounded into the sea-bottom,
providing a level and stable platform on
which employees work. This
configuration results in work conditions
similar to a crane working on land,
unlike the work conditions pertinent to
equipment covered by this section.
Therefore, equipment used on a jacked
barge deployed in this manner is subject
to all other applicable requirements of
this proposed subpart but not to the
requirements of this section.
One commenter raised a question as
to whether the exclusion of jacked
barges would apply when the barge is
supported by jacks anchored to the
river, lake, or sea bed, but not fully
supported ‘‘in a more permanent
condition.’’ (ID–0172.1.) However, the
commenter does not explain what is
meant by ‘‘a more permanent condition.’’
The test for whether the jacks, on
deployment in the river, lake, or sea
bed, fully support the barge.
OSHA received no substantive
comments or information indicating that
the exception for jacked barges is unsafe
for employees. Therefore, OSHA is
retaining the exception in the final rule
because it determines that employees on
jacked barges will be protected by the
other provisions of this subpart. OSHA
also is retaining the language explaining
the application of the section because it
provides useful explanatory information
to the regulated community regarding
compliance obligations.
Paragraph (b)

General Requirements

Paragraph (b) of this section specifies
that paragraphs (c)–(k) of this section
apply to both floating cranes/derricks
and land cranes/derricks. As noted
above and discussed below,
§ 1926.1437(m) applies only to floating
cranes/derricks, and § 1926.1437(n)
applies only to land cranes/derricks
mounted on vessels/flotation devices.
OSHA received no comments on the
proposed paragraph. OSHA is retaining
the paragraph as proposed because it
provides useful explanatory information

PO 00000

Frm 00161

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48065

to the regulated community regarding
compliance obligations.
Paragraph (c)

Work Area Control

Paragraph (c) of this section provides
that the requirements of § 1926.1424,
Work area control, apply to equipment
covered by this section, except for the
requirements of § 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii).
Paragraph (c)(2) of this section closely
parallels § 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii) but omits
the requirement that employers
demonstrate infeasibility before using a
combination of warning signs and high
visibility markings in place of erecting
and maintaining control lines, warning
lines, railings, or similar boundaries of
hazard areas. Because equipment
covered by this section typically
operates within a very limited physical
work space, employers often need
increased flexibility in determining
which work area control method is most
appropriate in light of special sitespecific circumstances. To help ensure
that employees are adequately protected
if the employer uses high visibility
markings to supplement warning signs,
this paragraph requires the employer to
train employees to understand the
meaning of the markings.
OSHA received no comments on this
provision as proposed. Upon review of
this provision, the Agency determined
the two examples provided in the
regulatory text were redundant.
Therefore, except for the removal of one
of the examples, OSHA is retaining the
provision as proposed, because it will
ensure maximum worker safety under
the limited space available on many of
these vessels.
Paragraph (d)
Load

Keeping Clear of the

Paragraph (d) of this section states
that the requirements of § 1926.1425,
Keeping clear of the load, do not apply
to the equipment covered by
§ 1926.1437. Due to the limited space
available for equipment on worksites
covered by this section (i.e., the decks
of barges and other vessels), the
requirements of § 1926.1425 are
infeasible under these worksite
conditions, in the experience of C–DAC.
OSHA received no comments on this
provision, and, therefore, is
promulgating it in the final rule as
proposed because it strikes a balance
between the practicalities of the
worksite and safety for employees.
Other provisions within this section
provide other means of protecting
employees in the unique worksites
covered by this section.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48066

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Paragraph (e) Additional Safety
Devices
Paragraph (e) of this section lists
additional safety devices required for
equipment covered by this section.
Equipment covered by § 1926.1437 is
required to have the safety devices
listed in § 1926.1415, Safety devices,
unless otherwise noted in § 1926.1415.
The additional safety devices required
by § 1926.1437(e) address the special
conditions of a marine worksite,
especially with respect to vessel
stability, inadvertent movement due to
water conditions, and the greater effect
of wind and other environmental
conditions on equipment operating at
these sites. However, note that
§ 1926.1415 excepts floating cranes/
derricks and land cranes/derricks on
barges, pontoons, vessels, or other
means of flotation from having crane
level indicators and floating cranes from
having foot pedal brake locks. (See the
discussion above under
§§ 1926.1415(a)(1)(iii) and
1926.1415(a)(4) for an explanation of
these exceptions.)
Paragraph (e)(1) requires equipment
covered by this section to have a list and
trim device. It is necessary to have this
device since the degrees of list and trim
are directly related to the stability of the
vessel/flotation device and therefore to
the stability of the equipment and its
safe operation.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) required
equipment covered in this section to
have a horn. In the experience of C–
DAC, the sounding of the equipment’s
horn is commonly understood in the
marine industry as a way to warn
employees about the presence of or
movement of the equipment or its load.
In the final rule, OSHA has added the
requirement of a horn to the general list
of safety devices required in
§ 1926.1415. See § 1926.1415(a)(7). As
noted above, the requirements of
§ 1926.1415 apply to floating cranes/
derricks, so restating the requirement in
§ 1926.1437(e)(2) would be redundant.
OSHA is therefore removing the horn
requirement from this section and
renumbering the remainder of
§ 1926.1437(e).
Paragraph (e)(2), as renumbered in the
final rule, now requires that all
equipment with a rotating
superstructure have a positive crane
house lock. This device is necessary for
equipment covered within this section
because it positively locks the rotating
superstructure. The lock provides
additional protection from the
superstructure’s accidental movement
that can result due to the action of wind,
waves, or current.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Because the speed and direction of
the wind can directly affect equipment
operations, such as by diminishing
equipment capacity and inducing
unintended movement of the load,
§ 1926.1437(e)(3) requires equipment
covered by this section to have and use
a wind speed and direction indicator
when a competent person determines
that wind is a factor that needs to be
considered during operations.
OSHA received no comments on
proposed paragraphs (e)(1)–(e)(4), and is
retaining all of these provisions in the
final rule, except for the requirement of
a horn and with renumbering, because
they improve the safety of the vessels,
and, therefore, the safety of the
employee involved in crane/derrick
operations onboard the vessel.
Paragraph (f)

Operational Aids

Paragraph (f) of this section modifies
the application of some of the
requirements in proposed § 1926.1416,
Operational aids, for equipment covered
by this section. Apart from these
differences, § 1926.1416 applies to
equipment covered by this section.
Paragraph (f)(1) requires that
equipment covered by this section to be
equipped with an anti-two-block device
when hoisting personnel or when
hoisting over an occupied cofferdam or
shaft. As discussed at § 1926.1416(d)(3),
two-blocking can result in a sudden
drop of the load on the line. Anti-twoblock devices protect against this
danger. However, anti-two-blocking
devices have a high rate of failure in a
marine environment due to wind and
other environmental factors. Also, the
equipment covered by this section is
often performing live boom/fast-moving
functions, causing an anti-two-block
device to consistently malfunction.
Therefore, an anti-two-block device is
only required when hoisting personnel
or hoisting over an occupied cofferdam
or shaft due to the additional risk to
employees during these operations.
Paragraph (f)(2) specifies that
employers using equipment to perform
dragline, clamshell (grapple), magnet,
drop ball, container handling, concrete
bucket, and pile driving work covered
by this section, are exempt from the
requirements of § 1926.1416(e)(4), Load
weighing and similar devices. These
operations add heavy loads and
repetitive motion to the marine
characteristics described above. As a
result, load weighing devices used
during these operations consistently
malfunction. Additionally, the listing
and tilting that is typical in marine
worksites often prevents these devices
from providing accurate load readings.

PO 00000

Frm 00162

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

OSHA received no comments on these
provisions as proposed. However,
OSHA is retaining these provisions in
the final rule because the provisions
afford protection to workers involved in
personnel lifting operations or exposed
to a load failure while working in
cofferdams or shafts. The provisions
also prevent employers from relying on
malfunctioning equipment to the
detriment of employees using or
exposed to the equipment.
Paragraph (g) Accessibility of
Procedures Applicable to Equipment
Operation
Paragraph (g) of this section sets forth
requirements regarding accessibility of
equipment operation procedures. The
provision requires equipment with a cab
to comply with the requirements of
§ 1926.1417(c), Operation—accessibility
of procedures. If the equipment does not
have a cab then the requirements of this
paragraph apply.
The Agency determined that it is
necessary to have the load chart located
where the operator is stationed. Under
§ 1926.1437(g)(1), if the operator’s
station is movable, such as with
pendant-controlled equipment, the load
chart must be posted on the equipment.
Under § 1926.1437(g)(2), the remaining
procedures (other than load charts) must
be readily available on board the vessel/
flotation device. Where there is no cab
for the equipment, it is impractical to
require these other procedures to be
next to the operator; however, it is still
necessary for the operator to have easy
access to these procedures for reference
during operations.
While OSHA received no comments
on the proposed provisions, it is
retaining the provisions in the final rule
because, as explained elsewhere in this
preamble, having this procedural
information as readily available as
possible is critical to operating cranes/
derricks safely, thereby ensuring the
protection of the workers involved in
the crane/derrick operations.
Paragraph (h) Inspections
Paragraph (h) of this section sets forth
additional inspection requirements
applicable to equipment covered by this
section. The introductory sentence to
this paragraph states that § 1926.1412,
Inspections, applies to the inspection of
the crane/derrick, and that the
additional inspection requirements in
this paragraph apply to the vessel/
flotation device that supports the crane/
derrick.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
modified the language of the C–DAC
consensus document for this
introductory sentence by including

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
coverage for floating cranes/derricks and
requested comment on this
modification. Two commenters
responded and both agreed with the
modified language as used in the
proposed rule. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1.)
OSHA is retaining this language in the
final rule because the increased
coverage enhances employee protection,
and the introductory language provides
useful explanatory information to the
regulated community regarding
compliance obligations.
With respect to the requirements of
§ 1926.1437(h)(2)(ii), a commenter
expressed concern that the Agency
expected an employer to physically
open the hatch on a barge to inspect for
‘‘taking on water.’’ (ID–0345.26.) The
commenter further explained that hatch
covers are usually sealed, and generally
are removed only if there is suspected
damage to the hull. (ID–0345.26.)
Another commenter confirmed that
most non-freshwater vessels have
permanently sealed hatches. (ID–
0344.1.)
Under this provision, as proposed, a
competent person must inspect the
vessel for ‘‘taking on water’’ and does not
specify any particular method for
making this determination. As one
commenter suggested, measuring
freeboards is a way to determine if a
vessel is listing more than a couple of
degrees and, therefore, possibly taking
on water. (ID–0344.1.) The requirement
here is for the competent person to use
an effective means of determining if the
vessel is taking on water, which can
vary depending on the type of vessel.
With respect to § 1926.1437(h)(2)(iv),
a commenter was concerned that the
requirement to check the ‘‘fuel
compartments * * * for serviceability
as a water-tight appliance’’ included an
expectation that the hatch cover would
be removed to inspect the fuel
compartment. (ID–0345.26.) The
commenter further stated the usual
means of checking for water in a fuel
tank is by using a plumb bob and clear
coat that changes color if water is
present. The proposed provision
requires a competent person to inspect
the fuel compartments, among other
areas, for ‘‘serviceability as a water-tight
appliance.’’ The provision does not
specify any particular method for
making this determination, provided the
competent person uses an effective
method for doing so.
Based on the need to ensure the
integrity of the vessel/flotation device
for employee safety, and the availability
of nonintrusive means of determining
this integrity, OSHA is retaining
§§ 1926.1437(h)(2)(ii) and
1926.1437(h)(2)(iv) in the final rule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

OSHA received no comments on the
remaining provisions proposed for
paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) and OSHA
is retaining these provisions to ensure
that vessels/flotation devices used for
crane/derrick operations remain safe for
employees, and that the employer
corrects deficiencies in the vessels/
flotation devices that are hazardous to
employees.
Under § 1926.1437(h), inspections are
required at four distinct times: Each
shift, each month, annually, and every
four years. As specified in paragraph
(h)(3), a competent person must conduct
the shift and monthly inspections. If the
competent person identifies a
deficiency, an immediate determination
by a qualified person is then required to
ascertain if the deficiency constitutes a
hazard. If the deficiency constitutes a
hazard, the vessel must be removed
from service until the deficiency is
corrected.
These requirements differ from the
shift and monthly general inspection
requirements of § 1926.1412, in which
the competent person who identifies a
deficiency then determines whether the
deficiency is a safety hazard requiring
immediate correction. The reason for
this difference is that the equipment
covered under this section is highly
specialized and therefore requires a high
level of knowledge.
With respect to the annual
inspections, § 1926.1437(h)(4) requires
the equipment and vessel/flotation
device to be inspected by a qualified
person with expertise with respect to
vessels/flotation devices. The Agency
concludes it is important to state
explicitly that the qualified person
conducting these inspections must have
the necessary expertise for the items
listed for the annual inspection with
respect to barges, pontoons, vessels or
other means of flotation. Accordingly,
OSHA is retaining the provision in the
final rule.
The qualified person required for the
shift and monthly inspections must
have expertise with respect to the work
conditions, the crane/derrick, and the
vessel/flotation device. However, the
annual inspection is more extensive
than the shift or monthly inspections.
The qualified person for the annual
inspection must have a greater level of
expertise than the qualified person
required for determining whether
deficiencies identified in shift and
monthly inspections constitute hazards.
The qualified person for the annual
inspection must have expertise in all the
areas covered by the annual inspection,
in addition to general expertise
regarding the equipment and vessel/
flotation device. This expertise will

PO 00000

Frm 00163

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48067

ensure that the operational conditions
are safe for employees, and, therefore,
OSHA is retaining these requirements in
the final rule.
Section 1926.1437(h)(4)(i)(C) requires
an inspection of various component
parts of the vessel to determine if there
is significant corrosion, wear,
deterioration or deformation. The use of
the word significant is to indicate that
the functionality of these components is
not impaired in any way due to
exposure to the elements or use. The
Committee determined, and OSHA
agrees, that these components are
essential to safe operation of the vessel
and therefore critical to employee
safety.
A commenter indicated that the
requirement to check for ‘‘external
evidence of leaks and structural
damage’’ in § 1926.1437(h)(4)(i)(C)
should not apply below the waterline of
the hull. (ID–0345.26.) That commenter
suggested that applying the requirement
below the waterline would be unduly
burdensome because it would require
dry-docking the vessel. Another
commenter, indicated that dry-docking
a vessel is expensive—between $20,000
and $60,000 per dry-docking, depending
on the type of vessel. (ID–0344.1.) This
cost estimate was supported by another
commenter, who noted the average cost
for its fleet was $50,000 to dry-dock a
vessel. (ID–0383.1.) A commenter
indicated that industry practice is to
conduct the routine annual inspection
from the waterline up, and that
inspecting below the waterline would
not enhance safety. (ID–0344.1.)
The Agency agrees that it is not
necessary to require dry-docking on an
annual basis. Instead, OSHA modified
the language used in the proposed rule
to allow employers to check for leaks
and damage below the waterline inside
the vessel/flotation device, by, for
example, opening hatches and access/
inspection ports, but not by opening
sealed compartments or cutting
openings.
Paragraph (h)(4)(iii)(A) requires the
removal from service of any vessel/
flotation device when a qualified person
determines a deficiency in the
equipment constitutes a immediate
hazard. As with other removal from
service requirements, OSHA is
including a cross-reference to the tagout requirement in § 1926.1417(f),
which is triggered when equipment is
removed from service.
Paragraph (h)(5) requires an
inspection every four years of the
internal portion of the barge, pontoons,
vessel, or other means of flotation by a
marine engineer, marine architect,
licensed surveyor, or other qualified

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48068

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

person who has expertise with respect
to vessels/flotation devices. A higher
level of expertise is necessary for
performing the four-year inspection
than the annual inspection. By listing
‘‘other qualified person’’ together with
‘‘marine engineer,’’ ‘‘marine architect,’’
and ‘‘licensed surveyor,’’ the Agency
clarifies that the expertise of the ‘‘other
qualified person’’ must be equivalent to
that of a marine engineer, marine
architect, or licensed surveyor. In this
regard, the proposal did not list
inspection items for the four-year
inspection. Instead, OSHA determines
(based on C–DAC’s recommendation)
that a better approach is to rely on the
expert knowledge of the marine
engineer, marine architect, licensed
surveyor, or other qualified person who
has expertise with respect to vessels/
flotation devices.
OSHA received two comments
regarding the use of the term
‘‘quadrennial’’ in the proposed rule. (ID–
0343; –0344.1.) Both recommended
using the term ‘‘four-year’’ because it is
consistent with current terminology
used by the marine industry. In light of
this information OSHA revised the term
‘‘quadrennial’’ to ‘‘four-year’’ in the final
rule in paragraphs (h)(5) and (h)(6) of
§ 1926.1437.
Paragraph (h)(6) sets forth the
documentation requirements for the
monthly, annual, and four-year
inspections, which follow those in
§ 1926.1412, Inspections, at
§§ 1926.1412(e)(3) and 1926.1412(f)(7).
However, with respect to four-year
inspections the written documentation
of the inspection must be maintained for
four years. This provision enables the
employer to track changes in the
condition of the vessel from the
previous inspection, thereby correcting
hazards in a timely manner. Therefore,
OSHA is retaining this provision in the
final rule. The Agency is adding
language to paragraph (h)(6) to clarify
that all of the inspection documentation
(including the four year inspection
documentation) must be made available,
for the duration of the document
retention period, to persons performing
inspections, in accordance with
§ 1926.1412(k).
Paragraph (i)

[Reserved.]

Paragraph (j)

Working With a Diver

Paragraph (j) of this section sets forth
supplemental requirements designed to
ensure that a diver is hoisted safely from
the vessel and back onto the vessel
when equipment covered by this section
is used for this purpose. Extra
precautions and measures are needed
when engaged in this activity due to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

drowning, struck-by, crushed-by, and
other hazards involved.
Marine environments and the
condition of a diver can change quickly
and unexpectedly; the crane/derrick
operator must be constantly aware of the
diving operation and in position to take
immediate action when necessary.
Therefore, under proposed
§ 1926.1437(j)(1), when one or more
divers are being hoisted into and out of
the water, the employer is prohibited
from using the equipment for any other
purpose until all divers have returned
back on board. This requirement
ensures the operator’s attention is not
diverted from the welfare of the divers.
Paragraph (j)(2) of this section requires
the equipment operator to remain at the
equipment controls during the entire
diving operation. This provision ensures
that the operator is able to respond
when necessary.
Paragraph (j)(3) requires that, in
addition to the signal requirements in
§§ 1926.1419–1926.1422, the diver
tender must be in direct communication
with the equipment operator. This
communication must be done either
through maintaining a clear line of sight
between the operator and tender or by
electronic transmission between the
operator and tender. The tender is the
individual responsible for monitoring
and communicating with the diver. In
this section, the diver tender is required
to maintain effective communication
with the equipment operator when the
equipment is used to get the diver in
and out of the water. The tender is the
member of the dive team who closely
monitors the diver’s condition during
the dive and checks the equipment prior
to the dive. Therefore, the tender is able
to let the operator know when a diver
needs to be lifted out of the water or
when other action by the equipment
operator is needed.
Paragraph (j)(4) specifies that when
using a crane/derrick to hoist a diver,
the crane/derrick must be secured in
such a way that there is no amount of
shifting in any direction. A small shift
of a crane/derrick on a barge can result
in movement that can injure the diver.
OSHA notes that § 1926.1431,
Hoisting personnel, applies when a
crane/derrick is used to hoist personnel.
In most instances when personnel are
hoisted, they must be located in a
personnel platform that meets criteria
specified in § 1926.1431. However,
§ 1926.1431(b)(2) contains exceptions to
the use a personnel platform and one
such exception, specified by
§ 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii), applies when an
employer transfers an employee to or
from a marine worksite in a marinehoisted personnel-transfer device.

PO 00000

Frm 00164

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Under the definition in § 1926.1401,
‘‘marine worksite’’ includes a worksite
in the water; therefore, the exception
specified by § 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii) to the
requirement to use a personnel platform
applies when a diver is hoisted into or
out of the water in a marine-hoisted
personnel-transfer device.
OSHA received no comments on any
of the provisions in proposed paragraph
(j). Accordingly, OSHA is retaining
these provisions in the final rule
because, in the Committee’s view, use of
a personnel platform could be infeasible
or more hazardous to employees than an
alternative means of hoisting personnel
such as marine-hoisted personneltransfer devices (see the discussion
above in this preamble for
§ 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii)).
Paragraph (k)
Paragraph (k) of this section requires
the employer to adhere to the
specifications and limitations
established by the manufacturer of the
barge, pontoon, vessel, or other means
of flotation with respect to imposed
environmental, operational, and intransit loads. The purpose of this
provision is to ensure that the
equipment can operate safely under the
forces imposed on it. In its
deliberations, the Committee noted that
the manufacturer is in the best position
to determine the maximum external
loads the vessel/flotation device can
withstand while maintaining necessary
stability and buoyancy, and that
requiring employers to adhere to the
manufacturer’s specifications and
limitations would provide employees
with the requisite level of protection.
The language of the proposed rule
varied from the text in the C–DAC
consensus document. OSHA made this
revision to clarify that it was an
employer’s responsibility to follow the
manufacturer’s specifications and
limitations. OSHA requested public
comment on this revision. OSHA
received two comments in response to
this request. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1.) Both
commenters stated the C–DAC language
showed the Committee’s ‘‘original intent
of this paragraph was a design
specification,’’ and further stated that
the revision as proposed by OSHA did
not consider the Committee’s language
was addressing design specifications.
On reviewing these comments, the
C–DAC consensus document, and
OSHA’s proposed text, OSHA
determines that paragraph (k) needs to
address both the commenters’ position
that there is a need for a design
specification, and OSHA’s position in
the proposed rule that employers must
comply to the manufacturer’s

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
specifications and limitations. OSHA
revised proposed paragraph (k)
accordingly.
In addition, another commenter raised
the issue that, for many vessels covered
by this section, the manufacturer no
longer exists, or that the vessel has been
modified and an expert has established
the appropriate specifications and
limitations for the vessel. (ID–0345.26.)
One commenter noted the company’s
fleet had vessels that were 60 years old
and the manufacturers of some of these
vessels were no longer in business. (ID–
0344.1.) OSHA finds these comments
persuasive, and is adding a provision to
paragraph (k) to require the employer to
follow specifications and limitations
established by a qualified person in
such instances.
Paragraph (l) [Reserved.]

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (m) Floating Cranes/Derricks
Paragraph (m) of this section sets forth
requirements with respect to load
charts, rated capacity, allowable list,
allowable trim, wind speed and related
measures for floating cranes/derricks.
The requirements in §§ 1926.1437(m)(1)
through (5) address the various hazards
that contribute to instability of the
vessel/flotation device and the effect of
marine conditions that can lead to
boom/equipment failure.
As defined in § 1926.1401, a floating
crane/derrick includes equipment built
either by a manufacturer or by the
employer using the equipment. Both
types must meet the criteria in
§§ 1926.1437(m)(1) through (m)(3).
These provisions are designed to
prevent the crane/derrick portion of the
equipment from failure due to
overloading, thereby, preventing the
vessel/flotation device from capsizing.
Paragraph (m)(1) requires that load
charts applicable to operations on water
not be exceeded. Paragraph (m)(2)
establishes criteria (in Table M1) for
maximum allowable list and trim
relative to the rated capacity of the
equipment. Section 1926.1437(m)(3)
provides two charts that set the stability
criteria for specific conditions. The first
of these charts (Table M2) contains the
minimum requirements to maintain
stability with respect to wind speed and
freeboard distance of the vessel/flotation
device. The second chart (Table M3)
addresses the backward stability of the
boom.
The Agency requested public
comment on a definition of freeboard as
it is used in Table M2. In response, a
commenter offered this definition:
‘‘Freeboard is the vertical distance
between the water line and the main
deck of the vessel.’’ (ID–0383.1.) This

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

definition is consistent with OSHA’s
review of the definition of freeboard;
therefore, OSHA is adding this
definition to the regulatory text of
§ 1926.1437(m)(2) in the final rule and
is including it in § 1926.1401,
Definitions.
Under paragraph (m)(4), employermade equipment must meet the same
criteria specified by
§§ 1926.1437(m)(1)–(m)(3) for
manufacturer-made equipment. In
addition, an employer using equipment
it builds is required to have documents
demonstrating that these criteria have
been met. Such documents must be
signed by a registered professional
engineer who is a qualified person with
respect to the design of the type of
equipment involved.
Manufacturers have sufficient
expertise with respect to the
development of load charts, rated
capacities, and related operational
limitations, so there is no need for a
documentation requirement for
manufacturer-built floating cranes/
derricks. However, given the variety of
employer-made equipment, the Agency
included this documentation
requirement to ensure that employermade equipment has the same level of
safety as manufactured equipment.
Paragraph (m)(5) addresses structural
and access requirements for the barge,
pontoon, vessel, or other means of
flotation. These requirements are related
to the stability of the vessel, including
minimizing movement while operating
equipment, thereby increasing employee
safety by reducing the likelihood of
capsizing.
Paragraph (m)(5)(i) requires the vessel
to be structurally sufficient to withstand
the stress of both static and dynamic
loads of the crane/derrick when
operating at the crane/derrick’s
maximum rated capacity with all
planned deck loads and ballasted
compartments. This provision is
necessary to minimize the likelihood of
the vessel’s structure failing, which
would expose employees to a drowning
hazard, or endanger them because of
inadvertent movement during
equipment operations.
Paragraph (m)(5)(ii) requires a
subdivided hull with at least one
longitudinal watertight bulkhead to
reduce the free surface effect on the
vessel. Subdividing the hull limits the
effects of liquid movement on vessel
stability, thereby, reducing the risk of
the vessel capsizing.
Paragraph (m)(5)(iii) requires void
compartments to be accessible for
inspection and pumping. This
requirement ensures that the employer
evaluates the amount of water in the

PO 00000

Frm 00165

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48069

compartments to determine the
potential free surface effect on vessel
stability, and then to initiate pumping
when necessary to avoid capsizing.
OSHA received no comments were
received on paragraphs (m)(3) through
(m)(5). OSHA is retaining these
provisions in the final rule to ensure the
stability of vessels/flotation devices
during crane/derrick operations, thereby
preventing employee exposure to
drowning, impact, and other hazards
associated with crane/derrick operations
onboard vessels/flotation devices.
Paragraph (n) Land Cranes/Derricks
Paragraph (n) of this section sets forth
the requirements for land cranes/
derricks when used on a barge,
pontoons, vessel or other means of
flotation. As noted above, land cranes/
derricks are not originally designed for
marine use but are covered by this
section when they are mounted on a
vessel/flotation device and used on
water. The Agency determined that
special requirements are needed to
address the distinctive safety issues
presented when using such equipment.
The stability of the vessel/flotation
device is affected by the use of a land
crane/derrick on board. Implementing a
system that keeps the equipment
properly located on the vessel is
essential for maintaining stability. In
addition, land cranes/derricks have less
capacity when on a vessel/flotation
device than when on land, due to the
fact that the crane/derrick is not
originally designed for the special
conditions on a vessel/flotation device.
Consequently, the employer must adjust
the rated capacity of the crane/derrick
when used on the vessel/flotation
device. If not properly determined, the
land crane/derrick may be overloaded,
which can cause loss of stability
(including tip-over) and boom/
equipment failure, thereby endangering
employees.
Paragraph (n)(1) sets forth the
requirements for determining the rated
capacity for land cranes/derricks used
on a vessel/flotation device. Load charts
for this equipment developed for use on
land do not address the use of the
equipment on a flotation device or the
environmental conditions of a marine
worksite. Therefore, under
§ 1926.1437(n)(1)(i), the rated capacity
(as depicted in the load charts) must be
reduced for list, trim, wave action, and
wind.
In establishing the rated capacity for
use on the vessel/flotation device, the
capacity of the vessel/flotation device
also must be considered. Since some
locations on the vessel/flotation device
will have less ability to support the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48070

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

crane/derrick than others, under
§ 1926.1437(n)(1)(ii), the rated capacity
must be applicable to a specified
location(s) on the vessel/flotation
device. This assessment must be made
considering the expected and
encountered environmental conditions.
Paragraph (n)(2) specifies that the
modification to rated capacity required
by § 1926.1437(n)(1) of this section must
be performed either by the manufacturer
of the equipment or by a qualified
person with expertise in both land
crane/derrick capacity and the stability
of vessels/flotation devices.
Performance by a qualified person will
achieve equivalent operational safety
conditions as for the modified floating
cranes/derricks. In the proposed rule,
OSHA (at the request of the SBREFA
Panel) requested public comment as to
whether qualified persons are available
in the industry with expertise in both
land crane/derrick capacity and the
stability of vessels/flotation devices
with respect to equipment performing
duty-cycle work (73 FR 59864, Oct. 9,
2008). Two commenters responded to
this inquiry by stating that qualified
persons are available in the industry
with expertise in both land crane/
derrick capacity and stability of vessels
with respect to equipment performing
duty-cycle work. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1.)
OSHA also requested comment from
the public on whether the requirements
of (n)(2) are necessary for the safety of
employees when equipment is engaged
in duty cycle work. Two commenters
found that these requirements are
necessary for safety when equipment is
engaged in duty cycle work. (ID–0205.1;
–0213.1.) Another commenter supported
this position by noting instances when
the input of a qualified person is needed
since the list and trim of the vessel can
affect the rated capacity of the
equipment. (ID–0345.26.) Based on
these comments, and the employee
protection afforded by the requirements
of paragraph (n)(2), OSHA is including
these requirements in the final rule as
proposed.
Paragraph (n)(3) sets parameters for
the maximum allowable list and trim for
the vessel/flotation device and the land
crane/derrick to ensure vessel and
crane/derrick stability and to prevent
the crane/derrick from exceeding its
rated capacity. Under paragraph (n)(4),
when a land crane/derrick is used on a
flotation device, all deck surfaces must
be above water and the entire bottom
area must be submerged. This provision
is necessary to ensure a stable platform
when operating the land crane/derrick,
to protect against loads that would
cause the system used to secure the land
crane/derrick (see § 1926.1437(n)(5)) to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

fail, and to protect against overloading
the vessel/flotation device land/crane
derrick.
Even though OSHA received no
comments on these two paragraphs, it is
retaining the paragraphs in the final rule
because maintaining proper list and
trim, as well as buoyancy, is critical to
the stability of the vessel/flotation
device, which will prevent the vessel/
flotation device from capsizing and
endangering employees.
Paragraph (n)(5) sets forth four
options for securing 139 the land crane/
derrick on the vessel/flotation device.
Providing several options to employers
addresses the various of work scenarios
found in the industry. Each option is
effective in preventing the land crane/
derrick from rolling, sliding, or in any
way shifting away from its proper
location. These horizontal movements
can cause the vessel/flotation device to
become unstable, or the land crane/
derrick to slide or fall into the water.
Additionally, OSHA determines that an
exception is appropriate for use of
mobile auxiliary cranes on a vessel. The
requirements for this type of equipment
are specified by § 1926.1437(n)(5)(vi).
Paragraphs (n)(5)(i) through (iv)
provide the four options for securing the
land crane/derrick to the vessel/
flotation device. The options for
preventing equipment shifting include
direct physical attachment, corralling, a
rail system or a centerline cable system.
These options serve to prevent
inadvertent movement of the equipment
away from its proper location on the
vessel/flotation device, which can harm
employees working nearby, or such
movement can endanger employees by
capsizing the vessel. However, it is not
the purpose of these options to prevent
any portion of the land crane/derrick
from pulling vertically up from the deck
when handling loads beyond the land
crane/derrick’s rated capacity. Rather,
these options will prevent horizontal
rolling or shifting away from the land
crane/derrick’s proper location.
Paragraph (n)(5)(v) requires that the
option selected for securing the
equipment on the vessel be designed by
a marine engineer, a registered
139 In this preamble the Agency uses the term
‘‘securing’’ and ‘‘secured’’ to refer collectively to the
systems described in Options (1)–(4) in
§§ 1926.1437(n)(5)(i) through (iv). The Agency notes
that this definition differs from the term ‘‘positively
secured’’ in subpart N in former § 1926.550(f)(1)(iv),
which required that ‘‘mobile cranes on barges shall
be positively secured.’’ As OSHA stated in a letter
of interpretation, the term ‘‘positively secured’’ in
the subpart N means ‘‘physically attached’’—similar
to the type of system described in Option (1) of
paragraph (n)(5)(i). (See OSHA’s interpretation
letter to Mr. Gary C. Hay, October 12, 2004 (ID–
0014).)

PO 00000

Frm 00166

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

professional engineer familiar with
floating crane/derrick design, or a
qualified person familiar with floating
crane/derrick design. The Agency
determined that expertise in floating
crane/derrick design is necessary to
design a securing system that meets the
selected option’s requirements and to
prevent inadvertent movement of the
equipment on the vessel/flotation
device.
OSHA received no comments on any
of the requirements in proposed
paragraph (n)(5). Consequently, OSHA
is retaining this paragraph in the final
rule because properly securing land
crane/derrick on the vessel/flotation
device will maintain the stability of the
vessel/flotation device, thereby
preventing the vessel/flotation device
from capsizing and endangering
employees.
Paragraph (n)(6) 140 provides an
exception stating that an employer does
not have to secure mobile auxiliary
cranes as required by paragraph (n)(5)
when the employer demonstrates that
specific conditions have been met.
Typically, the movement of the mobile
crane on these vessels does not
adversely affect the stability of the
floating crane/derrick because of the
large size, displacement and design of
the floating crane/derrick. The size and
design of the floating crane/derrick also
makes it less susceptible than other
vessels to the effects of wind, waves,
and other environmental conditions.
OSHA finds that when the employer
demonstrates meeting the criteria
specified by §§ 1926.1437(n)(6)(v) and
(vi), employees will receive adequate
protection from inadvertent horizontal
movement of a mobile crane located on
the deck of a floating crane/derrick.
Under paragraph (n)(6)(i), a written
plan that is developed and signed by a
marine engineer, or a registered
professional engineer familiar with
floating crane/derrick design, is
required. OSHA finds that developing a
written plan for the use of these cranes
requires specialized knowledge and
skill because of the catastrophic
consequences to employees that could
result if the task is not performed
correctly.
Paragraph (n)(6)(ii), requires that the
written plan be developed so that the
applicable requirements of § 1926.1437
are met despite the position, travel,
operation, and lack of physical
attachment, corralling, use of rails, or
use of cable system of the mobile
auxiliary crane. For example, a section
of the plan could address a vessel’s
140 Formerly

paragraph (n)(5)(vi) in the proposed

rule.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
stability while it is operating within
specified dynamic and environmental
conditions (see §§ 1926.1437(n)(6)(v)
and (vi)), i.e., that the movement of the
vessel under these conditions does not
cause the mobile crane to shift
horizontally, or that the maximum list
and trim specified for vessel and mobile
crane are not exceeded.
Under paragraph (n)(6)(iii), the plan
must specify the areas of the deck where
the mobile auxiliary crane is permitted
to be positioned, travel, and operate. It
must also specify the parameters (that
is, limitations) of such movements and
operation. For example, a section of the
plan could limit movement of the
mobile crane to a specified area without
a load, and to another specified area
while handling a load.
Under paragraph (n)(6)(iv), the
employer must mark the deck to
identify the permitted areas for
positioning, traveling, and operating the
mobile crane. This provision is
necessary so that the operator
maneuvers and operates the crane
within the permitted areas specified by
the plan, thereby ensuring the stability
of the vessel/flotation device and the
safety of employees.
Under paragraph (n)(6)(v), the plan
must specify the dynamic and
environmental conditions that have to
be present for the mobile auxiliary crane
to move and operate on the vessel.
Under § 1926.1437(n)(6)(v), if the
specific dynamic and environmental
conditions are not present, the mobile
auxiliary crane must be secured
according to one of the four options
outlined in §§ 1926.1437(n)(5)(i)
through (iv). For example, the plan must
address environmental conditions, such
as the maximum amount of wind and
wave action permitted; if these
conditions are exceeded, the mobile
crane must be secured using one of the
four options specified by
§ 1926.1437(n)(5). While OSHA received
no comments on the requirements of
this paragraph in the proposal, it is
retaining this paragraph in the final
standard as proposed because a properly
prepared plan will ensure the structural
integrity and stability of the vessel/
flotation device, thereby protecting
employees from drowning, impact, and
other hazards.
Paragraph (n)(7) 141 contains
requirements regarding the barge,
pontoon, vessel or other means of
flotation on which the land crane/
derrick is located. The requirements
§ 1926.1437(n)(7) are identical to those
listed at paragraph (m)(5) of this section.
These requirements ensure the
141 Formerly

VerDate Mar<15>2010

paragraph (n)(6) in the proposal.

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

structural capacity of the vessel/
flotation device to support the land
crane/derrick and the loads handled by
this equipment, as well as the stability
of the vessel/flotation device. These
provisions are designed to help prevent
unintended movement while operating
equipment and to prevent capsizing.
OSHA finds these requirements
necessary to provide a safe, stable work
environment. OSHA received no
comments on this paragraph in the
proposed rule. However, as with
paragraph (m)(5), OSHA is retaining this
paragraph in the final rule to ensure the
stability of vessels/flotation devices
during crane/derrick operations, thereby
preventing employee exposure to
drowning, impact, and other hazards
associated with crane/derrick operations
onboard vessels/flotation devices.
Section 1926.1438 Overhead and
Gantry Cranes
As defined in § 1926.1401, overhead
and gantry cranes include overhead/
bridge cranes, semigantry cranes,
cantilever gantry cranes, wall cranes,
storage bridge cranes, launching gantry
cranes, and similar equipment,
irrespective of whether it travels on
tracks, wheels, or other means. The
Committee developed this definition to
reflect the wide range of this type of
equipment.
Overhead and gantry cranes are
commonly found on general industry as
well as construction worksites.
Sometimes overhead and gantry cranes
installed in general industry facilities
are used for construction purposes (for
example, the overhead/gantry crane in a
factory is sometimes used when a part
of the factory is being renovated). The
Committee determined that applying the
general industry standard for overhead
and gantry cranes, § 1910.179, to the use
of those cranes for construction work,
rather than the requirements of new
subpart CC, would reduce compliance
burdens without jeopardizing employee
protection. All comments received
agreed it is reasonable to require cranes
fitting this particular description to
comply with § 1910.179 in lieu of
requirements imposed under this
subpart.
The rule therefore distinguishes
between permanently installed
overhead and gantry cranes and those
that are not permanently installed.
Overhead and gantry cranes
permanently installed in a facility are
considered an irremovable part of the
property and are primarily used in
general industry but may, on rare
occasions, be used for construction
activities. Generally, these cranes are
installed in facilities and are not easily

PO 00000

Frm 00167

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48071

assembled or disassembled. They are
typically physically fastened to a
building and enhance the utility of the
property. The requirements of
§ 1910.179, the general industry
standard, and not subpart CC, apply to
these permanently installed overhead
and gantry cranes.
In contrast, overhead and gantry
cranes used frequently for construction
activities are generally not permanently
installed in a facility. They tend to be
more easily assembled or disassembled
than their permanently installed
counterparts. The determining factor of
whether an overhead or gantry crane is
or is not permanently installed is
whether or not it is regarded as a
permanent part of the facility. If it is
intended as a temporary installation or
meant to be removed from the property,
then the overhead or gantry crane is not
considered permanently installed, and
subpart CC applies. For example, if an
employer attaches the base of a gantry
crane to a concrete slab at a building
construction site for use in constructing
the building, that gantry crane would be
covered by the provisions in subpart CC.
Paragraph (a) Permanently Installed
Overhead and Gantry Cranes
Section 1926.1438(a) applies the
requirements of § 1910.179, with the
exception of § 1910.179(b)(1), to six
listed types of cranes and ‘‘others with
fundamentally similar characteristics,’’
when they are used in construction and
are permanently installed in a facility.
The requirements in subpart CC do not
apply to these cranes. Section
1910.179(b)(1) sets forth the scope of the
general industry standard as defined
under 29 CFR part 1910. It is excluded
to avoid any confusion that might arise
from having two separate scope
provisions applicable to § 1926.1438(a).
Nonetheless, the types of overhead and
gantry cranes covered under
§§ 1926.1438(a) and 1910.179(b)(1) are
the same, in that they all share
fundamental characteristics. These
cranes are grouped because they all
have trolleys and similar travel
characteristics.
Paragraph (b) Overhead and Gantry
Cranes That Are Not Permanently
Installed in a Facility
Paragraph (b)(1) of this section
provides the scope of § 1926.1438(b). By
its terms, § 1926.1438(b) pertains to
overhead and gantry cranes, overhead/
bridge cranes, semigantry cranes,
cantilever gantry cranes, wall cranes,
storage bridge cranes, launching gantry
cranes, and similar equipment having
the same fundamental characteristics,
when they are used in construction and

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48072

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

are not permanently installed in a
facility. The words ‘‘having the same
fundamental characteristics’’ have been
added to be consistent with the
language in § 1926.1438(a).
Paragraph (b)(2) specifies which
requirements apply to the equipment
identified in § 1926.1438(b)(1).
Paragraph (b)(2)(i) requires overhead
and gantry cranes not permanently
installed in a facility to comply with
§§ 1926.1400 through 1926.1414;
§§ 1926.1417 through 1926.1425;
§ 1926.1426(d); §§ 1926.1427 through
1926.1434; §§ 1926.1437, 1926.1439,
and 1926.1441 of subpart CC. Sections
1926.1435, 1926.1436 and 1926.1440,
entitled Tower cranes, Derricks, and
Sideboom cranes, respectively, are not
applicable because they pertain to
different kinds of equipment. Sections
1926.1415, 1926.1416 and
1926.1426(a)–(c) do not apply because
they refer to devices not used on
overhead and gantry cranes.
Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requires
employers to comply with the
requirements of § 1910.179.
Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) specifies the
portions of § 1910.179 that are
applicable to the equipment identified
in § 1926.1438(b)(1). The Committee
selected these requirements because
each is a safety requirement that applies
to this type of crane regardless of
whether it is used in construction or
general industry. Other than certain
definitions (described below), these are
the only provisions of § 1910.179 that
apply to the equipment identified in
§ 1926.1438(b)(1). These requirements
are:
§ 1910.179(b)(5)—Rated load marking
§ 1910.179(b)(6)—Clearance from
obstruction
§ 1910.179(b)(7)—Clearance between
parallel cranes
§ 1910.179(e)(1)—Trolley stops
§ 1910.179(e)(3)—Trolley bumpers
§ 1910.179(e)(5)—Guards for hoisting
ropes
§ 1910.179(e)(6)—Guards for moving
parts
§ 1910.179(f)(1)—Brakes for hoists
§ 1910.179(f)(4)—Brakes for trolleys and
bridges
§ 1910.179(g)—Electric equipment
§ 1910.179(h)(1)—Sheaves
§ 1910.179(h)(3)—Equalizers
§ 1910.179(k)—Testing
§ 1910.179(n)—Handling the load
Section 1926.1438(b)(2)(ii)(B) states
that the definitions in § 1910.179(a),
except for ‘‘hoist’’ and ‘‘load,’’ apply to
equipment covered by § 1926.1438(b).
For those words, the definitions in
§ 1926.1401 apply. Only three terms are
defined in both § 1926.1401 and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

§ 1910.179: ‘‘hoist,’’ ‘‘load,’’ and
‘‘runway.’’
With respect to ‘‘hoist’’ and ‘‘load,’’ the
definitions in §§ 1926.1401 and
1910.179(a) are similar but worded
differently. ‘‘Hoist’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a mechanical device for
lifting and lowering loads by winding
rope onto or off a drum.’’ In § 1910.179,
‘‘hoist’’ is defined as ‘‘an apparatus
which may be part of a crane, exerting
a force for lifting and lowering.’’ ‘‘Load’’
is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘the object
to be hoisted and the weight of the
object being lifted or lowered, including
the weight of the load-attaching
equipment such as the load block,
ropes, slings, shackles, and any other
ancillary equipment.’’ Section 1910.179
defines ‘‘load’’ as ‘‘the total
superimposed weight on the load block
or hook.’’ In both cases, the § 1926.1401
definition is clearer and more precise.
With respect to ‘‘runway,’’ the
§ 1926.1401 and § 1910.179 definitions
address different subject matter. The
definition in § 1926.1401 addresses the
criteria for a ground surface used as a
path of travel for a mobile crane
traveling with a suspended personnel
platform. The definition in § 1910.179
refers to the rails, beams, and other
structural components along which an
overhead or gantry crane travels.
Because the § 1926.1401 definition of
‘‘runway’’ does not pertain to overhead
and gantry cranes, the § 1910.179
definition applies under this section.
Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C) limits the
application of § 1910.179(b)(2) to
equipment identified in
§ 1926.1438(b)(1) that was manufactured
before September 19, 2001. Section
1910.179(b)(2) requires cranes
manufactured after August 31, 1971, to
comply with the design specifications in
American National Standard Safety
Code for Overhead and Gantry Cranes,
ANSI B30.2.0–1967. As discussed
below, equipment manufactured after
September 19, 2001, must comply with
the updated provisions of ASME B30.2–
2001. Section 1926.1438(b)(2)(ii)(C) is a
transitional provision covering
equipment manufactured between
August 31, 1971 and September 19,
2001. OSHA has made minor
grammatical revisions to (b)(2)(ii)(C) for
clarity.
Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) incorporates
several sections of the 2001 version of
ASME B30.2 into this section.
Previously, ANSI B30.2.0–1967 applied
through subpart N’s former
§ 1926.550(d). The Committee agreed
that the 2001 version should be used
because it is more comprehensive than
the 1967 version and thus more
conducive to safety. The following

PO 00000

Frm 00168

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

sections are incorporated by reference:
2–1.3.1—Foundations and Anchorages;
2–1.3.2—Crane Runways; 2–1.4.1—
Welded Construction; 2–1.6—
Lubrication; 2–1.7.2—Ladders and
Stairways; 2–1.8.2—Bridge Bumpers; 2–
1.9.1—Bridge Rail Sweeps; 2–1.9.2—
Trolley Rail Sweeps; 2–1.11—Truck
Frame Drop; 2–1.12.2—Hoist Control
Braking Means; 2–1.13.7—Lifting
Magnets; 2–1.14.2—Drums; 2–1.14.3—
Ropes; 2–1.14.5—Hooks; 2–1.15—
Warning Devices or Means for a Crane
with a Power-Traveling Mechanism; 2–
2.2.2—Load Test; 2–3.2.1.1—Planned
Engineered Lifts; and 2–3.5—Crane
Lockout/Tagout, except that in 2–
3.5.1(b), ‘‘29 CFR 1910.147,’’ the OSHA
general industry Lockout/Tagout
standard, is substituted for ‘‘ANSI
Z244.1.’’
When C–DAC drafted
§ 1926.1438(b)(2)(ii)(C), the current
version of ASME B30.2 was the 2001
edition. That has since been superseded
by a 2005 edition. OSHA notes that, in
all material respects, the 2001 and 2005
versions of the provisions listed in
§ 1926.1438(b)(2)(iii) are the same.
Except for sec. 2–1.8.2, the 2001 and
2005 provisions are identical.
Section 2–1.8.2 contains a wording
change that does not substantively alter
that provision. The 2001 version of sec.
2–1.8.2 contains the following
requirement, among others, for bridge
bumpers: ‘‘energy-absorbing (or
-dissipating) capacity to stop the bridge
when traveling with power off in either
direction at a speed of at least 40% of
rated load speed.’’ In the 2005 version
‘‘(or -dissipating)’’ is changed to ‘‘(or
energy-dissipating).’’ This is clearly a
clarification rather than a substantive
change. Accordingly, OSHA has
changed § 1926.1438(b)(2)(iii) to refer to
the 2005 version of ASME B30.2.
When employers engaged in
construction work must lock or tag
components of overhead and gantry
cranes during maintenance and repair
work, § 1926.1438(b)(2)(iii) requires
them to comply with OSHA’s general
industry lockout/tagout standard at
§ 1910.147 instead of the ANSI lockout/
tagout standard (ANSI Z244.1)
referenced in sec. 2–3.5.1(b) of ASME
B30.2–2005. The Committee determined
that the OSHA general industry lockout/
tagout standard would be more
accessible and familiar to employers in
the construction industry than the ANSI
standard. Therefore, requiring
compliance with the OSHA standard
will promote compliance and, as a
result, improve worker protection.
One commenter suggested exempting
all overhead and gantry cranes from the
scope of subpart CC because they are

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
rarely used in construction. (ID–0178.1.)
While OSHA understands they are
rarely used in construction, these cranes
are at least occasionally used in
construction. Were the Agency to delete
this section entirely, these cranes
(overhead and gantry cranes used in
construction) would not be explicitly
covered by any OSHA standard.
The same commenter reasoned that,
because overhead cranes are primarily
used in general industry and § 1910.179
does not require operator certification,
an overhead crane operator who
performs construction work only
occasionally would need to be certified
for the occasional construction-related
pick, but not for any other part of the
job. As explained above, the rule
distinguishes between permanently
installed overhead and gantry cranes,
which are primarily used in general
industry, and those that are not
permanently installed, which are
primarily used in construction work.
The Committee determined that
applying the general industry standard
(§ 1910.179) to overhead and gantry
cranes that are permanently installed in
a facility and used for construction
would reduce compliance burdens
without jeopardizing employee
protection. However, the use of
overhead and gantry cranes that are not
permanently installed in a facility,
which are more frequently used for
construction, presents concerns about
employee safety that are particular to
the construction environment. For these
overhead and gantry cranes, the
Committee applied the safety
requirements in § 1910.179, which
apply whether the crane is used in
general industry or construction, along
with portions of subpart CC to address
the specific concerns about cranes used
in construction. OSHA agrees.
The commenter recognized the
Committee’s concern when he stated
that, unlike operators of rented or
subcontracted mobile cranes, employers
that deal with overhead cranes are very
aware of the qualifications of their
operators. (ID–0178.1.) OSHA
determines that non-permanently
installed overhead and gantry cranes
used in construction present the same
concerns as rented or subcontracted
mobile cranes.
Finally, the commenter suggests that
§ 1926.1438 requires operator
certification for certain classes of lifting
equipment—pile drivers, derricks, and
service trucks with hoisting devices—
for which no certification programs
currently exist. These three types of
lifting equipment are not covered by
§ 1926.1438: Dedicated pile drivers are
covered by § 1926.1439, which requires

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

qualification or certification; operators
of cranes used with a pile-driving
attachment must be qualified or
certified under § 1926.1427, and
derricks are covered by § 1926.1436,
which specifically states that
§ 1926.1427, Operator qualification and
certification, does not apply. See the
discussion above of § 1926.1400
regarding service trucks with hoisting
devices. As noted in the explanation of
§ 1926.1427, OSHA has modified its
operator certification requirements from
the proposed rule to address
certification of operators of equipment
for which no certification program
currently exists.
Another commenter sought
clarification on whether § 1926.1438
applies to permanently installed
overhead and gantry cranes located in
facilities that may also involve
construction related activities. (ID–
0162.1.) As explained above, this
section applies to permanently installed
overhead and gantry cranes that are
used in construction. Section
1926.1438(a) clearly states that the
requirements of § 1910.179, except for
§ 1910.179(b)(1), apply to these cranes;
in these instances, the requirements of
subpart CC would not apply. Section
1926.1438 does not apply to
permanently installed overhead and
gantry cranes that are merely located in
a facility that may also be involved in
construction activities. The crane itself
must be used in construction activities
to trigger § 1926.1438.
Except as explained above, the
Agency has therefore promulgated this
provision as proposed.
Section 1926.1439 Dedicated Pile
Drivers
This section covers equipment that is
designed to function exclusively as a
pile driver, as defined in § 1926.1401.
Unlike the other equipment covered by
this subpart, dedicated pile drivers are
not designed primarily to hoist, lower,
and horizontally move suspended loads.
However, the Committee decided that
the scope of this standard should cover
dedicated pile drivers because their
functions, and related hazards, are
similar to those of cranes. For a
complete discussion of the rationale for
the coverage of dedicated pile drivers by
this standard, see the discussion in the
proposed rule at § 1926.1400, Scope (73
FR 59714, 59727–59728, Oct. 9, 2008).
As discussed below, most of the
provisions of this subpart apply to
dedicated pile drivers; however, this
section includes provisions that address
the unique characteristics of such
equipment. In addition to the
requirements of this subpart, pile

PO 00000

Frm 00169

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48073

driving equipment continues to be
covered by § 1926.603, Pile driving
equipment.
One commenter expressed support for
the inclusion of § 1926.1439. (ID–
0158.1.) OSHA received no public
comment in opposition.
Paragraph (a)
This paragraph provides that the
requirements of subpart CC apply to
dedicated pile drivers except as noted
elsewhere in this section. The Agency
changed the words ‘‘this standard’’ to
‘‘Subpart CC’’ in the final rule. With the
exception of the clarification, this
provision is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (b)
Paragraph (b) of this section provides
that the requirements of
§ 1926.1416(d)(3) do not apply to
dedicated pile drivers. Section
1926.1416(d)(3) requires that cranes
manufactured after February 28, 1992,
be equipped with anti-two-blocking
devices. This does not apply to
dedicated pile drivers. As explained in
the discussion of § 1926.1416(d)(3), antitwo-block devices are not required
during pile driving operations because
the heavy repetitive forces imposed on
such devices during pile driving cause
the devices to malfunction.
For discussion of alternative
requirements to anti-two-blocking
devices when hoisting an employee
during pile driving operations, see
§ 1926.1431(p)(2). No comments were
received for this paragraph; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c)
Paragraph (c) of this section provides
that the requirements of
§ 1926.1416(e)(4) (load weighing and
similar devices) are applicable only to
dedicated pile drivers manufactured
more than one year after the effective
date of this final rule. A load weighing
and rated capacity device provides the
operator of a dedicated pile driver with
a reliable load weight prior to each lift
to prevent equipment overload. C–DAC
found that a phase-in period was
necessary because of the technical
challenges in designing this device to
work consistently and reliably on a
dedicated pile driver.
OSHA solicited public comment on
the availability of load-weighing or
rated capacity devices for dedicated pile
drivers and the related issue of whether
a date other than one year after the
effective date of this standard would be
an appropriate date for application of
this requirement. OSHA received no
public comment regarding the phase-in
requirements. The Agency changed the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48074

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

words ‘‘this standard’’ to ‘‘Subpart CC’’ in
the final rule. With the exception of the
clarification, this provision is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)
Paragraph (d) of this section provides
that for § 1926.1433, only paragraphs (d)
and (e) of § 1926.1433 apply to
dedicated pile drivers. Paragraphs (d)
and (e) of § 1926.1433, Design,
construction and testing, are applicable
to all equipment covered by this
subpart, whereas the other provisions
are applicable to specific types of
equipment and are not relevant to
dedicated pile drivers. (See discussion
in § 1926.1433 for further explanation.)
In the proposed rule this paragraph
referred to §§ 1926.1433(e) and (f); this
was a clerical error. For the proposed
rule, § 1926.1433 had been renumbered
from what was in the C–DAC consensus
document, but paragraph (d) did not get
updated accordingly. OSHA has made
this correction in the final rule. With the
exception of the corrected referencing,
this provision is promulgated as
proposed.
Deletion of Proposed Paragraph (e)
The Committee concluded that there
was no reason to exclude dedicated pile
drivers from the requirements of
§ 1926.1427, Operator qualification and
certification. The Committee was
concerned, however, that because of the
relatively few dedicated pile drivers in
use, there would not be adequate market
demand to support the availability of
certification testing specific to such
equipment. For the same reasons, the
Committee was concerned about the
availability of auditors for auditing
employer qualification programs for
dedicated pile driver operators. C–DAC
concluded that any lack of qualification
or certification services specific to
dedicated pile drivers would be
alleviated by allowing qualification or
certification on similar equipment, so
proposed paragraph (e) of this section
read:

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

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.

After reviewing comments regarding
§ 1926.1427, OSHA decided to add
language similar to proposed
§ 1926.1439(e) to § 1926.1427. See
discussion of § 1926.1427(b)(2). In light
of that change, OSHA has decided that
it is not necessary to include proposed
§ 1926.1439(e) in the dedicated pile
driver section of the final rule. The
concerns addressed by that paragraph,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

as proposed, are now dealt with in
§ 1926.1427(b)(2), which covers
dedicated pile drivers as well as other
types of equipment covered by subpart
CC.
Section 1926.1440 Requirements for
Sideboom Cranes
‘‘Sideboom crane’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a track-type or wheeltype tractor having a boom mounted on
the side of the tractor, used for lifting,
lowering or transporting a load
suspended on the load hook. The boom
or hook can be lifted or lowered in a
vertical direction only.’’ No comments
were submitted on this definition; it is
promulgated as proposed. (See the
discussion in the proposed rule
explaining this definition at 73 FR
59868, Oct. 9, 2008.)
This section identifies which of the
other sections of the final rule apply to
this equipment and sets additional
requirements. The limited requirements
for sideboom cranes, compared to the
requirements for other types of cranes,
reflect the particular construction and
limited functions of sideboom cranes.
Sideboom cranes are of a limited
capacity and require a relatively simple
operation.
Paragraph (a)
Section 1926.1440(a) of the final rule
states that the provisions of this
standard apply with the exception of
§§ 1926.1402, Ground conditions,
1926.1415, Safety devices, 1926.1416,
Operational aids, and 1926.1427,
Operator qualification and certification.
As noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the Committee exempted
sideboom cranes from the requirements
of these four sections because the
Committee determined that, in light of
the limited capacity and relative
simplicity of operation of sideboom
cranes, these requirements would be
unnecessary (73 FR 59868, Oct. 9, 2008).
During the SBREFA process, one
Small Entity Representative (SER) raised
a question as to whether small sideboom
cranes incapable of lifting above the
height of a truck bed and with a
capacity of not more than 6,000 pounds
should be covered by the proposed rule.
This SER recommended that these small
sideboom cranes be exempted from the
scope of subpart CC. Accordingly,
OSHA asked for public comment about
the appropriateness of such an
exemption (see 73 FR 59868, Oct. 9,
2008). Two commenters responded to
this issue. (ID–0205; –0213.) Both
commenters expressed their belief that
such equipment should be exempted
from the final rule unless the equipment
is being used outside the parameters of

PO 00000

Frm 00170

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the equipment’s design, but neither
commenter provided any explanation as
to why the final rule should exempt
such equipment. (ID–0205; –0213.) As
discussed above, OSHA decided to
exempt sideboom cranes from several
provisions of the final rule. Absent any
justification to provide additional relief
for small-capacity sideboom cranes,
OSHA concludes that the exemptions
already provided in the final rule are
appropriate, and will ensure the safety
of workers who operate these cranes.
Paragraph (b)
This paragraph addresses the hazards
posed by boom free fall (that is, ‘‘live’’
booms). As noted above in the
discussion of § 1926.1426 (Free fall and
controlled load lowering), in general,
the use of equipment with live booms is
prohibited. However, equipment
manufactured before the ANSI B30.5
series prohibited live booms may use
live booms under conditions specified
in § 1926.1426(a)(2). The prohibition in
§ 1926.1426 applies to equipment
manufactured on or after October 31,
1984. Equipment manufactured before
that date may only use live booms when
none of the free fall prohibitions
outlined in § 1926.1426(a)(1) are
present.
OSHA received no comments on
proposed § 1926.1440(b). Therefore, in
the final rule, this paragraph will retain
the approach to live booms described in
the proposal. Accordingly, final
paragraph (b) of this section applies an
approach to live booms used with
sideboom cranes that is similar to the
approach discussed above for
§ 1926.1426. The only difference is the
cut-off date of manufacture for
sideboom cranes with live booms. As
explained above in the discussion of
§ 1926.1426(a)(2), in light of the history
of the ANSI B30.5 prohibition against
live booms, most equipment covered by
this standard manufactured after
October 31, 1984, does not have live
booms. In contrast, the ANSI/ASME
standards applicable to sideboom cranes
(ANSI/ASME B30.14) have never
prohibited live booms. As a result,
sideboom cranes with live booms
continued to be manufactured after
1984. Consequently, under
§ 1926.1440(b), to avoid undue burden
on employers, OSHA is designating the
cut-off date of manufacture for
sideboom cranes with live booms as the
effective date of this final standard.
Therefore, employers may continue to
use sideboom cranes manufactured
prior to this date in which the boom is
designed to free fall, except under the
conditions specified in
§ 1926.1426(a)(1). OSHA determines

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
that these conditions will increase
employee safety compared to current
practices. No comments were submitted
on this paragraph; it is promulgated as
proposed.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Paragraph (c)
As drafted by C–DAC, this paragraph
would have required that sideboom
cranes meet specific requirements of
ASME B30.14–1996 (‘‘Side Boom
Tractors’’), as amended by ASME
B30.14a–1997, B30.14b–1999, and
B30.14c–2001. After the Committee
completed its work, ASME consolidated
the requirements of the 1996 standard
and the amendments into ASME
B30.14–2004. Final § 1926.1440(c)
incorporates by reference several
sections of ASME B30.14–2004 into the
same 12 subparagraphs described in the
proposed rule. While OSHA received no
comments to proposed § 1926.1440(c), it
decided to retain these 12
subparagraphs in the final rule because
the Committee determined that these
ASME requirements are necessary and
appropriate for sideboom cranes, and
represent current best practices for the
industry.
The 12 subparagraphs retained in
§ 1926.1440(c) of the final rule refer to
the following sections of ASME B30.14–
2004: 14–1.1 (‘‘Load Ratings’’); 14–1.3
(‘‘Side Boom Tractor Travel’’); 14–1.5
(‘‘Ropes and Reeving Accessories’’); 14–
1.7.1 (‘‘Booms’’); 14–1.7.2 (‘‘General
Requirements—Exhaust Gases’’); 14–
1.7.3 (‘‘General Requirements—
Stabilizers (Wheel-Type Side Boom
Tractors)’’); 14–1.7.4 (‘‘General
Requirements—Welded Construction’’);
14–1.7.6 (‘‘General requirements—
Clutch and Brake Protection’’); 14–2.2.2
(‘‘Testing—Rated Load Test’’), except
that it applies only to equipment that
has been altered or modified; paragraph
(a) of 14–3.1.2 (‘‘Operator
Qualifications’’) except that the phrase
‘‘when required by law’’ is omitted;
paragraphs (e), (f)(1)–(f)(4), (f)(6), (f)(7),
(h), and (i) of 14–3.1.3 (‘‘Operating
Practices’’), and paragraphs (j), (l), and
(m) of § 1926.14–3.2.3 (‘‘Moving the
Load’’). Regarding the last four of these
sections, OSHA is stipulating
exceptions, or requiring employers to
comply with only specified provisions.
OSHA wanted to avoid any duplication,
conflicts or possible confusion, so the
final rule does not incorporate
provisions of the ASME standard that
deal with issues addressed by other
provisions of this standard. The
incorporated provisions consist of
requirements that are specific to
sideboom cranes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Section 1926.1441 ‘‘Requirements for
Equipment With a Rated Hoisting/
Lifting Capacity of 2,000 Pounds or Less
Section 1926.1441 establishes the
requirements applicable for equipment
with a maximum-rated hoisting/lifting
capacity of 2,000 pounds. The section
covers equipment designed and built at
the jobsite, as well as manufactured
equipment. In the proposal, the
introductory paragraph used the term
‘‘manufacturer-rated’’ that appeared in
the C–DAC Document. OSHA requested
public comment on this whether to use
the term ‘‘rated’’ instead of
‘‘manufacturer-rated’’ to clarify that the
section applied to both jobsite-built and
manufactured equipment. OSHA
received only two comments, and both
commenters supported this revision
because it would clarify application of
the section. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1.)
Therefore, OSHA made the proposed
revision in the final rule.
OSHA also solicited public comment
on whether the maximum rated capacity
for application of this section should be
revised because of crane-technology
advancements or other considerations.
Two commenters, one from the signinstallation industry and the other from
the utilities industry, commented that
OSHA should increase the maximum
rated capacity cut-off for application of
this section to not more than 10,000
pounds. (ID–0162.1; –0189.1.) The signinstallation representative commented
that the operator-qualification
requirements of § 1926.1441 would
encourage employers to use smaller
cranes at or near their maximum rated
capacity. This commenter indicated that
using 2,000-pound rated-capacity
equipment in such a way is less safe
than using higher capacity equipment,
which would be operated below its
rated capacity, and at a more optimum
boom angle. The utilities-industry
commenter suggested coupling the
10,000 pound cut-off with a boom
length of 25 feet. A representative from
the materials-delivery industry testified
during the hearing of the proposed rule
that OSHA should exempt truckmounted articulated-boom loaders of
10,000 pounds or less, stating that the
State of California has such an
exemption. (ID–0343.)
Another commenter, from the homebuilding industry, believed that OSHA
should raise the capacity cut-off to
70,000 pounds and 120 feet of boom
because this industry frequently
performs light load lifts such as hoisting
roofing and framing materials. (ID–
0232.) OSHA notes that the ground
conditions at residential construction
sites are often hazardous to crane

PO 00000

Frm 00171

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48075

operation because the soil at new-home
construction sites is often disturbed. In
addition, there may be voids, such as
conduits and sewers, underneath the
soil around existing homes. Power lines
also are common at these sites.
Furthermore, cranes used in residential
construction not only hoist loads to
structures, but also hold loads in
position during installation activities,
often with significant boom extension.
A representative from a major cranerental company shared similar concerns
during the public hearing about the
hazards of boom trucks used to perform
relatively light lifts in support of
residential-construction activities. (ID–
0344.) This witness stated that boomtruck cranes present greater risk of tip
over than larger cranes with wider
outrigger bases and greater stability, and
that an inexperienced operator with a
rented crane (i.e., bare rental) may not
have this knowledge. This witness
believed that the operators of bare rental
cranes do not completely understand
how much the capacity of the
equipment decreases as the boom
extends further. The witness described
crane incidents in which operators of
small cranes tipped equipment or
dropped bundles of roofing materials at
residential-construction sites, and
provided numerous photographs of
crane failures at these sites. (ID–0345.7.)
Two commenters stated that they
believe the 2,000-pound limit is
appropriate. (ID–0205.1; –0213.1.)
Discussion at the hearing also addressed
the appropriateness of the 2,000 pound
capacity limitation. For example, a
representative of a major local
government testified about the city’s
experiences with smaller cranes, and
explained that smaller cranes, like some
knuckle-boom cranes, lift heavier loads
and extend their booms further than
older cranes, allowing materialsdelivery personnel at construction sites
to position and hold materials for
contractors during installation and
erection activities. (ID–0342.) The city
representative stated that, when
employers perform these activities with
greater capacity equipment, employers
typically plan for those operations;
however, the same planning is not
necessarily done by employers when
using smaller capacity equipment for
the same activities (i.e., lifting, moving,
and landing materials).
After reviewing the comments and
testimony received on this issue, OSHA
finds no persuasive evidence that
justifies revising the capacity cut-off for
the application of the requirements
§ 1926.1441. The record provides no
evidence that the hazards are different
for equipment in the rated capacity

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48076

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

range from 2,000 to 10,000 pounds than
the hazards associated with equipment
not covered by § 1926.1441. The myriad
hazards addressed by this standard,
including, for example, inadequate
ground conditions, power lines,
ineffective signal communications,
overloading, and inadequate operator
knowledge/ability, also are applicable to
equipment in this capacity range. As
noted in the discussion of § 1926.1427,
some hazards may be increased because
these cranes are often used in tight
spaces. Therefore, OSHA determines
that the cut-off point of 2,000 pounds or
less as proposed is appropriate. This
conclusion is consistent with the
judgment of the Committee as described
in the proposal (73 FR 59869, Oct. 9,
2008).
Paragraph (a) of this section lists the
provisions of this subpart that apply to
equipment covered by this section.
OSHA did not receive any comments on
proposed paragraph (a) and is deferring
to the Committee’s determination that
the hazards addressed by these
provisions apply irrespective of the
equipment’s rated capacity. For
example, the dangers associated with
making electrical contact with a power
line do not depend on the lifting
capacity of the equipment, so C–DAC
determined that §§ 1926.1407–
1926.1411 on power line safety should
apply to all equipment regardless of
rated capacity. Similarly, the other
provisions listed in this paragraph apply
to equipment with a rated capacity of
2,000 pounds or less to the same extent
that those sections apply to that type of
equipment with a rated capacity in
excess of 2,000 pounds. To avoid
confusion, OSHA is including
references in this final paragraph (a) to
provisions located and required in other
paragraphs of proposed § 1926.1441.
Therefore, paragraph (a) now also
references §§ 1926.1403, 1926.1406,
1926.1412(c), and 1926.1425 (except
1926.1425(c)(3)).
Paragraph (b) of this section sets forth
requirements for the assembly/
disassembly of cranes covered by this
section, and duplicates requirements
specified elsewhere in this subpart. In
this regard, paragraph (b)(1) requires
that equipment covered by this section
meet the requirements of §§ 1926.1403
and 1926.1406 for assembly/
disassembly, while paragraph (b)(2)
consists of requirements for the
components and configuration of
equipment covered by this section.
OSHA received no comments on these
two paragraphs. Paragraph (b)(1) refers
to §§ 1926.1403 and 1926.1406 of this
subpart, and the preamble discussion
above provides an explanation of these

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

sections, and OSHA’s rationale for
including them in the final rule.
Because §§ 1926.1403 and 1926.1406 are
included in paragraph (a), OSHA has
modified the language in paragraph
(b)(1) for clarity. The requirements set
forth under paragraph (b)(2) duplicate
the requirements specified by
§§ 1926.1404(m)(1), (m)(1)(i), (m)(1)(ii),
(m)(2), and (n) of this subpart; see the
discussion under § 1926.1404(m) and
(n) of this preamble for an explanation
of these provisions, and OSHA’s
rationale for adopting them in the final
rule.
Paragraph (b)(3) requires employers to
comply with manufacturer prohibitions
for equipment covered by this section.
The same requirement applies to highercapacity equipment under
§ 1926.1404(n). OSHA received no
comments on the proposed paragraph
and is including the provision in the
final rule as proposed because the
Committee agreed that manufacturers’
prohibitions are designed to prevent
hazards that can arise with the use of
their products.
Paragraph (c) of this section specifies
procedural requirements for operating
the equipment. Paragraph (c)(1) requires
the employer to comply with all
manufacturer procedures applicable to
equipment operation, including
equipment operation with attachments.
The same requirement applies to highercapacity equipment under
§ 1926.1417(a). OSHA received no
comments on the proposed paragraph
and is including the provision in the
final rule as proposed because the
Committee agreed that manufacturer
procedures are designed to prevent
hazards that can arise with the use of
their products.
The requirements in paragraph (c)(2)
apply to equipment for which
manufacturer operating procedures are
unavailable. Under these conditions,
paragraph (c)(2)(i) requires the employer
to develop, and ensure compliance
with, the procedures necessary for the
safe operation of the equipment and its
attachments.
Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) specifies that the
employer must ensure that a qualified
person develops the procedures for
operational controls. The Committee
concluded that, because these
procedures are highly complex and
critical to operational control of the
equipment, a qualified person has the
high degree of expertise necessary to
ensure proper development of the
control procedures.
When the employer develops the
operating procedures for this
equipment, paragraph (c)(2)(iii) requires
that procedures related to the capacity

PO 00000

Frm 00172

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of the equipment be developed and
signed by a professional engineer
familiar with the equipment. The
Committee concluded that, because the
type and complexity of engineering
analysis needed to develop safe
procedures related to capacity, a
registered professional engineer who is
familiar with the equipment must
perform this task. The Committee also
agreed that signing the procedures was
necessary to ensure that the engineer
performed the task with the requisite
level of care.
No commenters responded to the
provisions of proposed paragraph (c).
OSHA is adopting these provisions in
the final rule as proposed because (1)
the provisions are consistent with the
consensus reached by the Committee,
and (2) will ensure that, absent
manufacturer procedures, employers
develop procedures that will protect
workers as effectively as operating
procedures developed by the equipment
manufacturer when implemented as
required.
Paragraph (c)(3) of the final rule
addresses the provision of operating
information to the equipment operator.
Equipment covered by this section may
not have an operator’s cab; therefore,
paragraph (c)(3)(i) requires that the load
chart be made available to the operator
at the control station rather than in the
cab. The Committee developed this
provision to prevent cranes from being
used to perform operations beyond their
rated capacities. The Committee
determined that the load chart must be
readily available to crane operators
since capacity varies according to a
variety of factors addressed in such
charts, including, for example, boom
length, radius, boom angle, and
equipment configuration. OSHA
received no comments on the proposed
paragraph and is including the
provision in the final rule as proposed
based on the rationale provided by the
Committee
Under paragraph (c)(3)(ii), employers
must ensure that required procedures,
recommendations, warnings,
instructions, and operator’s manual be
readily available for use by the operator.
Again, this provision covers equipment
with and without a cab. The consensus
of the Committee was that operators
must have easy access to the
information in these materials to operate
the equipment safely. No comments
were received on this provision and
OSHA is including this provision in the
final rule as proposed.
When rated capacities are available at
the control station only in electronic
form and a failure occurs that makes the
rated capacities inaccessible, paragraph

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(c)(3)(iii) requires employers to ensure
that the crane operator immediately
ceases operations or follows safe shutdown procedures until the rated
capacities become available again. The
Committee agreed that it is unsafe to
continue to operate the equipment if the
rated capacities are inaccessible to the
operator. No comments were received
on this provision and OSHA is adopting
this requirement in the final rule as
proposed.
Paragraph (d) of this section specifies
requirements for safety devices and
operational aids for the equipment. In
this regard, paragraph (d)(1) requires
that employers maintain safety devices
and operational aids that are part of the
original equipment in accordance with
manufacturer procedures. (Note: This
requirement applies to anti two-block
devices used on equipment covered by
this section manufactured before the
effective date of this final standard; see
discussion of anti two-block device
under paragraph (d)(3) below.) The
Committee determined that the full
range of safety devices and operational
aids required by §§ 1926.1415 and
1926.1416 of this subpart were not
generally needed for the safe operation
of this low-capacity equipment.
However, the Committee also concluded
that, if the manufacturer included such
devices or aids, it is probable that the
manufacturer’s design relies on them
working properly for the equipment to
operate safely. Therefore, it is
appropriate for the standard to require
them to be maintained in accordance
with the manufacturer’s procedures. No
comments were received on this
provision and OSHA is retaining this
paragraph in the final standard as
proposed.
Under paragraph (d)(2), employers
must ensure that the equipment covered
by this section and manufactured more
than one year after the effective date of
this final standard be equipped either
with an anti-two block device that meets
the requirements of § 1926.1416(d)(3), or
be designed so that no damage or load
failure occurs in the event of a twoblock situation. The provision also
identifies an example of equipment
designed to prevent equipment damage
load failure, i.e., when the power unit of
the machine stalls in the event of a twoblock situation. In such a case, the
power unit does not have sufficient
power to cause the load to fail or to
damage the equipment. Instead, when
the two-block situation occurs, the
power unit stalls, which prevents the
load from falling. The purpose of this
paragraph is to prevent equipment
damage or failure stemming from
contact between a component on the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

hoist line and the boom tip, which
occurs during a two-block situation.
Such contact can lead to a damaged or
severed load line, as well as other types
of equipment failure.
The Committee agreed to provide
employers with discretion to choose
between two options for eliminating
two-block hazards. The first option
prevents a two-block situation from
occurring, while the second option
prevents equipment damage and load
failure if a two-block situation occurs.
The Committee determined that, for the
equipment cover by this section, each
option protects employees equally well.
Regarding the first option, the anti twoblock device used must meet the
requirements for such devices specified
by § 1926.1416(d)(3). Paragraph (d)(3) of
§ 1926,1416 addresses two types of anti
two-block devices: the warning type,
and the automatic-prevention type (see
the discussion of these devices above
under § 1926.1416(d)(3) of this
preamble). The type required depends
on the type of crane and the date of
manufacture. However,
§ 1926.1416(d)(3) requires that
employers use the automatic-prevention
type on equipment manufactured more
than one year after the effective date of
this final standard. Therefore, since the
requirement in § 1926.1441(d)(2) only
applies to equipment manufactured
more than one year after the effective
date of this final standard, and to
remain consistent with
§ 1926.1416(d)(3), the anti two-block
device used on equipment covered by
this section must be the automaticprevention type. The Committee
concluded that it would be
inappropriate to apply this requirement
to equipment manufactured before
either a voluntary consensus standard or
Federal requirement is in place.
Therefore, this paragraph applies to
equipment manufactured more than one
year after the effective date of this final
standard.
OSHA received no comments on any
provision of proposed paragraph (c).
Based on the Committee’s rationale for
these provisions, and the increased
safety afforded to employees, OSHA is
adopting these provisions in the final
rule as proposed.
Paragraph (e) of this section requires
that, before operating equipment,
employers train operators on the safe
operation of the type of equipment the
operator will be using. OSHA received
two comments on the proposed
paragraph. The first commenter believed
the 2,000 pound cut-off was too low
and, because the operators would not
have to be certified, employers will use
lower-capacity cranes to perform

PO 00000

Frm 00173

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48077

construction jobs that require highercapacity equipment. (ID–0189.) The
second commenter stated that
certification of the operators of lowcapacity cranes is unnecessary in the
home-building industry, but offered no
rationale for this position. (ID–0232.)
OSHA notes that the problem of
overloading equipment would exist
even at a higher cut-off point. The only
way to eliminate this problem would be
to require operator qualification/
certification pursuant to § 1926.1427 for
all equipment, including equipment
covered by this section. The Committee
concluded that it is appropriate to
exempt lower-capacity equipment from
the operator qualification/certification
requirements of § 1926.1427. Consistent
with the Committee’s consensus, OSHA
finds that training operators in the safe
operation of the equipment as required
by this final standard reduces the
likelihood of accidents and injuries by
minimizing operator error; therefore, the
operator certification/qualification
procedures required for higher-capacity
equipment under § 1926.1427 are not
necessary for this lower-capacity
equipment.
Under paragraph (f) of this section,
employers must ensure that signal
persons are trained in the proper use of
signals applicable to the use of
equipment covered by this section.
Although the equipment covered by this
section has a low capacity, in some
circumstances its safe operation
depends on signals given by a signal
person. Accordingly, this paragraph
ensures that communication between
the crane operator and the signal person
is clear and effective. However, the
Committee concluded that the
comprehensive signal-person
qualification procedures required for
higher-capacity equipment under
§ 1926.1428, Signal person
qualifications, are not needed for this
equipment. OSHA received no
comments on proposed paragraph (f)
and is including the provision in the
final rule as proposed based on the
rationale provided by the Committee.
Proposed paragraph (g) of this section
required that equipment covered by this
section comply with § 1926.1425,
Keeping clear of the load, except for
§ 1926.1425(c)(3); § 1926.1425(c)(3)
specifies that materials be rigged by a
qualified rigger. The Committee
determined that, in light of the limited
capacity of this equipment, it was
unnecessary to require a qualified
rigger. OSHA received no comments on
the proposed provision and is deferring
to the Committee’s determination. As
noted in the discussion of paragraph (a)
above, the requirement for the employer

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48078

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

to comply with § 1926.1425 (except for
§ 1926.1425(c)(3)) has been added to the
provisions listed in paragraph (a).
Therefore, OSHA is removing and
reserving paragraph (g) in this final rule
because the requirements proposed in
paragraph (g) are now required in final
paragraph (a).
According to paragraph (h) of this
section, employers must ensure that
equipment covered by this section is
inspected pursuant to the
manufacturer’s procedures. The
Committee concluded that these
inspections are sufficient to detect
conditions that could lead to equipment
failure because manufacturers typically
recommend procedures designed to
prevent hazards that can arise during
equipment operation. The Committee
concluded that the comprehensive
inspection procedures required for
higher-capacity equipment under
§ 1926.1412 are not needed for lighter,
less complicated, equipment. OSHA
received no comments on the proposed
paragraph and is adopting this
paragraph in the final rule as proposed
based on the rationale provided by the
Committee.
Paragraph (j) of this section prohibits
using equipment covered by this section
to hoist personnel. OSHA received no
comments on the proposed paragraph
and is including it in the final rule as
proposed because the Committee
determined that the low capacity and
light construction of this equipment
makes it unsuited for lifting personnel
safely.
Under paragraph (k) of this section,
employers must ensure that a qualified
engineer designs the equipment. The
Committee noted that some employers
may design and construct this type of
equipment themselves, rather than
using equipment built by a
manufacturer. The Committee
developed this provision to ensure that,
in such cases, the design of such
equipment is sufficient to protect
employees exposed to it. OSHA
received no comments on the proposed
paragraph and is retaining it in the final
standard as proposed based on the
Committee’s rationale.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Section 1926.1442

Severability

The Agency is including a standard
severability clause to express the
Agency’s intent that if any court of
competent jurisdiction renders any
provision in subpart CC unenforceable,
the remaining provisions of the subpart
would remain in effect.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

V. Procedural Determinations
A. Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq. (‘‘the Act’’), is ‘‘to assure so far as
possible every working man and woman
in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human
resources.’’ 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve
this goal, Congress authorized the
Secretary of Labor to promulgate and
enforce occupational safety and health
standards. See 29 U.S.C. 654, 655(b),
and 658. A safety or health standard
‘‘requires conditions, or the adoption or
use of one or more practices, means,
methods, operations, or processes,
reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment
and places of employment.’’ 29 U.S.C.
652(8).
A safety standard is reasonably
necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of 29 U.S.C. 652(8) if it
substantially reduces or eliminates a
significant risk of material harm in the
workplace; is economically and
technologically feasible; uses the most
cost effective protective measures; is
consistent with or is a justified
departure from prior Agency action; is
supported by substantial evidence; and
is better able to effectuate the Act’s
purposes than any relevant national
consensus standard. See UAW v. OSHA,
37 F.3d 665, 668 (DC Cir.
1994)(‘‘LOTO’’). In addition, safety
standards must be highly protective. See
id. at 669.
A standard is technologically feasible
if the protective measures it requires
already exist, can be brought into
existence with available technology, or
can be created with technology that can
reasonably be expected to be developed.
See, e.g., American Iron & Steel Inst.,
Inc. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (DC Cir.
1991) (per curiam) (‘‘AISI’’). A standard
is economically feasible if industry can
absorb or pass on the costs of
compliance without threatening its
long-term profitability or competitive
structure. See, e.g., AISI, 939 F.2d at
980. A standard is cost effective if the
protective measures it requires are the
least costly of the available alternatives
that achieve the same level of
protection. See LOTO, 37 F.3d at 668.
Section 6(b)(7) authorizes OSHA to
include among a standard’s
requirements labeling, monitoring,
medical testing, and other information
gathering and transmittal provisions. 29
U.S.C. 655(b)(7). Finally, the OSH Act
requires that, when promulgating a rule
that differs substantially from a national
consensus standard, OSHA must
explain why the promulgated rule is a

PO 00000

Frm 00174

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

better method for effectuating the
purpose of the Act. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8).
Deviations from relevant consensus
standards are explained elsewhere in
this preamble.
B. Executive Summary of the Final
Economic Analysis; Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
1. Introduction and Summary
For the final Cranes and Derricks
standard, the Agency is presenting this
Executive Summary of the Final
Economic Analysis (FEA) in this
preamble; while the full FEA will be
available in the docket. The complete
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
also presented here.
The Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (OSH Act) requires OSHA
to demonstrate the technological and
economic feasibility of its rules.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
amended in 1996, require Federal
agencies to analyze the costs, benefits,
and other consequences and impacts,
including small business impacts, of
their rules.
The final cranes standard is an
economically significant action under
E.O. 12866 and a major rule under the
Congressional Review Act (SBREFA). In
addition, as required by the RFA, the
Agency has assessed the potential
impacts of this final rule on small
entities and has prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. This
rule is not a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate, and the
Agency has no obligations to conduct
analyses of this rule under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995; however the rule has costs of over
$100 million per year on the private
sector, and is thus subject to the
requirement under UMRA for review of
private-sector costs. These requirements
are met in this section.
The purpose of the Final Economic
Analysis is to identify the
establishments and industries affected
by the final standard; evaluate the
standard’s costs, benefits, and economic
impacts; assess the technological and
economic feasibility of the final
standard for affected industries; and
evaluate the appropriateness of
regulatory and non-regulatory
alternatives to the rule. The FEA has
been developed according to the
requirements of E.O. 12866 and the OSH
Act. In addition, in accordance with the
RFA as amended by the SBREFA, this
analysis identifies and estimates the
impacts of the proposal on small
businesses, using the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA’s) industry-

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
specific definitions of small businesses.
In addition, OSHA assessed the impacts
of the rule on very small businesses; i.e.,
those with fewer than 20 employees.
The FEA differs in several respects
from the preliminary economic analysis
(PEA). Several affected general industry
sectors have been added to the original
analysis, based on comment during the
rulemaking—for example, electric
utilities, telecommunications, sign
manufacturers, natural gas pipelines,
and shipyards—an estimated 22,000
potentially affected establishments in
all. Costs have been revised for
employer duties for assembly/
disassembly and ground conditions,
power line work, and crane operator
certification, as well as inspections (due
to an error in the PEA). New costs have
been estimated for meeting ground
conditions’ provisions ($2.3 million
annually). Estimated costs for assembly/
disassembly have been decreased in this
final analysis, from about $33 million
annually in the PEA to about $16
million, primarily due to an increase in
current compliance (baseline) and
estimated costs also fell for inspections
(from $21 million annually to $16.5
million). Estimated costs for several
provisions have been increased from the
PEA: for work near power lines (from
$30 million annually to $68 million)
and for crane operator certification
(from $37 million annually to about $51
million, primarily due to an increase in
the unit cost, many more operators
potentially needing certification in the
affected general industry sectors, but
decreased by the higher current
baseline). Overall, estimated costs
increased from the $83 million annually
in the PEA to about $154 million. The
final benefits analysis is based on four
years’ of IMIS fatality reports, rather
than BLS’s Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries as in the preliminary analysis,
as it was not possible to use the CFOI
data to estimate the number of fatalities
that were occurring due to crane
construction activity by employers in
general industry sectors. The Agency
estimates that compliance with the final

standard will prevent 22 fatalities and
175 non-fatal injuries per year,
compared to 53 fatalities estimated to be
avoided in the PEA.
The Agency also estimates that
compliance will result in considerable
cost saving by preventing many more
accidents that do not result in injury.
The Agency has estimated that annual
savings from avoiding project delay,
damage to cranes and structures, and
lost productivity is at least $7 million
annually just from one type of crane
accident—tipovers. The Agency has not
attempted to quantify all of the costs
avoided by all crane accidents
prevented by the final standard, but
concludes these cost savings are also
substantial. In addition, the Agency has
noted that a significant portion of these
benefits will be passed back
immediately to employers in the form of
$51 million annual savings in liability
insurance costs for the affected
industries.
OMB requires agencies to monetize
benefits where possible. The Agency is
revising its estimate of the VSL
presented in the PEA, which was based
on an EPA estimate from the early
1990s. The VSL is estimated to be about
$7 million in terms of 2000 dollars
(Viscusi and Aldy, 2003). At the same
time the willingness-to-pay to avoid
serious injury was estimated to be about
$50,000. The Agency is adjusting the
values based on the change in the GDP
implicit price deflator from 2000 to
2010 of about 25 percent (Bureau of
Economic Analysis, ‘‘National Economic
Accounts,’’ Table 1.1.9 at http://
www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb). The
VSL is then $8.7 million and the
monetized value of avoiding a serious,
non-fatal injury is $62,500. When
fatalities and injuries are monetized, the
total monetized benefits of the standard
from preventing crane accidents is
$202.3 million annually from those
sources.
The Agency estimates that the total
cost of the final standard is about $154.1
million annually. Based on comment in
the record, the Agency increased unit

48079

costs for ground conditions and
‘‘controlling entity’’ duties for some
sectors, crane operator certification, and
power line compliance provisions. The
record showed that relatively more
crane operators are already certified,
and the Agency reduced costs by that
factor. The total estimated costs
increased due to the inclusion of some
general industry sectors which perform
construction activities, as well as
increases in unit costs. The net benefit
of the standard is $55.2 million
annually (total benefits of $ 209.3
million less costs of $154.1 million
annually).
The economic impact on affected
employers, in terms of costs versus
revenues, ranged from 0.01 percent to
0.2 percent, for an average-size
employer. When annual costs are
compared to profits, impacts range from
0.1 percent to 4 percent, for the average
employer. Impacts were highest for
employers who owned and rented
cranes. The final standard is
technologically feasible for employers as
it does not contain any requirements
that are not capable of being done. The
Agency also concludes that the final
standard is economically feasible, as the
highest impacts are on employers who
own and rent cranes and even that
impact is no more than 4 percent. Cost
and impacts of that magnitude are far
less than the typical yearly swings in
revenues and profits for the
construction industry. Economic
impacts on small business are presented
below in the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
Based on comment in the record,
some employees may bear the cost of
crane operator certification (that is, pay
for their own certification). The Agency
attributes all costs of crane operator
certification to employers in the
analysis, though. There may also be
language and literacy barriers for
operator certification that some current
operators may not be able to surmount.
Table B–1 summarizes the benefits and
costs of this final standard.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

TABLE B–1—ANNUAL BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS, 2010 DOLLARS
Annualized Costs*:
Crane Assembly/Disassembly ..............................................................................................................................................
Power Line Safety .................................................................................................................................................................
Crane Inspections .................................................................................................................................................................
Ground Conditions ................................................................................................................................................................
Operator Qualification and Certification ................................................................................................................................
Total Annual Costs: .......................................................................................................................................................
Annual Benefits:
Number of Injuries Prevented ...............................................................................................................................................
Number of Fatalities Prevented ............................................................................................................................................
Property Damage from Tipovers Prevented .........................................................................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00175

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

$16.3 million.
$68.2 million.
$16.5 million.
$ 2.3 million.
$50.7 million.
$154.1 million.
175.
22.
$7 million.

48080

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE B–1—ANNUAL BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS, 2010 DOLLARS—Continued

Total Monetized Benefits ...............................................................................................................................................
Annual Net Benefits (Benefits minus Costs) ...............................................................................................................................

$209.3 million.
$55.2 million.

Source: OSHA Office of Regulatory Analysis.
* Costs with 7% discount rate. Total costs with 3% discount rate: $150.4 million annually.

2. Need for the Rule and Market Failure

3. Industry Profile/Affected Industries

Occupational safety problems, such as
safety problems associated with cranes
and derricks, routinely involve the
following characteristics that lead to
market failures:
(1) A variety of situations in which
one party (employers, fellow employees)
take actions that impose risks of death
and injuries on other parties
(employees);
(2) The risk in question may not be
well understood by any party, or also
subject to asymmetric information (the
employer will typically know more
about the risks than employees);
(3) The costs of the risks are routinely
transferred to other parties who
typically lack the information necessary
for a precise estimate of the costs of the
transfer, or are not permitted to price
transfers appropriately (insurers are
routinely forced to use premium
systems that do not capture all possible
knowledge about risk).
These characteristics mean that markets
will not adequately capture the risk
involved, and thus regulations are
needed. (See Chapter 1 of the FEA for
more detail.)

The final standard would affect
employers and employees across most
construction industry sectors as well as
some in some general industry sectors
where cranes and derricks are used as
part of the performance of work duties.
These industries include firms involved
in renting cranes for use in construction
projects such as: Multi-family housing;
industrial buildings and warehouses;
other nonresidential buildings; highway
and street construction; and water,
sewer, power, and communication line
construction. As in the preliminary
economic analysis (PEA), the Agency
has grouped affected establishments, by
industry, into the following categories
for analyzing the final standard:
• Crane Rental with Operators,
• Crane Rental without Operators,
• Own and Rent Cranes with
Operators,
• Own but Do Not Rent, and
• Crane Lessees in the Construction
Industry (referred to simply as ‘‘Crane
Lessees’’ throughout).
The affected firms and establishments,
including information on number of
employees, revenues, and profits, are

presented below in Table B–2. In some
sectors the number of cranes has
changed from the PEA because the
analysis has been updated with revenue
data from the 2006 County Business
Patterns (CPB) and Statistics of U.S.
Businesses (SUSB), and in those sectors
the number of cranes was estimated
from revenues.
The PEA accompanying the proposed
standard presented an industry profile
describing crane use in all sectors of the
traditional construction industries, the
current NAICS 233–236 (the older SICs
16, 17, and 18) and the crane rental
industry sector in general industry,
NAICS 53214. There were no comments
objecting to the inclusion of these
sectors in the economic analysis.
However, there was comment from
some general industry sectors following
publication of the proposal. They noted
that the PEA had focused exclusively on
the construction industry and had not
captured costs or benefits for general
industry employers who own
equipment covered by the standard and
engage in construction activity in
addition their primary work in the
various general industry sectors.

TABLE B–2—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF AFFECTED FIRMS AND ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD
Affected
NAIC

Average per estab.

Industry
Firms

Estabs

Employees

Profit rate
(percent)

Revenues
$1,000

Profits
$1,000

Crane Rental with Operators
238990 ..............

All Other Specialty Trade Cont ........

1,244

1,304

16,244

4.56

$1,918

$88

48,481

6.42

3,427

220

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals)
532412 ..............

Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip ...

2,137

3,702

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators
236115
236118
236210
236220

..............
..............
..............
..............

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

237110 ..............
237120 ..............
237130 ..............
237310 ..............
237990 ..............

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single-Family Housing Const ...
Residential Remodelers ...................
Industrial Building Construction ........
Commercial and Institutional Building.
Water and Sewer Line and Related
Struct.
Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related
Struct.
Power and Communication Line and
Rel.
Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction.
Other Heavy and Civil Engineering
Const.

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00176

178
25
9
23

178
25
12
31

261
45
1,067
757

4.67
4.67
4.67
4.67

220
443
12,213
4,157

10
21
571
194

52

69

1,432

5.22

4,107

214

20

26

1,457

5.22

5,510

288

34

34

666

5.22

2,880

150

80

107

6,456

5.22

11,783

615

76

101

5,857

5.22

10,201

533

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

48081

TABLE B–2—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF AFFECTED FIRMS AND ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD—
Continued
Affected
NAIC

Firms
238110 ..............
238120 ..............
238130
238150
238170
238190

Average per estab.

Industry

..............
..............
..............
..............

238210 ..............
238220 ..............
238290 ..............
238320 ..............
238910 ..............

Poured Concrete Foundation and
Struct.
Structural Steel and Precast Concrete.
Framing Contractors .........................
Glass and Glazing Contractors ........
Siding Contractors ............................
Other Foundation, Structure, and
Building.
Electrical Contractors .......................
Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning.
Other Building Equipment Contractors.
Painting and Wall Covering Contractors.
Site Preparation Contractors ............
Subtotal .....................................

Estabs

Employees

Profit rate
(percent)

Revenues
$1,000

Profits
$1,000

261

261

4,328

4.42

2,273

101

200

266

7,389

4.42

3,439

152

26
42
5
49

26
42
5
65

120
328
18
1,145

4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42

153
616
496
1,509

7
27
22
67

15
2

15
3

176
196

4.32
3.86

1,303
5,835

56
225

113

151

4,076

4.42

3,474

154

21

21

159

4.42

916

41

400

400

4,706

4.56

1,668

76

1,630

1,838

40,639

Own but Do Not Rent
236115 ..............
236116 ..............
236117
236118
236210
236220

..............
..............
..............
..............

237110
237120
237130
237210
237310
237990
238110

..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............

238120
238130
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190

..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............

238210 ..............
238220 ..............

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

238290 ..............
238310 ..............
238320 ..............
238330
238340
238350
238390
238910
221110
221120

..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............

221210 ..............
321213 ..............
321214 ..............
336611 ..............
339950 ..............

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family housing construction.
New Multifamily housing construction.
New housing operative builders .......
Residential Remodelers ...................
Industrial building construction .........
Commercial and Institutional Bldg.
Const.
Water and Sewer Line Const ...........
Oil and gas pipeline construction .....
Power and communication line const
Land subdivision ...............................
Highway, street and bridge const .....
Other heavy and civil eng ................
Poured Concrete foundation and
struct.
Structural steel and precast concrete
Framing Contractors .........................
Masonry Contractors ........................
Glass & Glazing Contractors ............
Roofing Contractors ..........................
Siding Contractors ............................
Other foundation, structure, building,
ext.
Electrical Contractors .......................
Plumbing, Heating and Air-conditioning Cont.
Other building equipment cont .........
Drywall and insulation contractors ...
Painting and wall covering contractors.
Flooring Contractors .........................
Tile and Terrazzo contractors ..........
Finish Carpentry contractors ............
Other building finishing contractors ..
Site Preparation ................................
Electric Power Generation ................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution.
Natural Gas Distribution ...................
Engineered Wood Member (except
Truss) Manufacturing.
Truss Manufacturing .........................
Ship Building and Repairing .............
Sign Manufacturing ...........................

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00177

3,097

3,097

13,621

4.67

1,520

71

217

217

2,219

4.67

5,477

256

1,699
985
276
4,141

1,699
985
325
4,141

12,015
3,201
9,359
71,536

4.67
4.67
4.67
4.67

6,021
646
5,931
7,177

281
30
277
335

1,028
128
213
0
88
273
267

1,371
171
285
0
118
273
267

20,306
9,276
12,600
0
4,308
7,564
3,070

5.22
5.22
5.22
11.04
5.22
5.22
4.42

3,239
9,189
5,581
2,878
8,279
3,965
1,682

169
480
291
318
432
207
74

334
1,395
137
54
197
53
25

334
1,395
137
54
197
53
25

7,250
11,834
1,304
504
2,262
215
158

4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42

2,712
936
876
1,470
1,390
580
1,013

120
41
39
65
61
26
45

78
98

78
98

771
974

4.32
3.86

1,321
1,473

57
57

49
0
41

65
0
41

1,237
0
234

4.42
4.42
4.42

2,959
1,751
530

131
77
23

0
0
0
0
389
524
1,232

0
0
0
0
389
2,101
7,393

0
0
0
0
2,825
117,236
376,434

4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.56
4.44
4.44

811
698
678
1,091
1,416
43,042
37,443

36
31
30
48
65
1,911
1,662

526
132

2,458
162

78,813
8,499

2.98
3.87

30,459
19,027

907
737

902
575
6,291

1,085
635
6,415

51,270
87,352
89,360

3.87
6.09
5.83

5,972
23,071
1,761

231
1,406
103

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48082

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–2—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF AFFECTED FIRMS AND ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD—
Continued
Affected
NAIC

Average per estab.

Industry
Firms

423310 ..............
423330 ..............
423390 ..............
423730 ..............
444110 ..............
454312 ..............
482110 ..............
486210 ..............
517110 ..............

Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and
Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers.
Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Material Merchant Wholesalers.
Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers.
Warm Air Heating and Air-Cond.
Equip. and Supplies.
Home Centers ..................................
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Bottled
Gas) Dealers.
Railroads ...........................................
Pipeline Transportation of Natural
Gas.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers
Subtotal .....................................

Estabs

Employees

Profit rate
(percent)

Revenues
$1,000

Profits
$1,000

6,450

8,715

153,761

2.89

14,905

430

1,142

2,762

40,643

2.89

8,985

259

2,363

3,155

36,914

2.89

4,859

140

2,533

5,193

55,606

3.08

5,413

167

2,553
2,307

6,749
5,567

573,183
43,583

7.70
4.22

21,816
1,698

1,679
72

NA
127

NA
1,363

NA
22,248

NA
13.24

NA
15,037

NA
1,990

2,517

27,159

634,540

7.10

7,294

518

45,436

96,725

2,568,084

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry
236115 ..............
236116 ..............
236117
236118
236210
236220

..............
..............
..............
..............

237110
237120
237130
237210
237310
237990
238110

..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............

238120
238130
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190

..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............

238210 ..............
238220 ..............
238290 ..............
238310 ..............
238320 ..............

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

238330
238340
238350
238390
238910

..............
..............
..............
..............
..............

New Single family housing construction.
New Multifamily housing construction.
New housing operative builders .......
Residential Remodelers ...................
Industrial building construction .........
Commercial and Institutional Bldg.
Construction.
Water and Sewer Line Const ...........
Oil and gas pipeline construction .....
Power and communication line const
Land subdivision ...............................
Highway, street and bridge const .....
Other heavy and civil eng ................
Poured Concrete foundation and
struct.
Structural steel and precast concrete
Framing Contractors .........................
Masonry Contractors ........................
Glass & Glazing Contractors ............
Roofing Contractors ..........................
Siding Contractors ............................
Other foundation, structure, building,
ext.
Electrical Contractors .......................
Plumbing, Heating and Air-conditioning Cont.
Other building equipment cont .........
Drywall and insulation contractors ...
Painting and wall covering contractors.
Flooring Contractors .........................
Tile and Terrazzo contractors ..........
Finish Carpentry contractors ............
Other building finishing contractors ..
Site Preparation ................................

31,054

31,054

136,601

4.67

3,040

142

2,173

2,173

22,192

4.67

10,954

512

16,989
9,848
3,264
41,438

16,989
9,848
3,264
41,438

120,146
32,021
93,931
715,896

4.67
4.67
4.67
4.67

12,041
6,456
5,931
7,177

563
302
277
335

13,774
1,301
2,147
0
890
2,781
1,348

13,774
1,734
2,862
0
1,186
2,781
1,348

204,085
94,176
126,753
0
43,471
77,036
15,498

5.22
5.22
5.22
11.04
5.22
5.22
4.42

3,239
9,189
11,163
0
82,791
7,931
33,636

169
480
583
0
4,323
414
1,487

3,608
13,974
1,372
547
1,966
527
258

3,608
13,974
1,372
547
1,966
527
258

78,266
118,502
13,035
5,080
22,620
2,152
1,599

4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42

2,712
1,249
17,527
14,698
13,903
11,596
20,266

120
55
775
650
615
513
896

776
981

776
981

7,712
9,744

4.32
3.86

132,128
147,307

5,714
5,685

4,997
0
415

6,663
0
415

126,559
0
2,346

4.42
4.42
4.42

2,959
0
52,995

131
0
2,343

0
0
0
0
3,927

0
0
0
0
3,927

0
0
0
0
28,543

4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.56

0
0
0
0
14,164

0
0
0
0
647

Subtotal .....................................

160,352

163,463

2,097,963

Total ...........................................

210,800

267,032

4,771,411

Source: U.S. Census Bureau data; Country Business Patterns, 2006; Statistics of U.S. Businesses 2006; Internal Revenue Service, Source
Book, profit rates over 2000–2006.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00178

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
These employers either routinely have
a few tasks that can be considered
construction activity or infrequently
engage in construction projects with
cranes at their own facilities. (‘‘Cranes’’
will be used throughout this section to
refer to all covered equipment by the
final standard: Cranes, derricks, pile

driving equipment, and so forth.)
Comment in the record indicates that
the industry sectors in the table below
have some construction activity
involving cranes within the scope of the
final standard, and the Agency has
made a determination that their
construction activity with cranes does,

48083

in fact, fall under the final standard.
Table B–3 below identifies the sectors in
general industry that were identified
during the rulemaking, and the Agency
concludes will be affected by the final
standard.

TABLE B–3—GENERAL INDUSTRY SECTORS THAT PERFORM CONSTRUCTION WORK INVOLVING CRANES
NAICS

Industry

Exhibits that identify affected general industry sector

221110 ..................................................................

Electric Power Generation ...................................

ID–0155.1; –0201.1; –0203.1; –0215.1;
–0328.1; –0342; –0344; –0367.1;
–0369.1; –0408.1

221120 ..................................................................

Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution.
Natural Gas Distribution .......................................
Engineered Wood Member Mfg ...........................
Truss Mfg .............................................................
Ship Building and Repairing .................................
Sign Manufacturing ..............................................
Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood Panel
Merchant.
Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Material Merchant W.

221210
321213
321214
336611
339950
423310

..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................

423330 ..................................................................

423390 ..................................................................
423730 ..................................................................
454312
482110
486210
517110

..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................

Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers.
Warm Air Heating and Air-Cond. Equip. and
Supplies.
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Bottled Gas) Dealers
Railroads ..............................................................
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ................
Wired Telecommunications Carriers ....................

ID–0163.1; –0234; –0238.1; –0344
ID–0218.1
ID–0218.1
ID–0195.1
ID–0189.1; –0344; –0386.1; –0386.2
ID–0145.1; –0147.1; –0184.1; –0206.1;
–0208; –0218.1; –0232.1; –0233.1;
–0299.1; –0341; –0343; –0372.1;
–0380.1; –0380.2; –0381.1; –0384.1
ID–0165.1; –0235.1
ID–0198.1
ID–0170.1; –0176.1; –0291; –0342
ID–0163.1; –0328.1; –0344
ID–0155.1; –0234; –0328.1; –0344

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis.

The Agency concludes that general
industry’s permanently installed
overhead and gantry cranes should be
covered under general industry
standards rather than the final
construction crane standard, even if
they perform incidental construction
work (see discussion of § 1926.1400,
Scope). However, all other general
industry cranes, whether mobile or
permanently installed, are covered
under the final standard to the extent
that they perform construction work.
Several general industry sectors that
commented in the rulemaking will not
be affected by the final standard because
their only interaction with construction
consists of making deliveries of
materials to the ground at construction
sites. Several commenters noted that
their industry only made deliveries to
the ground. (ID–0236; –0299.1.) The
Agency has made clear in the Scope
section above that the delivery process
from truck to ground is not considered
to be a construction activity covered by
its construction standards. For that
reason, brick manufacturers, pre-cast
concrete products manufacturers, and
all other distributors of similar supplies

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

are not affected by the standard because
they only deliver materials from truck
bed to ground.
However, the Agency views deliveries
into or onto structures differently—as
construction activity within the purview
of the standard. Therefore, industries
that deliver materials into or onto
structures with articulating cranes are
included in the industry profile. The
final standard exempts such deliveries
for articulating cranes with automatic
overload protection devices (AOPDs). If
all such articulating cranes had these
devices, then affected industries
(building supply, lumber yards, HVAC
distributors, for example) would be
exempt. The Agency had comment in
the record that newer articulating cranes
for building material supply are
equipped with AOPDs, but the Agency
concludes that there are still older
models of articulating cranes making
building supply deliveries, and that
these affected employers would be
covered by the standard—chiefly by the
requirement for operator certification.
The electric utility industry made
several comments to the record. (ID–
0144; –0155.1; –0163.1; –0200; –0203.1;

PO 00000

Frm 00179

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

–0213; –0215; –0226; –0345.17;
–0408.1.) This industry is affected by
the standard both because they have
digger derricks and other cranes that
perform construction work from time to
time, and because utilities must provide
voltage information and participate in
meetings with contractors to determine
power line safety. Although digger
derricks are exempted from the final
standard for all work on utility poles,
several commenters made clear that
they are routinely used for lifting in
other work settings (ID–0328.1; –0344).
For construction crane activities by
electric utilities, the main impact of the
final standard is to require that
operators be certified, as all linemen
currently received extensive training in
crane safety practices and procedures
otherwise (ID–0155.1; –0344; –0345.17).
The Agency also learned through
comment that the telecommunications
industry uses digger derricks and truckmounted cranes, and this industry is
included in the standard’s industry
profile as well.
The Federal Railroad Agency has
jurisdiction over most of the work done
by railroads. The Agency has concluded

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48084

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

that railroads will not be affected by the
final standard.
All of the affected general industry
sectors have been added to the industry
profile in the category of employers who
‘‘Own but do not Rent.’’ With respect to
the industries not included in the PEA,
the Agency has taken a conservative
approach to not underestimate costs,
and therefore economic impacts, on
these sectors. The traditional
construction industry sectors have
remained unchanged. The data for all
sectors has been updated with
information from the 2007 Economic
Census, 2006 County Business Patterns,
and 2006 Statistics for U.S. Businesses
for number of firms, establishments, and
revenues. Table B–2 presents
information about the affected industry
sectors: the number of affected
establishments, employees, industry
profit rates, and average revenues and
profits for affected establishments.
Estimating the number of
establishments and cranes covered by
the standard in general industry
To estimate the number of
establishments and cranes in general
industry sectors affected by the final
cranes standard, the Agency relied on:
comment in the record; 2006 CPB and
SUSB, and occupational data from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational
and Employment Statistics, May, 2008
Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates, extracted from 4-digit NAICS
industry-specific estimates (Nov. 4,
2009 from http://bls.gov/oes/
oes_dl.htm). The Agency’s purpose in
estimating the number of cranes in the
affected general industry sectors is to
estimate the costs employers will bear
and demonstrate that the standard is
economically feasible. For some
industries below, the Agency’s estimates
are certainly high—overestimates, but
the ultimate purpose here is not to
predict or forecast cost estimates, but to
show that even if more cranes are
affected and more costs result from the
final standard, the standard is still
economically feasible. In addition, since
economic impacts are measured as the
costs for affected employers, the total
number of affected cranes in a sector
does not alter the measure of impact on
an affected employer. Although a higher
total number of cranes in a sector
obviously changes the estimated total
cost of the entire standard. For example,
if an average employer in the industry
sector has 10 employees and the Agency
estimates one crane and one crane
operator, it does not affect how
economic impact is measured whether
there is one crane in the industry or 50.
The impact of costs as a fraction of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

revenues and profits are, on average, the
same for each affected employer. As a
result, though the Agency will try to
estimate the number of affected
employers, the exact number is not
critical to the economic feasibility
finding that is essential for the rule. In
addition, although all of the sectors
below engage in crane construction
activities, some likely may contract such
work out and would then only be
affected by the final standard indirectly.
Estimating the number of cranes and
crane operators in affected general
industry sectors
• Electric Power Generation (NAICS
221110) and Electric Power
Transmission Control, and Distribution
(NAICS 221120). The Agency is basing
its estimate of affected cranes and crane
operators on the industry profile and
cost analysis for subpart V, Table 5.1.
(ID–0389.2.) Table 5.1 shows that the
two industries had about 114,500
employees working on power lines
affected by subpart V in about 7,600
crews for Electric Power Generation and
about 12,600 crews in the Transmission,
Control, and Distribution sector.
Together, in total, the Agency estimated
that the industry was using about 20,200
powered vehicles, one for each crew.
OSHA concludes that each sector has
one piece of equipment, such as a digger
derrick, bucket truck, or truck-mounted
crane that each crew works with (in
crew sizes of 3 or 6). Further, based on
several comments in the record that
digger derricks perform crane-related
work in substations and other locations
(ID–0155.1; –0201.1; –0328.1; –0344),
the Agency concludes that each digger
derrick would need a certified operator
to work as the industry customarily has.
Other comment in the record suggests
that journeymen are often hired as if
each is completely trained in all aspects
of work (ID–0155.1; –0344); hence the
industry has asserted that to maintain
this arrangement all linemen would
have to receive crane operator
certification, which would be
prohibitively expensive (ID–0203.1;
–0367.1). However, another comment in
the record indicated that for each crew,
individuals have specific assignments—
that not all journeymen are given
responsibility for operating lifting
devices, whether that be a bucket truck
or aerial lift, a crane, or a digger derrick.
(ID–0344.) Comment in the record
indicates that, roughly, equipment is
equally divided between equipment that
is covered by the standard (digger
derricks and boom trucks) and bucket
trucks, which are not. (ID–0344.) The
record also indicates that journeymen
are extensively trained in

PO 00000

Frm 00180

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

apprenticeship programs in the use of
their powered equipment, and that the
primary cost of meeting the duties of the
final standard is certifying crane
operators. (ID–0155.1; –0344.) The
Agency can also estimate based on
comment in the record that there are far
more digger derricks than boom trucks,
in a ratio of about 85:15, based on
reports of 16 of Edison Electric’s
members who provided information in
the record and identified their types of
equipment. The PEA in subpart V was
based on the 2002 Economic Census.
The 2007 Census shows that
employment in NAICS 221110 has
fallen to 78 percent of the 2002 level
and employment in NAICS 221120 has
fallen to 90 percent of the 2002 figure.
However, there was no information in
the record that showed the number of
linemen or pieces of equipment had
declined; so the Agency is basing its
estimate of the number of employees
who would be certified to use the
equipment covered under the final
standard as presented in subpart V’s
PEA Table 5.1. Neither of the affected
industry sectors has objected to
certifying operators of their truckmounted cranes; yet if it were necessary
that every lineman perform every
function, that would surely also
necessitate certifying every journeyman
as well. The Agency concludes that it is
not necessary to certify every
journeyman as a crane operator for the
industry to continue to efficiently use
their equipment and manpower. If the
industries are still operating as many as
20,200 powered vehicles, and about
one-half are digger derricks and truckmounted cranes, then, at the very bare
minimum, to have an operator in each
piece of equipment potentially covered
by the final standard would require
certifying 10,100 as crane operators.
However, having the bare minimum, the
Agency recognizes, would not afford the
industries the same flexibility and
efficiency as it now has nor is every
employee available to work every day of
the year. However, the Agency believes
that certifying 30,000 journeymen as
crane operators would afford a sufficient
number that each piece of covered
equipment (digger derricks and truckmounted cranes) would in almost all
situations have a journeyman certified
as a crane operator available to perform
work addressed by the final standard in
a crew. Work that is construction work
and covered by the final standard, and
not subpart V, is not an every day
occurrence for the two industry sectors.
Indeed, the Agency believes that this
estimate is likely higher than the most
efficient solution that these two

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
industries will devise, but, for purposes
of showing that the final standard is
economically feasible even with this
many journeymen certified as crane
operators, the Agency believes it is
sufficient. Accordingly, the Agency
estimates that NAICS 221110 Electric
Power Generation will expend resources
to certify about 10,000 journeymen as
crane operators, and NAICS 221120
Electric Power Transmission, Control,
and Distribution about 20,000.
• Two natural gas sectors are
potentially affected by the final
standard: NAICS 221210 Natural Gas
Distribution and 486210 Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas. Both
industries were reported to be impacted
by the final standard. (ID–0155.1;
–0328.1; –0344.) NAICS 237120 Oil and
Gas Pipeline Construction performs
much of the construction of new gas
pipelines, the Agency concludes.
However, the two natural gas sectors
likely also perform some pipeline work
themselves—or at least some employers
in the industries do. Sideboom cranes
are commonly used in pipeline
construction, but are exempt from the
requirement for crane operator
certification. The Agency concludes that
the major significant cost for these
industries is certifying operators for
their other, mostly truck-mounted
cranes. Power line safety issues occur
most often below ground, and the
Agency concludes that the industry
already addresses these issues, based on
comments (ID–0155.1; –0344). The 2006
CPB and SUSB shows that Natural Gas
Distribution sector has 2,458
establishments and 78,813 employees;
while Pipeline Transportation of
Natural Gas has 1,363 establishments
with 22,248 employees. According to
BLS’ 2008 Occupational Employment
survey, Natural Gas Distribution has
2,390 employees who are electric line
installers, 950 who are operating
engineers and other construction
equipment operators, 1,180 heavy truck
drivers and tractor trailer drivers, and
no crane operators. For the Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas, the
employment figures are 50, 130, zero,
and also no crane operators,
respectively, for the same employment
categories. The Agency concludes that
the Natural Gas Distribution industry is
performing significant pipeline work,
mainly with excavation equipment, and
each company on average has over 30
employees. The Agency concludes that
the average employer in this industry
may be using one crane that is not a
sideboom crane and needs to certify the
operator for new construction work that
would be covered by the standard. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Agency also concludes that the Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas has
considerably less construction activity
that would involve cranes covered by
the final standard and that the average
establishment or employer only has
about 10 employees. The Agency
estimates that as few as 50 employers in
this industry sector are using equipment
in construction activity that would
necessitate certifying crane operators.
• The Structural Building
Components Association (SBCA)
commented in the record that many of
their members use ‘‘boom crane trucks
to deliver and/or set their products at
the jobsite.’’ (ID–0218.1.) Their members
manufacture ‘‘roof and floor trusses,
wall panels, I-joists, engineered wood
beams, plywood and oriented strand
board * * *. In most instances the
components are simply unloaded at the
jobsite, using either a custom roll-off
trailer, a forklift, or a boom truck crane,
and left for the builder to install. It is
not uncommon for a component
manufacturer who utilizes a boom truck
to deliver both in markets that require
hoisting and setting of components
(thus engaging in construction activity)
and those that require delivery of the
components and other building
materials on the ground (not a
construction activity).’’ (ID–0208.1.)
SBCA viewed their crane operations as
low risk and asked for an exemption to
eliminate training burden. Under the
final standard, delivery of materials
onto or into the structure, such as
setting components, is a construction
activity covered under the final
standard. SBCA did not mention the use
of articulating cranes, which with a
lifting movement limiting device, would
in fact exempt their equipment from the
standard, and thus OSHA concludes
that these affected industries are only
employing boom trucks. The Agency,
based on SBCA’s comment, concludes
that the primary affected industries are
NAICS 321213 Engineered Wood
Member (except Truss) Manufacturing
and NAICS 321214 Truss
Manufacturing. Engineered Wood
Member Manufacturing has 162
establishments and 51,270 employees
(2006 CPB and SUSB). Truss
Manufacturing has 1,085 establishments
and 51,270 employees. According to the
2008 Occupational Employment Survey,
the four-digit NACIS 32120 Veneer,
Plywood, and Engineered Products
industry has 120 crane operators, 2,240
drivers of heavy trucks and tractor
trailers, and 420 drivers of delivery
trucks (total employment of 98,000).
The Agency concludes that typical
employers in these two sectors, with

PO 00000

Frm 00181

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48085

about 50 employees, likely employ one
to two boom trucks for delivery. Truss
manufacturers are much more likely to
use boom trucks for delivery and
placement of components—and
therefore fall under the scope of the
standard—than manufacturers of
engineered wood members, the Agency
concludes, because the small equipment
typically used by the latter employers
would not be capable of lifting heavy
members for placement (ID–0208.1). In
addition, the relatively few engineered
wood member manufacturers produce
specialty items and do not simply serve
more local or regional markets as do
truss manufacturers. The Agency
concludes that employers in this latter
industry are much more likely to
transport their products longer distances
and deliver to the ground. These
products are also more typically used
only in larger residential and
commercial applications, where an onsite crane would lift and position them
for installation. As SBCA noted in its
comment, most deliveries are made to
the ground. The Agency concludes that,
on average, employers in the Engineered
Wood Member industry employ one
truck-mounted crane and employers in
the Wood Truss manufacturing industry
also employ one, on average. According
to comments by SBCA, employers are
likely already meeting all of the other
safety requirements in the final standard
save for crane operator certification.
(ID–0208.1.)
• A comment by a major shipyard
alerted the Agency to the potential
impact of the final construction cranes
standard on the Shipbuilding and
Repair Industry NACIS 336611. (ID–
0195.1.) When shipyard cranes perform
construction activities, they will be
covered by the final standard; although
the final standard exempts permanently
installed overhead and gantry cranes in
general industry. According to the 2008
Occupational Employment Survey,
there are 550 crane operators in the
shipyard and boatbuilding industries
(the four-digit NAICS 33660). NorthrupGrumann in its comment reported that
it alone employs 600 cranes throughout
its shipyards around the country. (ID–
0195.1.) Northrup-Grumann’s 40,000
current employees represent about onehalf of the employment in the
shipbuilding and ship repair industry,
and the Agency estimates that: There are
about 1,200 cranes in use in shipyards
and about one-half would be potentially
covered by the standard if construction
activities are performed with them,
since many large cranes in shipyards are
permanently installed. The 1,200 figure
is surely not an underestimate as

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48086

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Northrup-Grumann is the largest
shipbuilder in the country and likely
the most intense user of cranes for its
larger projects. Since construction
activities in shipyards are episodic or
irregular, the Agency estimates that if
shipyard employers provide
certification for crane operators for onehalf of the number of non-permanent
cranes (with 300 certified operators) that
would be sufficient to perform their
own construction activities without
hiring outside construction contractors
for their needs.
• The final standard potentially
affects the general industry sector
NAICS 339950 Sign Manufacturing. In

its comment to the record, the
International Sign Association reported
that it had 2,600 members, most of
whom are small businesses. (ID–0247;
–0344.) Not all sign manufacturers have
cranes or provide installation services,
nor does the industry build or erect
billboards, which is an industry
properly represented among the
traditional construction industries. The
average employer has about 10
employees, according to the 2006 CPB
and SUSB data. Although many
manufacturers do not use cranes or
install signs, those that do were said to
have one or two cranes (ID–0344). A
sign manufacturer who participated in

the public hearings described his
business: Revenues of less than $10
million annually, with 70 employees,
nine of whom were in the installation
department. (ID–0344.) Gelberg sign has
two crane trucks for installation, and
one bucket truck for servicing. Sign
manufacturers reported that for large
projects, employers typically hired
crane companies. Based on the
comment in the record, the Agency has
estimated the number of cranes and
operators in the sign manufacturing
sector in the table below. The Agency
has assumed that the sign making
industry has one trained crane operator
for each crane it uses for installation.

ESTIMATION OF NUMBER OF CRANES IN NAICS 339950 SIGN MFG
Size class
(No. of
employees)

Number
of estabs

″1–4 ..................................................................................
″5–9 ..................................................................................
″10–19 ..............................................................................
20–49 ...............................................................................
50–99 ...............................................................................
100–249 ...........................................................................
250–500 ...........................................................................
500–999 ...........................................................................
1000+ ...............................................................................

3,308
1,229
854
646
229
124
24
0
1

Total ..........................................................................

6,415

Estabs
with
cranes

Employees

....................
....................
400
646
229
124
24
....................
1

Avg.
number of
employees

Cranes
per estab.

Total
cranes
for size
class

6,171
8,603
11,586
19,246
16,053
18,540
7,618
0
1,543

2
7
14
30
70
150
317
....................
1,543

0
0
1
1
2
5
10
0
51

0
0
400
646
458
577
246
0
51

89,360

....................

....................

2,378

Source: ORA; 2006 County Business Patterns, SUSB.

• Retail and commercial building
supply associations and employers
provided comment to the record in
regard to how the standard would affect
their businesses. (ID–0184; –0326.1;
–0380.1.) The Agency concludes that
commercial and retail building supply
dealers are represented in the industries
in the table below:
NAICS

Name

423310 ......................

Lumber, Plywood,
Millwork, and Wood
Panel Merchant
Wholesalers.
Roofing, Siding, and
Insulation Material
Merchant Wholesalers.
Other Construction
Material Merchant
Wholesalers.
Home Centers.

423330 ......................

423390 ......................

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

444110 ......................

The building supply dealers provided
extensive and detailed comment to the
record—both written comment as well
as testimony at the public hearings. The
key issue for these industries was that
their deliveries to construction sites
were typically not construction work
and about one-half of all deliveries are

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

to the ground. (ID–0341: –0343.) For
deliveries onto or into structures, such
as drywall into buildings and roofing
materials up to roofs, they use
articulating cranes which have controls
to prevent tipover, called lifting moment
limiting devices (LMLD). The Specialty
Building Material Distributors and
Safety Coalition (SBMDSC) in testimony
described truck-mounted cranes used to
deliver drywall, for example, and
‘‘knuckle’’ cranes used to deliver roofing
materials. The Agency has concluded
that these are both versions of
articulating cranes. Both SBMDSC and
the National Lumber and Building
Material Dealers Association repeated
several times in written comment and
public testimony that their articulating
cranes had LMLDs. (ID–0184; –0326.1;
–0341; –0344; –0380.1.) Since the truckmounted cranes in use are articulating
cranes with LMLDs, they are exempt
from the rule and these industries will
not incur any costs of compliance.
Although the industries did not report
any older truck-mounted cranes used for
deliveries without LMLDs, if these do
exist, the employer would have the
option to use them for deliveries to the
ground (and be unaffected by the final

PO 00000

Frm 00182

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

standard since this is not a
‘‘construction activity’’) or to deliver
materials into or onto structures by
complying with the rule, which would
essentially be to ensure that their
operators are certified, as well as
following the final standard’s specific
safety precautions. In addition, operator
certification is required only within four
years after the standard is effective, and
any older equipment may be replaced in
the interim if still extant.
• The Heating and Air Conditioning
Equipment Distributors reported that
their deliveries to buildings would be
affected by the final standard because
they often must hoist equipment to the
first or second floor of buildings, which
would qualify as construction work.
(ID–0235.1.) Deliveries are also made to
the ground, and some employers do hire
crane trucks for some deliveries. The
Heating, Air Conditioning, and
Refrigeration Distributors International
(HARDI) reported that their 450
members who are wholesale distributors
in the industry have, on average, 11
branch companies each. According the
2006 CPB and SUSB, there are 5,193
establishments with 55,606 employees,
or about 10 to 11 employees per

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
employer. The Agency estimates that
the typical establishment in the industry
operates one truck-mounted crane with
a single, trained operator who must
become a certified crane operator under
the final standard to deliver HVAC
equipment onto structures.
• Direct-selling propane dealers use
cranes to deliver and install LP, or
propane, tanks, mostly in rural areas.
Installing a new tank would constitute
a construction activity, and crane use
for that activity would fall under the
final crane standard. The affected
industry is identified as NAICS 434312
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Dealers.
According to the 2006 CPB and SUSB
there are 5,567 establishments in the
direct selling sector with 43,583
employees. Clearly, the industry is
predominantly made up of small
businesses, with the average
establishment having about eight
employees, and this is attested to by the
industry’s comment (ID–0198.1). The
National Propane Gas Association noted
that delivering tanks is ‘‘one of the most
common activities’’ performed by
propane retail marketers and that ‘‘to
install these tanks, it often requires the
need of a truck-mounted crane to lift
and/or place the empty ASME tank onto
its support or foundation.’’ (ID–0198.1.)
The Agency estimates that each of the
retail establishments has, on average, a
truck-mounted crane that would be
engaged occasionally in construction
activity covered under the rule.
• Locomotive cranes are listed as one
of the types of cranes covered by the
final standard, and several railroads
participated in the rulemaking. But the
Agency has concluded that the Federal

48087

construction work. There is nothing in
the record to suggest that digger derricks
in the telecommunications industry are
used for activities other than utility pole
work. For example, they would not be
used to hoist transformers or other
moderately heavy equipment onto
utility poles, or at substations or other
facilities, because telecommunications
equipment does not consist of such
hardware. Digger derricks therefore will
largely be exempt from the final
standard in the telecommunications
industry because they do not perform
construction work in which they hoist
loads in other construction activities.
The Agency estimates that the industry
employs about 1 truck-mounted crane
per firm (for a total of about 3,000), on
average, that will be covered by the final
standard.
The self-employed owner-operators of
cranes doing construction work would
not be required under the standard to be
certified crane operators as they do not
have employees and are themselves not
employees. The Agency estimates that
about 5 percent of cranes are owned and
operated by the self-employed, based on
BLS data (ID–0025).
Table B–2 summarizes the industries
affected, and the number of cranes they
use. As can be seen from this table,
adding the general industry sectors in
the manner outlined above results in
approximately 35,000 additional cranes
and crane operators. Table B–4 presents
information about ‘‘small entity’’
establishments, as defined by SBA.
Table B–5 presents information about
establishments with fewer than 20
employees.

Railroad Authority has primary
authority over crane activity performed
by railroads. The Agency has concluded
that no railroad employers will be
impacted by the final rule.
• Telecommunications employers
were identified by several commenters
as an industry that would be affected by
final standard. (ID–0155.1; –0234;
–0326.1; –0344.) The
telecommunications industry is
identified as NAICS 517110 Wired
Telecommunications Carriers.
According to the Economic Census the
telecommunications industry has about
2,500 firms, 27,000 establishments and
634,000 employees. There are 89,000
employees in the industry who are
‘‘telecommunications line installers and
repairers’’—as opposed to the electric
power industry’s journeymen who are
‘‘electric power installers and repairers’’
(2008 Occupational Employment
Survey, or OES). OES reports only 50
power line installers are employed in
the industry. The telecommunications
industry was described in comment as
engaged in work similar to that of the
electric power industry—using digger
derricks and radial boom trucks to
install or replace utility poles or in
laying underground cable. The Agency
concludes that telecommunications
workers are not primarily engaged in
constructing and replacing structural
members, but in running or maintaining
communications lines on poles or
underground, and therefore are far less
intensely engaged in activities that
require digger derricks or cranes. In
addition, the industry likely also
employs construction contractors for its

TABLE B–4—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD
NAIC

SBA size
standard
(less than)

Industry

Affected
Firms

Estabs

Employees

Profit
rate
%

Avg.
revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Avg.
profits
per estab.
($1,000)

Crane Rental with Operators
238990 .........

All Other Specialty
Trade Cont.

$13.0 mil ......

1,231

1,286

13,473

4.56

$1,550

$71

19,423

6.42

482

31

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals)
532412 .........

Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip.

$6.5 mil ........

1,782

3,018

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators
236115 .........
236118 .........
236210 .........
236220 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single-Family
Housing Const.
Residential Remodelers.
Industrial Building
Construction.
Commercial and Institutional Building.

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

$31.0 mil ......

178

178

261

4.67

220

10

$31.0 mil ......

25

25

45

4.67

443

21

$31.0 mil ......

9

12

1,067

4.67

12,213

571

$31.0 mil ......

23

31

757

4.67

4,157

194

PO 00000

Frm 00183

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48088

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–4—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD—Continued
NAIC

237110 .........
237120 .........
237130 .........
237310 .........
237990 .........
238110 .........
238120 .........
238130 .........
238150 .........
238170 .........
238190 .........
238210 .........
238220 .........
238290 .........
238320 .........
238910 .........

SBA size
standard
(less than)

Industry

Water and Sewer Line
and Related Struct.
Oil and Gas Pipeline
and Related Struct.
Power and Communication Line and
Rel.
Highway, Street, and
Bridge Construction.
Other Heavy and Civil
Engineering Const.
Poured Concrete
Foundation and
Struct.
Structural Steel and
Precast Concrete.
Framing Contractors ...
Glass and Glazing
Contractors.
Siding Contractors ......
Other Foundation,
Structure, and Building.
Electrical Contractors
Plumbing, Heating,
and Air-Conditioning.
Other Building Equipment Contractors.
Painting and Wall Covering Contract.
Site Preparation Contractors.
Subtotal .......................

Affected
Firms

Estabs

Employees

Profit
rate
%

Avg.
revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Avg.
profits
per estab.
($1,000)

$31.0 mil ......

52

69

1,432

5.22

4,107

214

$31.0 mil ......

20

26

1,457

5.22

5,510

288

$31.0 mil ......

34

34

666

5.22

2,880

150

$31.0 mil ......

80

107

6,456

5.22

11,783

615

$31.0 mil ......

76

101

5,857

5.22

10,201

533

$13.0 mil ......

261

261

4,328

4.42

2,273

101

$13.0 mil ......

200

266

7,389

4.42

3,439

152

$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......

26
42

26
42

120
328

4.42
4.42

153
616

7
27

$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......

5
49

5
65

18
1,145

4.42
4.42

496
1,509

22
67

$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......

15
2

15
3

176
196

4.32
3.86

1,303
5,835

56
225

$13.0 mil ......

113

151

4,076

4.42

3,474

154

$13.0 mil ......

21

21

159

4.42

916

41

$13.0 mil ......

400

400

4,706

4.56

1,668

76

......................

1,630

1,838

40,639

Own but Do Not Rent
236115 .........
236116 .........
236117 .........
236118 .........
236210 .........
236220 .........
237110 .........
237120 .........
237130 .........
237210 .........
237310 .........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

237990 .........
238110 .........
238120 .........
238130 .........
238140 .........
238150 .........
238160 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family
housing construction.
New Multifamily housing construction.
New housing operative
builders.
Residential Remodelers.
Industrial building construction.
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Const.
Water and Sewer Line
Const.
Oil and gas pipeline
construction.
Power and communication line const.
Land subdivision .........
Highway, street and
bridge const.
Other heavy and civil
eng.
Poured Concrete foundation and struct.
Structural steel and
precast concrete.
Framing Contractors ...
Masonry Contractors ..
Glass & Glazing Contractors.
Roofing Contractors ....

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

$31.0 mil ......

2,905

2,905

11,578

4.67

1,000

47

$31.0 mil ......

213

213

1,886

4.67

3,400

159

$31.0 mil ......

1,263

1,263

10,212

4.67

5,104

239

$31.0 mil ......

825

825

2,721

4.67

543

25

$31.0 mil ......

223

262

7,955

4.67

2,570

120

$31.0 mil ......

3,614

3,614

60,806

4.67

3,661

171

$31.0 mil ......

917

1,223

17,260

5.22

2,324

121

$31.0 mil ......

98

131

7,885

5.22

3,743

195

$31.0 mil ......

219

291

10,710

5.22

4,656

243

$6.0 mil ........
$31.0 mil ......

0
69

0
93

0
3,662

11.04
5.22

0
3,225

0
168

$31.0 mil ......

511

511

6,429

5.22

1,500

78

$13.0 mil ......

108

108

2,609

4.42

1,000

44

$13.0 mil ......

394

394

6,162

4.42

1,425

63

$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......

1,060
128
48

1,060
128
48

10,059
1,108
428

4.42
4.42
4.42

798
675
900

35
30
40

$13.0 mil ......

230

230

1,923

4.42

801

35

PO 00000

Frm 00184

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48089

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–4—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD—Continued
NAIC

238170 .........
238190 .........
238210 .........
238220 .........
238290 .........
238310 .........
238320 .........
238330 .........
238340 .........
238350 .........
238390 .........
238910 .........
221110 .........
221120 .........
221210 .........
321213 .........

321214 .........
336611 .........
339950 .........
423310 .........

423330 .........

423390 .........
423730 .........
444110 .........
454312 .........
482110 .........
486210 .........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

517110 .........

SBA size
standard
(less than)

Industry

Siding Contractors ......
Other foundation,
structure, building,
ext.
Electrical Contractors
Plumbing, Heating and
Air-conditioning Cont.
Other building equipment cont.
Drywall and insulation
contractors.
Painting and wall covering contractors.
Flooring Contractors ...
Tile and Terrazzo contractors.
Finish Carpentry contractors.
Other building finishing
contractors.
Site Preparation ..........
Electric Power Generation.
Electric Power Transmission, Control,
and Distribution.
Natural Gas Distribution.
Engineered Wood
Member (except
Truss) Manufacturing.
Truss Manufacturing ...
Ship Building and Repairing.
Sign Manufacturing .....
Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood
Panel Merchant
Wholesalers.
Roofing, Siding, and
Insulation Material
Merchant Wholesalers.
Other Construction
Material Merchant
Wholesalers.
Warm Air Heating and
Air-Cond. Equip. and
Supplies.
Home Centers ............
Liquefied Petroleum
Gas (Bottled Gas)
Dealers.
Railroads .....................
Pipeline Transportation
of Natural Gas.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Subtotal .......................

Affected
Firms

Estabs

Employees

Profit
rate
%

Avg.
revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Avg.
profits
per estab.
($1,000)

$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......

33
7

33
7

183
134

4.42
4.42

600
900

27
40

$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......

60
86

60
86

655
828

4.32
3.86

1,100
1,100

48
42

$13.0 mil ......

33

44

1,051

4.42

1,664

74

$13.0 mil ......

0

0

0

4.42

0

0

$13.0 mil ......

37

37

199

4.42

419

19

$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......

0
0

0
0

0
0

4.42
4.42

0
0

0
0

$13.0 mil ......

0

0

0

4.42

0

0

$13.0 mil ......

0

0

0

4.42

0

0

$13.0 mil ......
4M mwh .......

262
293

262
301

2,401
99,651

4.56
4.44

962
7,313

44
325

4M mwh .......

337

358

319,969

4.44

6,882

306

500 ...............

442

591

66,991

2.98

28,428

847

500 ...............

121

127

7,224

3.87

4,720

183

500 ...............
1000 .............

871
575

914
635

43,580
74,249

3.87
6.09

4,706
10,204

182
622

500 ...............
100 ...............

6,261
5,971

6,339
6,326

75,956
130,697

5.83
2.89

1,532
7,084

89
204

100 ...............

1,025

1,173

34,547

2.89

7,159

207

100 ...............

2,181

2,296

31,377

2.89

3,260

94

100 ...............

2,364

2,958

47,265

3.08

3,790

117

$7.0 mil ........
50 .................

2,409
2,044

2,575
2,317

487,206
37,046

7.70
4.22

2,335
2,415

180
102

NA ................
$7.0 mil ........

NA
65

NA
66

NA
18,911

NA
13.24

NA
8,345

NA
1,105

1500 .............

2,517

27,159

539,359

7.10

7,294

518

......................

32,430

59,267

2,182,872

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry
236115 .........
236116 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family
$31.0 mil ......
housing construction.
New Multifamily hous$31.0 mil ......
ing construction.

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00185

31,038

31,038

134,788

4.67

1,480

69

2,086

2,086

13,738

4.67

3,085

144

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48090

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–4—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD—Continued
NAIC

236117 .........
236118 .........
236210 .........
236220 .........
237110 .........
237120 .........
237130 .........
237210 .........
237310 .........
237990 .........
238110 .........
238120 .........
238130 .........
238140 .........
238150 .........
238160 .........
238170 .........
238190 .........
238210 .........
238220 .........
238290 .........
238310 .........
238320 .........
238330 .........
238340 .........
238350 .........
238390 .........
238910 .........

Source:

SBA size
standard
(less than)

Industry

New housing operative
builders.
Residential Remodelers.
Industrial building construction.
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction.
Water and Sewer Line
Const.
Oil and gas pipeline
construction.
Power and communication line const.
Land subdivision .........
Highway, street and
bridge const.
Other heavy and civil
eng.
Poured Concrete foundation and struct.
Structural steel and
precast concrete.
Framing Contractors ...
Masonry Contractors ..
Glass & Glazing Contractors.
Roofing Contractors ....
Siding Contractors ......
Other foundation,
structure, building,
ext.
Electrical Contractors
Plumbing, Heating and
Air-conditioning Cont.
Other building equipment cont.
Drywall and insulation
contractors.
Painting and wall covering contractors.
Flooring Contractors ...
Tile and Terrazzo contractors.
Finish Carpentry contractors.
Other building finishing
contractors.
Site Preparation ..........
Subtotal .......................
Total .....................

Affected
Firms

Estabs

Employees

Profit
rate
%

Avg.
revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Avg.
profits
per estab.
($1,000)

$31.0 mil ......

16,562

16,562

53,224

4.67

2,860

134

$31.0 mil ......

9,846

9,846

29,319

4.67

644

30

$31.0 mil ......

3,000

3,000

21,431

4.67

2,493

117

$31.0 mil ......

40,530

40,530

393,560

4.67

4,024

188

$31.0 mil ......

13,715

13,715

162,842

5.22

2,863

149

$31.0 mil ......

1,667

1,667

34,584

5.22

4,118

215

$31.0 mil ......

2,811

2,811

48,229

5.22

2,289

120

$6.0 mil ........
$31.0 mil ......

0
1,114

0
1,114

0
14,473

11.04
5.22

0
3,606

0
188

$31.0 mil ......

2,760

2,760

67,210

5.22

2,919

152

$13.0 mil ......

13,273

13,273

10,782

4.42

1,189

53

$13.0 mil ......

3,487

3,487

57,764

4.42

1,927

85

$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......

13,779
1,368
542

13,779
1,368
542

60,116
10,174
4,397

4.42
4.42
4.42

559
814
1,319

25
36
58

$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......

1,945
526
256

1,945
526
256

18,573
1,455
881

4.42
4.42
4.42

1,125
529
628

50
23
28

$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......

765
970

765
970

4,674
6,803

4.32
3.86

874
1,049

38
40

$13.0 mil ......

644

644

6,996

4.42

2,068

91

$13.0 mil ......

0

0

0

4.42

0

0

$13.0 mil ......

414

414

2,103

4.42

513

23

$13.0 mil ......
$13.0 mil ......

0
0

0
0

0
0

4.42
4.42

0
0

0
0

$13.0 mil ......

0

0

0

4.42

0

0

$13.0 mil ......

0

0

0

4.42

0

0

$13.0 mil ......
......................
......................

3,889
166,985
204,058

3,889
166,985
232,394

19,650
1,177,769
3,434,175

4.56

1,101

50

U.S. Census Bureau data.
Country Business Patters, 2006; Statistics of U.S. Businesses 2006.
Internal Revenue Service, Source Book, profit rates over 2000–2006.
Statistics of U.S. Business (SUSB).

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

TABLE B–5—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF VERY SMALL ENTITIES (LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES) BY MAJOR CATEGORY
Avgerage
NAIC

Industry

Firms

Estabs

Employees

Profit
rate
%

Revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Profits
per estab.
($1,000)

Crane Rental with Operators
238990 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

All Other Specialty Trade Cont .............

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00186

1,065

Fmt 4701

1,065

Sfmt 4700

4,824

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

4.10%

09AUR2

$614

$25

48091

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–5—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF VERY SMALL ENTITIES (LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES) BY MAJOR CATEGORY—
Continued
Avgerage
NAIC

Industry

Firms

Estabs

Employees

Profit
rate
%

Revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Profits
per estab.
($1,000)

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals)
532412 .........

Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip ........

1,782

3,018

19,423

6.42

129

8

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators
236115
236118
236210
236220
237110

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

New Single-Family Housing Const .......
Residential Remodelers ........................
Industrial Building Construction ............
Commercial and Institutional Building ...
Water and Sewer Line and Related
Struct.
237120 ......... Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related
Struct.
237130 ......... Power and Communication Line and
Rel.
237310 ......... Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction.
237990 ......... Other Heavy and Civil Engineering
Const.
238110 ......... Poured Concrete Foundation and
Struct.
(All other sectors in this category have no very small affected firms)
Subtotal .................................................

178
25
9
23
52

178
25
12
31
69

261
45
1,067
757
1,432

4.67
4.67
4.67
4.67
5.22

220
443
12,213
4,157
4,107

10
21
571
194
214

20

26

1,457

5.22

5,510

288

34

34

666

5.22

2,880

150

80

107

6,456

5.22

11,783

615

76

101

5,857

5.22

10,201

533

261

261

4,328

4.42

2,273

101

758

844

22,326

Own Cranes But Do Not Rent Them
236115
236116
236117
236118
236210
236220

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

237110
237120
237130
237210
237310
237990
238110
238120
238130
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

238210 .........
238220 .........
238290
238310
238320
238330
238340
238350
238390
238910
221110
221120

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

221210 .........
321213 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family housing construction
New Multifamily housing construction ...
New housing operative builders ............
Residential Remodelers ........................
Industrial building construction ..............
Commercial and Institutional Bldg.
Construction.
Water and Sewer Line Const ................
Oil and gas pipeline construction ..........
Power and communication line const ...
Land subdivision ...................................
Highway, street and bridge const .........
Other heavy and civil eng .....................
Poured Concrete foundation and struct
Structural steel and precast concrete ...
Framing Contractors .............................
Masonry Contractors .............................
Glass & Glazing Contractors ................
Roofing Contractors ..............................
Siding Contractors .................................
Other foundation, structure, building,
ext.
Electrical Contractors ............................
Plumbing, Heating and Air-conditioning
Contractors.
Other building equipment cont ..............
Drywall and insulation contractors ........
Painting and wall covering contractors
Flooring Contractors ..............................
Tile and Terrazzo contractors ...............
Finish Carpentry contractors .................
Other building finishing contractors ......
Site Preparation ....................................
Electric Power Generation ....................
Electric Power Transmission, Control,
and Distribution.
Natural Gas Distribution ........................
Engineered Wood Member (except
Truss) Manufacturing.

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00187

2,763
197
1,206
808
209
2,943

2,763
197
1,206
808
209
2,943

12,155
2,010
8,528
2,627
6,015
50,843

4.67
4.67
4.67
4.67
4.67
4.67

823
1,350
1,854
443
1,247
1,526

38
63
87
21
58
71

900
63
207
0
66
378
46
90
981
115
44
207
31
10

900
63
207
0
66
378
46
90
981
115
44
207
31
10

13,335
3,416
9,177
0
2,423
10,483
531
1,954
8,322
1,093
405
2,378
127
62

5.22
5.22
5.22
11.04
5.22
5.22
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42

702
708
655
0
976
589
494
659
374
343
619
447
408
394

37
37
34
0
51
31
22
29
17
15
27
20
18
17

54
77

54
77

541
768

4.32
3.86

444
509

19
20

30
0
37
0
0
0
0
271
293
337

30
0
37
0
0
0
0
271
301
358

570
0
208
0
0
0
0
1,970
1,288
2,272

4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.56
4.44
4.44

714
0
265
0
0
0
0
497
7,513
7,311

32
0
12
0
0
0
0
23
334
325

360
82

368
82

1,736
534

2.98
3.87

9,483
1,674

283
65

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48092

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–5—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF VERY SMALL ENTITIES (LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES) BY MAJOR CATEGORY—
Continued
Avgerage
NAIC

321214
336611
339950
423310

Industry

.........
.........
.........
.........

423330 .........
423390 .........
423730 .........
444110 .........
454312 .........
482110 .........
486210 .........
517110 .........

Firms

Truss Manufacturing .............................
Ship Building and Repairing .................
Sign Manufacturing ...............................
Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood
Panel Merchant Wholesalers.
Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Material
Merchant Wholesalers.
Other Construction Material Merchant
Wholesalers.
Warm Air Heating and Air-Cond. Equip.
and Supplies.
Home Centers .......................................
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Bottled Gas)
Dealers.
Railroads ...............................................
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas
Wired Telecommunications Carriers .....
Subtotal .................................................

Estabs

Employees

Profit
rate
%

Revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Profits
per estab.
($1,000)

408
370
5,312
4,774

408
371
5,316
4,844

3,438
2,041
25,236
24,410

3.87
6.09
5.83
2.89

1,130
950
1,303
3,970

44
58
76
115

831

857

4,764

2.89

4,461

129

1,886

1,907

9,298

2.89

2,199

63

1,929

2,017

11,007

3.08

2,537

78

1,879
1,881

1,904
2,001

12,389
11,711

7.70
4.22

1,344
1,333

103
56

NA
65
1,828

NA
66
1,882

NA
238
9,022

NA
13.24
7.10

NA
8,473
1,431

NA
1,122
102

33,969

11,734

139,941

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry
236115
236116
236117
236118
236210
236220

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

237110
237120
237130
237210
237310
237990
238110
238120
238130
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

238210 .........
238220 .........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

238290
238310
238320
238330
238340
238350
238390
238910

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

Source:

New Single family housing construction
New Multifamily housing construction ...
New housing operative builders ............
Residential Remodelers ........................
Industrial building construction ..............
Commercial and Institutional Bldg.
Construction.
Water and Sewer Line Const ................
Oil and gas pipeline construction ..........
Power and communication line const ...
Land subdivision ...................................
Highway, street and bridge const .........
Other heavy and civil engg ...................
Poured Concrete foundation and struct
Structural steel and precast concrete ...
Framing Contractors .............................
Masonry Contractors .............................
Glass & Glazing Contractors ................
Roofing Contractors ..............................
Siding Contractors .................................
Other foundation, structure, building,
ext.
Electrical Contractors ............................
Plumbing, Heating and Air-conditioning
Contractors.
Other building equipment cont ..............
Drywall and insulation contractors ........
Painting and wall covering contractors
Flooring Contractors ..............................
Tile and Terrazzo contractors ...............
Finish Carpentry contractors .................
Other building finishing contractors ......
Site Preparation ....................................

29,962
1,904
15,927
9,606
2,669
33,784

29,962
1,904
15,927
9,606
2,669
33,784

95,670
7,946
50,782
25,611
13,978
179,125

4.67
4.67
4.67
4.67
4.67
4.67

1,192
1,986
2,063
527
1,120
1,649

56
93
96
25
52
77

11,306
1,083
2,149
0
862
2,295
11,886
2,679
13,043
1,243
485
1,722
506
237

11,306
1,083
2,149
0
862
2,295
11,886
2,679
13,043
1,243
485
1,722
506
237

59,055
4,293
8,580
0
4,675
10,166
52,606
14,995
48,914
4,720
2,457
7,015
1,627
909

5.22
5.22
5.22
11.04
5.22
5.22
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42

841
666
630
0
993
1,261
677
945
345
376
758
637
359
290

44
35
33
0
52
66
30
42
15
17
34
28
16
13

691
872

691
872

2,953
3,855

4.32
3.86

434
551

19
21

524
0
392
0
0
0
0
3,579

524
0
392
0
0
0
0
3,579

2,726
0
1,267
0
0
0
0
13,406

4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.56

868
0
326
0
0
0
0
561

38
0
14
0
0
0
0
26

Subtotal .................................................

149,403

149,403

617,328

Total ......................................................

186,977

166,064

803,843

ORA.
U.S. Census Bureau data.
Country Business Patterns, 2006; Statistics of U.S. Businesses 2006.
Internal Revenue Service, Source Book, profit rates over 2000–2006.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00188

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
4. Benefits
The Agency received several
comments in the record on the benefits
analysis in the Preliminary Economic
Analysis (PEA). For example, the
commercial building supply industry
noted that their industry had not been
included in the economic analysis, nor,
consequently, included in the Agency’s
characterization of risks and benefits.
The industry provided 2008 accident
data (5 injuries related to work with
cranes) to the rulemaking record in their
comments. (ID–0184; –0342; –0345.17;
–0384.1.) Stephen Yohay, representing
Edison Electric Institute noted that there
was no explanation of the benefit that
would result for the electric utility
industry or electric industry employees,
and therefore no evaluation of whether
the benefit was reasonably related to the
cost of compliance. (ID–0203; –0335;
–0342; –0345; –0372; –0380; –0381;
–0408.) The Agency was also made
aware of the potential overlap of costs
and benefits of industries affected by
both the construction cranes’ standard

and the Agency’s previously proposed
standard Electric Power Generation,
Transmission, and Distribution;
Electrical Protective Equipment (subpart
V), which essentially resulted in double
counting of risk reduction, or benefits,
in the electric utility industry as well as
the construction industries working for
the electric utility industry in the cranes
proposed standard. This oversight has
been corrected.
The proposed standard’s benefits
analysis rested upon BLS’ Census of
Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) data
for total annual fatalities in the
construction industry, an estimate that
eight percent of (CFOI) construction
fatalities were crane related, and an
analysis of a small sample of fatality
reports from OSHA’s IMIS data
indicating that 58 percent of
construction crane-related fatalities
could be prevented by the proposed
cranes standard. The application of the
construction crane standard to general
industry sectors and the necessity of
disentangling the affect of subpart V
required a different approach. The

48093

Agency instead is relying on an analysis
of four years of IMIS fatality reports
across all industries to estimate the risk
reduction, or benefits, attributed to the
final cranes standard. This method has
been used by the Agency to evaluate
risk reduction in virtually all of its
safety standards. The Agency collected
506 fatality reports from IMIS across all
industries for the years 2004–2007. Of
these, over 200 were found to be
construction related, including some in
general industry sectors. One hundred
and twenty-six of these (with 132
fatalities) were accidents that the
Agency concluded were potentially
impacted by the final standard, and the
Agency estimates that 88 of these will
be prevented by the final standard, or
about 22 per year. The Agency also
estimated that the final standard would
prevent 175 injuries annually. The table
below describes the industry sectors
with IMIS accident fatalities that the
Agency concludes are impacted (i.e.,
potentially avoided) by the final
standard.

TABLE B–6—AVOIDABLE FATALITIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, 2004–2007
SIC

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

1521
1541
1542
1611
1622
1623
1629
1721
1731
1742
1751
1761
1771
1781
1791
1794
1795
1796
1799

Industry name

..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................

Fatalities

Single-family housing construction .......................................................................................................................
Industrial buildings and warehouses ....................................................................................................................
Nonresidential construction, nec ..........................................................................................................................
Highway and street construction ..........................................................................................................................
Bridge, tunnel & elevated highway .......................................................................................................................
Water, sewer, and utility lines ..............................................................................................................................
Heavy construction, nec .......................................................................................................................................
Painting and paper hanging .................................................................................................................................
Electrical work ......................................................................................................................................................
Plastering, drywall, and insulation ........................................................................................................................
Carpentry work .....................................................................................................................................................
Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work .................................................................................................................
Concrete work ......................................................................................................................................................
Water well drilling .................................................................................................................................................
Structural steel erection ........................................................................................................................................
Excavation work ...................................................................................................................................................
Wrecking and demolition work .............................................................................................................................
Installing building equipment, nec ........................................................................................................................
Special trade contractors, nec ..............................................................................................................................

The Agency provides a full
explanation of its method of evaluating
risk reduction in the FEA in the docket,
along with an Appendix (Excel
spreadsheet) of the IMIS records
examined. The Agency evaluated
reports from the effect of crane
regulations in California as well as the
Canadian province of Ontario. The

Agency concluded that results from
these two regulatory efforts are
consistent with OSHA’s conclusion that
the final standard reduces risk of
construction crane accidents and
injures; however, the Agency
determined that review of IMIS records
would provide a better method to
quantify benefits.

4
5
4
11
11
13
7
1
3
1
3
3
12
2
14
2
1
3
15

This same analysis also showed that
there is a serious risk of fatalities in
General Industry construction work.
Table 7 shows the fatalities in
construction related work in the General
Industry sectors that have been added to
the economic analysis.

TABLE B–7—FATALITIES THAT OCCURRED OUTSIDE TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES THAT COULD BE AVOIDED
BY THE FINAL STANDARD, 2004–07
Number of fatalities

SIC

1 ...................................................................................................
1 ...................................................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00189

Industry name
3441
4789

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Fabricated metal products.
Transportation services.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48094

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–7—FATALITIES THAT OCCURRED OUTSIDE TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES THAT COULD BE AVOIDED
BY THE FINAL STANDARD, 2004–07—Continued
Number of fatalities
1
1
1
2
6
1
1
1
1

SIC

...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................

Industry name
4911
4931
5031
5211
7353
7389
8731
9223
9999

Electric services.
Elec services and more.
Lumber, plywood, wholesale.
Lumber and other bldg. materials dealers.
Heavy construction equipment rental and leasing.
Business services, nec.
Commercial physical and biological research.
Correctional institutions.
Non-classifiable establishments.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Source: ORA; IMIS.

Analyzing IMIS Crane Fatality Reports
OSHA typically measures the risk
reduction, or benefit, of its safety
standards by examining accident
reports. Accidents that occur because of
a failure to comply with an existing
standard are not counted as a benefit, or
risk reduction, that is attributed to the
effect of the new standard. In addition,
the Agency does not try to estimate, or
factor in, compliance with the new
standard in estimating costs and
benefits. It estimates costs as if all
employers fully comply, and estimates
benefits as if employer efforts prevent
all types of accidents, or risks, the
standard addresses. The chief purpose
of the analysis is to demonstrate
feasibility while providing a measure of
the size of the rule, its possible impact
on industries and the economy, and the
ability to weigh and compare its costs
and benefits. The analysis is not trying
to predict with precision exactly the
outcomes under the rule, which depend
on employer compliance, changes in
technology and the way employers react
to the new standard, and many other
factors.
The Agency is taking a somewhat
different approach to estimating the risk
reduction under the crane standard.
OSHA’s current construction crane
standards were adopted in 1972 under
the OSH Act’s sec. 6(a), permitting the
Agency to adopt existing standards and
current consensus standards without
informal rulemaking. Thus, for example,
former § 1926.550(b)(2) referred to the
ANSI B30.5–1968 standard (that is, from
the year 1968) for requirements for
design, inspection, testing, and
maintenance of crawler, locomotive,
and truck cranes. The current standards
were widely believed to be out of date
and ineffective; hence, the creation of
the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
(C–DAC) from affected industries and
labor representatives to address
weaknesses.
For example, the former construction
crane standard had in former

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

§ 1926.550(a)(15)(i) a prohibition from
working within 10 feet of any energized
overhead power line. Yet power line
contact causes more crane-related
employee deaths than any other source,
and the negotiated rulemaking
committee produced provisions that are
meant to reduce those fatalities.
Technically, however, one could argue
that it is a failure to comply with the
current standard that results in
electrocutions. If the crane, boom, wire,
or load were not getting closer than 10
feet to power lines, there would be no
electrocutions. The final standard
increases the prohibited distance to 20
feet, but also includes a number of other
precautions. California recently
increased the prohibited distance to 20
feet, and reported that electrocutions
due to cranes have fallen from five over
a two and one-half year period prior to
the regulation to just one in the same
period of time afterward. The reduction
in the California fatalities also can be
attributed to a requirement for operator
certification; this final OSHA standard
also includes this requirement.
The Agency concludes that its final
standard will result in fewer fatalities
and injuries due to a number of the
provisions in the final standard, even
though there are some existing
construction crane provisions that
address the same risk. This is attributed
to more specific precautions in
particular sections of the rule as well as
the requirement for certifying crane
operators, which potentially affects
safety in all aspects of crane operations.
Another example where the final
standard will be more protective than
current standards is in assembly/
disassembly operations. Assembly/
disassembly operations are, along with
power line contact, a leading cause of
fatalities in crane work. Technically,
one could argue that these fatalities
could always be avoided by compliance
with the current crane standard—to
follow manufacturers’ specifications—
which is a general, passive, and non-

PO 00000

Frm 00190

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

specific duty. The final standard has
lengthy provisions in the final standard
to prevent these types of accidents.
OSHA believes that these types of
accidents will be prevented by
compliance with the provisions of this
final standard for assembly and
disassembly of equipment. Section
1926.1403 requires that equipment be
assembled in compliance with
manufacturer procedures or with
alternative employer procedures
designed to prevent the equipment from
collapsing. In addition, under
§ 1926.1404, assembly must be
conducted under the supervision of a
person who understands the hazards
associated with an improperly
assembled crane and is well-qualified to
understand and comply with the proper
assembly procedures. Section
1926.1404(f) would prohibit employees
from being under the boom when pins
are removed. In situations where site
constraints require an employee to be
under the boom when pins are removed,
the employer must implement other
procedures, such as ensuring that the
boom sections are adequately
supported, to prevent the sections from
falling onto the employee. This specific
work practice alone will prevent
virtually all fatalities associated with
assembly/disassembly of lattice boom
cranes. Section 1926.1404(q) contains
several provisions designed to ensure
that outriggers are deployed properly
before lifting a load. In addition, the
operator qualification and certification
requirement of proposed § 1926.1427,
which is intended to ensure that
operators understand and follow the
safety requirements for the equipment
they are operating, would help prevent
this type of accident.
For informational purposes, as
required by E.O. 12866 (also following
the guidance of OMB’s Circular A–4),
OSHA monetizes the safety benefits of
standards. OSHA assigns a value of
statistical life (VSL) to fatalities
prevented by the final standard of $8.7

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

million per VSL. This estimate is based
on the median value found by Viscusi
and Aldy in their 2003 review ($7
million in 2000 dollars), adjusted by the
GDP implicit price deflator 2000 to
2010). The total monetized value of
preventing 22 fatalities annually is
about $191.4 million. For accidents,
OSHA uses a willingness-to-pay
methodology to monetize the value of
injuries avoided, of $50,000 in 2000
dollars; which, when adjusted by the
GDP deflator is about $62,500 in 2010
dollars. Thus, the monetized annual
value of an estimated 175 injuries
avoided by the standard annually is
about $10.9 million. The total annual
monetized value of avoided injuries and
fatalities is about $202.3 million.
Costs of Crane Accidents
Several commenters noted that crane
accidents represented a substantial cost
to employers in the crane industry. (ID–
0341; –0342; –0343; –0344.) In the PEA
the Agency did not estimate cost savings
from avoiding crane accidents, but only
estimated monetized benefits for
avoiding fatalities (the value of a
statistical life, or VSL) or injuries (a
value based on willingness to pay).
These cost savings do not represent
other losses associated with accidents,
such as production time lost to provide
medical services to injured employees,
damage to cranes, damage to the work
site or beyond, damage to the load
materials or rigging, lost time in
cleaning up and repairing damage to the
worksite, lost production time while the
crane is removed, repaired, or replaced
with a substitute. More obviously they
do not account for costs of crane
accidents where no fatality or injury
was recorded. There are many more
crane accidents that do not involve any
injury than those represented in the
IMIS reports, and the Agency concludes
that the final standard will avoid these
just as effectively as the accidents where
injuries occur.
For example, there were ten tipover
accidents with fatalities in OSHA’s IMIS
records for 2008, and data collected in
the State of California over a three year
period showed that there were 35
(mobile) crane tipovers for the single
tipover accident fatality (Op cit. Yow,
Philip, ‘‘Crane Accidents 1997–1999
* * *.’’). Since California has about ten
percent of the U.S. population and
economy, this suggests that there are on
the order of 350 crane tipover accidents
over a three year period, or about 120
per year. Tipovers typically require
crane repair, lost production time for all
employees at the site, and schedule
delays. Since there are firms that
specialize in repairing cranes damaged

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

in accidents, the Agency believes that
they are in fact frequent. If the cost of
these kinds of accidents are only, on
average, $100,000 each, the total annual
cost savings from avoiding two-thirds
(the fraction of current crane fatalities
prevented by the final standard) of them
would be about $7 million per year.
That represents a cost saving of avoiding
accidents from just one cause. Although
tipovers and crane or boom collapses
are likely the most expensive type of
crane accident, they represent only
about 10 percent of the types of fatal
accidents.
Tower crane collapses in urban areas,
while infrequent, are very costly, as the
crane is typically lost, considerable
damage done to the worksites and
structures beyond, and days if not
weeks of lost production. The Agency
believes that this cost is significant, but
has no information in the record with
which to estimate this source of cost
savings.
Similarly, there are costs associated
with all crane accidents, whether or not
there is an employee injury. The Agency
does not have information in the record
upon which to estimate the overall
number of crane accidents, or the
particular costs of the different types of
accidents, such as dropping a load,
contact with power lines, and so forth.
But the Agency believes that the
potential economic benefits from
reducing these with compliance with
the final standard is likely very
substantial.
Insurance Savings
An expert from the insurance industry
reported that his company offers a 10
percent reduction in general liability
premiums if all an employer’s operators
are certified. (ID–0343; –0345.34;
–0347.) Several commenters confirmed
that fact and also said that this saving
alone more than paid for the cost of
certifying operators. (ID–0343.) There
was no information in the record about
the cost of general liability insurance to
employers with cranes, and so the
Agency cannot compute any cost saving
based on their cost or prices. However,
this possible saving clearly shows that
it is not simply OSHA that sees savings
associated with operator certification,
and that employers can reasonably
expect some immediate savings
associated with operator certification
(projected to cost about $51 million
annually).
Net Benefits
The monetized benefits and other
benefits of the final standard are
estimated by the Agency to be $209.3
million annually ($202.3 million from

PO 00000

Frm 00191

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48095

fatalities and injuries avoided, plus $7
million in avoided tipover accident
costs). The Agency has not quantified
the cost savings from many accidents
which do not involve injury that will be
prevented by the final standard.
5. Technological Feasibility
In accordance with the OSH Act,
OSHA is required to demonstrate that
occupational safety and health
standards promulgated by the Agency
are technologically feasible.
Accordingly, OSHA reviewed the
requirements that would be imposed by
the final regulation, and assessed their
technological feasibility. As a result of
this review, OSHA has determined that
compliance with the requirements of the
final standard is technologically feasible
for all affected industries. The standard
would require employers to perform
crane inspections, utilize qualified or
certified crane operators, address
ground conditions, maintain safe
distances from power lines using the
encroachment prevention precautions,
and to fulfill other obligations under the
standard. Compliance with all of these
requirements can be achieved with
readily and widely available
technologies. Some businesses in the
affected industries already implement
the requirements of the standard to
varying degrees (some states have
requirements), as noted during the
SBREFA Panel. OSHA believes that
there are no technological constraints in
complying with any of the proposed
requirements, and received no
comments that suggested that these
standards were technologically
infeasible.
6. Costs
The Agency received comment on
some unit cost estimates of specific
provisions in the PEA: Operator
certification, the number of crane jobs
involving work near power lines,
electric utilities providing voltage
information, de-energizing power lines,
locking out automatic line re-energizing
devices, providing line wraps for power
lines, and conducting power line
meetings. Based on that comment, the
Agency has revised the original cost
analysis ($123 million annually), and
corrected errors noted below. The
Agency estimates that the final
construction cranes standard will cost
employers $154.1 million annually.
The Agency did not receive comment
on its estimate of the number of cranes
and crane jobs per year; nor on the time
and cost of provisions on assembly/
disassembly (except for ground
conditions), and inspections. The
Agency also did not receive any

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48096

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

comment on its estimates of ‘‘baseline’’
compliance, or the fraction of affected
employers who are already performing
or providing protections required in the
final standard. For example, the Agency
had estimated that, as a baseline, 30
percent of affected crane operators are
already certified. However, the Agency
did receive considerable comment and
new information in several areas: the
number of operators already certified;
the number of cranes, crane jobs, and
certified crane operators from
individual employers or industries; the
extent of current compliance (baseline)
with providing safe ground conditions
and assembly/disassembly operations;
frequency of crane inspections; and the
frequency of work close to high-voltage
power lines. Based on the new
information in the record, the Agency
has revised several of its baseline
figures, discussed below.
The Agency also received
considerable new information about
general industry sectors that would be
affected by the final standard. The
Agency has incorporated that
information into its estimates of costs
for those sectors. The Agency has also
updated its information about wages,
establishments, and revenues from the
2006 Statistics for U.S. Business (SUSB)
and County Business Patterns. As the
number of cranes in the PEA was, for
some sectors, based on an estimate of
revenues, the number of cranes for some
sectors has changed from the PEA based
on newer revenue data.
Employers have four years from the
publication date of the final rule to
comply with the requirements for
operator certification. The Agency could
assess that cost across the next four
years and discount those values back to
the present to add to the other annual
costs of the standard. However,
assessing benefits for only part of the
final standard for several years is
problematic. The Agency has concluded
that the clearest picture of cost, benefits,
and impacts will be given as if all costs
and benefits of the final standard occur
in the first year. This removes the
problems of parsing risk reduction from
separate provisions of the final standard
for several years, in addition to
assessing when employers might
comply with certification and the
resulting effects on discounting.
Presenting full benefits and costs side
by side also provides the easiest view of
the long-run effects of the final
standard.
The Agency presents and discusses
comment on the PEA, new information
in the record, and revisions to cost
estimates in the following sections:
operator certification, power lines,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

assembly/disassembly (A/D),
inspections, and ground conditions.
Unit costs are explained below and
presented in Table B–8. Wage rates in
the PEA were based on 2003 BLS data.
The Agency has increased these base
wage rates by 19 percent for the FEA,
based on more recent BLS data.
Summarized costs by provision are
presented in Table B–9.
Cost of Operator Certification
For the FEA, the Agency has
increased the estimated cost of test
preparation (a course) for a third party
operator exam from $500 in the PEA to
$1,500, plus, as before, $250 for the
exam itself and 18 hours of wages
($31.37/hour, total of $564). When the
total initial cost ($2,064) is annualized
over 5 years, the annualized amount is
about $500. In addition, based on
comment in the record the Agency has
increased the baseline of current
compliance in the traditional
construction industries from 30 percent
to 60 percent, and assumed that no
crane operators in the affected general
industry sectors have been certified (ID–
0341; –0342; –0343; –0344). The Agency
also reduced the turnover rate of crane
operators from 23 percent to 5 percent,
thus reducing the number of new
entrants each year who would require
certification. The annualized cost of
crane operator certification is estimated
to be about $59 million per year.
The PEA had estimated that a two-day
preparation and testing would cost
employers $750 for each employee
taking the operators certification test
($500 for the prep course, and $250 for
the written and practical exam). In
addition, employers would have to pay
the wages of a crane operator ($31.37
per hour with benefits) for 16 hours of
his time, plus an additional 2 hours, on
average, for travel. The total cost was
estimated to be $1,314 per employee
taking the crane certification exam. The
Agency annualized that one-time figure
over 10 years, for an annual per operator
costs of $187.
The Agency erred in the PEA in
annualizing the cost of the training and
testing over 10 years instead of five,
since the certification is only good for
five years. Although, re-certification
does not typically entail the prep course
and time, and future costs of
certification are therefore probably
considerably much lower, the Agency
concludes that for purposes of weighing
the costs and impact of the final
standard, that it will rely on the initial
costs annualized over five years.
However, because the Agency
accounted for turnover of operators and
estimated costs for new operators as a

PO 00000

Frm 00192

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

result of retirement for the industry, a
simple five year annualization would
overestimate costs. As a result, the
Agency introduced a factor to the
formula to assure that no costs were
taken for recertification of retired
operators. (See full formulas in the
FEA.)
Operator certification was the primary
focus of comments on costs. Many
commenters stated that in regard to the
means of crane operator certification
Option (1), or third-party testing, was
the only viable alternative. (See, e.g.,
ID–0151; –0342.) The Agency agrees
that this will be the primary means of
certification and notes there are several
testing organizations now available,
with more reportedly in the process of
being accredited. (ID–0341; –0343.)
Michael Eggenberger of Bay Ltd
provided several comments on the unit
cost of operator certification. (ID–0254.)
Mr. Eggenberger provided photocopies
of invoices that showed Bay Ltd paying
for NCCCO written and practical exams,
over two days, for $1,375 each. The
invoice does not make clear whether the
two days included prep training, but
handwritten on each invoice is the
additional information that the invoice
costs did not include prep training at
$500, plus five days’ wages for each
employee. The Agency concludes that
Bay Ltd provided a course of prep
training and testing that lasted five days.
If Mr. Eggenberger’s employees were
paid the average wage (including
benefits) of $31.36 per hour that OSHA
is relying on, based on BLS data, then
the total cost per employee would be
$3,129 (about $1,250 in wages, $1,375
for prep and the exam, and $500 in prep
training.)
Edison Electric Institute, representing
the electric utility industry, submitted
cost data for certification ‘‘utilizing
$1,750 as the base cost for a training
course and the actual exam. EEI has
estimated that it would cost
approximately $1,500 for an employee
training course, and $250 for the
certification program.’’ (ID–0345.17;
–0370.1.) EEI did not provide any detail
about its figures.
Comment received from James Nevel
of the National Utility Training & Safety
Education Association (NUTSEA) said
that ‘‘typical training programs that we
have seen run $1200 to $1400 for
classroom training and then an
additional $450+ or so for the
certification testing.’’ (ID–0155.1.)
NUTSEA’s membership of 250
‘‘provides safety and training services to
most of the electric cooperatives in the
United States.’’
California enacted a requirement for
crane operator certification which took

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
effect in June 2005. That State’s operator
certification requirement did not apply
to digger derricks and mobile—usually
truck-mounted—cranes with a capacity
below 15,000 pounds. The State
estimated that there were 5,000 mobile
cranes and 700 tower cranes affected
and that about 10,000 operators would
require certification (‘‘Economic Impact
Statement,’’ Attachment #1 for Crane
Operator Qualifications/Certification,
Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement,
STD, 399). California estimated that
there were almost 2,000 businesses that
owned, operated, or leased cranes
affected by the State’s regulation.
Further, the State’s impact report
estimated that the cost of certification
would include a physical examination
($320), a substance abuse test ($120),
and cost of a written and practical exam
from a NCCCO testing agent ($550), or
a total of $990 per operator.
The Agency received several
estimates of the cost of operator
certification as part of the Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel
(SBAR). John Anderson reported that he
estimated certification costs at $2,900
per employee, including five days for
training, exam, and wages (OSHA–
S030A–2006–0064–0019), with the
average cost of an exam $382 and with
training or prep courses $1,260 on
average, and wages $1,255. Mr.
Anderson also cited a general
contractor’s cost of exams and prep
class of $1,375. Art Daniels of AR
Daniels Construction estimated the cost
of certifying one operator to be
$6,141.59, but did not provide any
detail of how the estimate was
determined. Mr. Daniel also commented
that the Agency’s wage estimate was too
low, but his estimate included wages for
overtime which accounted for much of
the difference. (OSHA–S030A–2006–
0064–0019.) Mr. Daniel also stated that
no costs were included for re-testing or
loss of production. However, the
Agency did include costs for re-testing
(when an operator initially fails the test)
and the value of lost production is
accounted for in operator’s wages.
Several participants in the SBAR panel
also noted that they have no turnover
among their crane operators.
Current OSHA standards require
operators of construction cranes to
ensure that operators are trained. The
Agency does not agree that the final
standard requires a five-day training and
prep course for employees to take and
pass the crane operator’s certification.
Five-day courses are designed not just to
prepare potential operators for
certification, but to train newcomers.
For example, Bob Behlman of Behlman
Builders in describing the training that

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

he sends his crane operator to, notes
that the five-day course by a national
consulting firm that specializes in
mobile crane training and inspection
services is ‘‘designed for both
newcomers to the crane operators field
[and] to those who have years of
experience.’’ (ID–0373.1.) Mr. Behlman
notes that the current five-day course
that he provides for his crane operators
as of this time still does not include a
written and practical test, such as
NCCCO or the International Union of
Operating Engineers (IUOE) offers. As
Mr. Brent of NCCCO said at the public
hearing, ‘‘a lot of those costs * * * are
not associated with certification at all.
They’re associated with the training
process.’’ (ID–0343.)
Many testing companies provide
testing along with a preparation in
either two-day or five-day courses, but
virtually all commenters on the record
note that few certified operators take the
preparation course when re-certifying is
done, and that re-certification is much
less costly. The preparation course is
designed not to train operators on
cranes, but to help them negotiate the
written test. Again, as noted above, the
Agency was not including in its
estimates of the cost of operator
certification any training related to
obtaining knowledge about, or
operating, a crane, which is already a
duty of operators of cranes in
construction. Operators have been
taking certification exams without
benefit of special preparatory courses
for many years in cities and states (such
as Connecticut and New York City) that
perform their own testing of crane
operators for licensing or certification.
As was pointed out in testimony, part of
the resistance to third-party certification
may be that current crane operators may
lack the requisite training or skills. (ID–
0343.)
It was not incumbent upon the
Agency to include purchased,
preparatory training from third party
providers as a cost of the standard. The
final standard requires no such
purchased training. The Agency
concludes that while many employers
and crane operators will avail
themselves of the test preparation, not
all will do so, and this was recognized
in comment. (ID–0343.) In terms of
estimating the costs of the final
standard, it is reasonable that employees
and independent crane operators, who
have already been sufficiently trained in
crane operation and may have many
years’ experience, certainly need no
more than a short preparation to
successfully pass the crane operator
certification tests. Thus, the Agency has
included as part of the cost of the

PO 00000

Frm 00193

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48097

standard, $1,500 as the price of a twoday prep course for taking the operator’s
written and hands-on exams.
The Agency did not include costs of
operator certification for users of
sideboom cranes found in pipeline
construction (NAICS 237120 Oil and
Gas Pipeline Construction) and derricks,
found in water tank construction
(NAICS Water and Sewer Line
Construction). Both types of cranes are
exempted from requirements for
operator certification in the final
standard.
The Agency increased the number of
current crane operators in construction
who already are certified. NCCCO
reported that since 1996 they had
provided exams for 65,000 operators
who had taken over 365,000 exams.
(Operators frequently choose to be
certified on several different types of
cranes. (ID–0343.)) NCCCO reported that
crane certification was primarily sought
for construction cranes. The IUOE
reported that they have provided 12,000
written and 8,000 practical, or handson, exams. (ID–0341.) Sixteen states
now have a requirement for operator
certification or licensing. (See, e.g.,
–0347.1.) Four states have their own
State licensing programs. In addition,
the nation’s largest cities also have their
own licensing or certification
requirements. One commenter noted
that in Ohio, which has no requirement
for crane operator certification, hiring
certified construction crane operators
had become the norm for the industry.
(ID–0341.) Insurance representatives
and other commenters at the public
hearings noted that many employers
were getting their crane operators
certified as the cost was recouped from
premium reductions. (ID–0341; –0343;
–0344.) Accordingly, the Agency has
increased its estimate of the number of
construction crane operators who
already are certified to 60 percent of
current operators.
The Agency is confident that the
estimated costs of operator certification
are not underestimated. The Agency
concludes that at least 5 percent of
construction cranes are owner-operated.
(ID–0025; –0341.) Since these selfemployed individuals or family-owned
businesses have no employees, they will
not—for purposes of following the
standard—have to be certified. In some
areas, it is the custom for crane
operators to pay for their own
certification. (ID–0343.) However, a new
provision in the final standard requires
employers to pay for certification in any
event. NCCCO’s Mr. Brent testified that:
‘‘There are some candidates who are
paying outright. Some employers have
instituted a vesting program where some

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48098

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

fees are due to be repaid if the employee
leaves in a certain period.’’ (ID–0343.) In
addition, in situations where crane
operators are union members, who may
be hired out of union hiring halls, it is
likely that training and certification will
be performed through the union rather
than an employer. The IUOE pays for
their members’ crane training and
certifications costs out of union dues
(ID–0341); so while employers, and
ultimately owners of new construction
projects, may pay for the cost of union
operators’ certification via somewhat
higher wages, there is no immediate cost
to employers or general contractors for
operator certification. In addition, many
certification prep courses and exams are
offered on weekends, and there will not
be any lost time of production in such
cases. (ID–0343.)
Several small employer
representatives on the Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel remarked that
they had no turnover of crane operators.
(OSHA–S030A–2006–0664–0019.)
Similarly, employers and associations
who provided public testimony at the
standard’s public hearings also noted
little or no turnover among operators.
Accordingly, the Agency concludes that
although there may be transfer between
employers, crane operators are a select
and highly paid group who are unlikely
to exit their field. Employers who lease
cranes with operators, which is the
predominant mode of crane jobs, or who
hire from union hiring halls would
experience no turnover of crane
operators at all.
Power Lines
The Agency has revised its estimates
in the PEA of the ‘‘unit’’ costs of power
line work for: assembly/disassembly;
crane operations closer than 20 feet to
a power line (§ 1926.1408); and crane
operations within the Table A distances
(within 10 feet in most instances)
(§ 1926.1410). Comment in the record
indicated that crane operators routinely
assess sites for potential power line
risks. (ID–0341; –0344.) Thus the
Agency concludes that the current
baseline of compliance with assessing
power line risks is 100 percent and this
provision does not impose new costs on
affected employers. The Agency did not
estimate costs for work near power lines
within Table A distances for the electric
utility industries, power line
construction, and electric contractors, as
these employers work near power lines
under subpart V.
The Agency has revised estimates of
unit costs for some operations near
power lines. There were two primary
sources for the revision of some unit
costs of power line work: the written

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

submission by Edison Electric Institute
(EEI) reporting cost information from 16
members and the testimony and written
comment from EEI itself. (ID–0343;
–0345.17.) Based on the EEI member’s
information, the Agency concludes that
the cost of providing voltage
information is about $200 per
occurrence; that the cost of locking out
automatic line re-energizing devices is
about $320; and that it takes electric
‘‘utility owner/operator’’ or engineers a
total of six hours ($360) for travel and
for participation in planning meetings,
review of procedures, and identification
of a person to implement procedures.
These figures represent approximately
the median or average of estimates
provided by EEI members, although
each member did not provide
information about each operation. In
addition, the Agency had estimated the
cost of using an insulating link when
working very close to power lines as
$427 per use. Comment in the record
showed that the average cost of these
devices is lower than the Agency’s
estimate in the PEA of $15,000, that
their working lifetime is 20 years rather
than 10, and that they may require
recertification each year. (ID–0085;
–0085.1; –0085.2.) Accordingly the
Agency has revised its estimated cost
per use to $210 (based on the
information and model in ID–0085, but
with a 7 percent discount rate).
Although the final standard may not
require the use of NRTL-approved
insulating links until up to three years
after the standard takes effect, the
Agency is including costs for this
provision as if employers will replace
their inventory by purchasing and
beginning use of NRTL-approved
insulating links in the first year that
these links are available.
The Agency has also revised the costs
of planning meetings. In the PEA the
Agency concluded that four individuals
would participate in such a meeting.
That model fits with operations of a
traditional lattice-boom crane. However,
most cranes jobs today are of short
duration by truck-mounted cranes, and
the Agency estimates that only three
individuals will typically be involved in
a planning meeting.
Operations Closer Than Table A
Distance
The Agency received comment about
work close to power lines that has
significantly increased its estimates of
costs. (ID–0342; –0345.17.) Unit costs
for the time required of electric utilities
or professional engineers has been
revised to $360 per episode; costs of deactivating or locking automatic line
reclosure devices has been increased

PO 00000

Frm 00194

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

from about $30 to $320, and the cost of
supplying voltage information is $200.
The Agency had estimated that cranes
were performing operations closer than
10 feet, or the Table A distance, in about
5 percent of all crane jobs that were not
assembled near power lines (which was
75 percent of the total estimated 859,000
cranes jobs per year). In testimony, EEI’s
David Highland, also from Allegheny
Power, referred to the frequency of
close-to-power-line work as OSHA’s
estimate of ‘‘50,000 episodes’’ per year.
The 50,000 figure was also noted in
EEI’s written testimony. (ID–0345.17.)
However, OSHA’s estimate of the actual
number (5 percent of 75 percent of
859,000) was approximately 32,000. Mr.
Highland also said, ‘‘We thought it
would double,’’ in speaking of the
number of times construction employers
would operate cranes closer than the
Table A distances.
The former OSHA standard at former
§ 1926.550(a)(15) permitted work near
power lines no closer than 10 feet
except where they are de-energized and
grounded or when they have ‘‘insulating
barriers.’’ If power lines are not deenergized or do not have insulating
barriers, all parts of the crane, line and
load, must maintain a 10-foot clearance,
with a designated person to observe
clearance in situations where the crane
operator would have difficulty ensuring
clearance by visual means; and
insulating links may be used as well
(former § 1926.550(a)(15(iv)). In oral
testimony and written comment, EEI
noted that electric utilities provide line
covers now for construction crane
operations, with practices varying from
region to region. All electric utilities
make use of line hoses for protection.
(ID–0342.) Mr. Highland reported that
his company gave ‘‘free line hose up to
a certain length. * * * After 20 feet,
they [crane users] start paying about 10
bucks apiece.’’ (ID–0342.) Earlier in
testimony, EEI said, ‘‘Currently, many
electric utilities also place line hoses on
power lines when so requested by nonutility crane contractors who need to
work within 10 feet of a power line.
Usually the utility owner/operator
receives a call from a contractor prior to
this work. More often than not,
however, the utility discovered that
work is being performed close to a
power line when it is observed by
happenstance, for many contractors
simply do not call.’’ (ID–0342.) Although
the electric utility industry predicted
that the number of these episodes
involving construction cranes would
double or increase exponentially, and
thereby force them to incur greater costs
under the standard, the Agency
disagrees. The final standard imposes

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
significant new procedures and costs
beyond what current standards require.
Generally, one expects crane users in
the affected industries to take further
steps to avoid working closer than the
Table A distances to power lines, rather
than more.
The Agency included in its cost
estimates for work closer than Table A
distances the following:
• A planning meeting (2 hours for
three individuals costing about $132);
• Time and costs for the utility
owner/operator or engineer for all of
their duties (6 hours or $360), i.e.,
planning, voltage information,
determining a minimum clearance
distance, reviewing procedures, and
identification of an individual to
implement procedures;
• Request that electric utilities deactivate the automatic re-energizing
devices, which the Agency assumes will
cost crane employers $320, on average,
to be paid to electric utilities;
• Use a dedicated spotter at all times
(average of 4 hours, $64.06);
• Use of an insulating link ($210);
and
• Provision of barricades and
grounding of equipment ($4.04 and
$8.08).
The crane user must also secure voltage
information from the electric utility, but
the Agency assumes that since the
utility’s owner/operator or an engineer
is present, this information is at hand;
therefore, for work within Table A
distances, there is no separate,
additional cost.
Since line hoses or barriers are
already required, and terms are
currently arranged between the crane
employer and the utility, there is no
new cost for line covers under the final
standard. The Agency concludes that
the crane employer faces, at a minimum,
about $800 in new costs under the final
standard to work within 10 feet or the
Table A distance of a power line. If the
employer must also fully compensate
the electric utility for the utility owner’s
or engineer’s time, the total cost is
estimated at $1,100.
The final standard seems to shift the
duty and expense of line covers wholly
onto electric utilities, with crane
contractors reported as compensating
electric utilities to some degree
currently. (ID–0342.) However, the
limited comment on this issue in the
record does not permit an estimate of
any effect.
All other provisions of the final
standard’s § 1926.1410 are already being
performed in current construction crane
jobs close to power lines, the Agency
concludes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Assembly/Disassembly Near Power
Lines
Under the proposed standard, before
beginning crane assembly/disassembly,
the crane operator or employer must
determine if any parts of the crane or
equipment may get closer than 20 feet
to a power line during A/D. If so, either
the employer must have the line deenergized (Option (1)); stay farther than
20 feet from the power line (Option (2));
or follow the procedures in Option (3):
determine the line voltage and
minimum clearance distance; prevent
encroachment by having a planning
meeting and use either a dedicated
spotter, proximity alarm, a ‘‘range
control warning device,’’ or an elevated
warning line. The Agency believes that
by far the most common method will be
to provide a dedicated spotter during
A/D. There was considerable comment
in the record that de-energizing lines
was rare, difficult for regulatory reasons,
and expensive. (ID–0342.)
The Agency has estimated costs as if
A/D operations near power lines follow
Option (3) and that crane employers or
owners use a spotter to ensure that
cranes stay far enough away. In the PEA,
the Agency estimated that this
happened in 25 percent of crane jobs.
There was no comment on that estimate
in the rulemaking, and the Agency
concludes that A/D near power lines
occurs about 200,000 times per year.
The Agency has estimated A/D costs
near power lines as follows:
• Crane operators and employers
already assess distance to power lines;
so the Agency takes this as a baseline
and concludes there are no new costs
due to this provision in the final
standard;
• To determine voltage and the
minimum clearance distance, the
Agency estimates that A/D will be close
enough to the power line to contact the
utility about 25 percent of the time,
costing about $50 (one-fourth of $200),
on average, for each A/D episode. Most
crane operations will be near typical
residential power lines of less than 50
kV, with a minimum clearance distance
from Table A of 10 feet.
• Hold a planning meeting which for
the typical crane operation will consist
of the crane operator, spotter, and any
on-site employer or contractor (for a
lattice-boom crane that truly performs
A/D operations, many more individuals
are involved in the planning meeting as
required in § 1926.1407(b)(1);
• Employ a spotter to ensure that the
minimum clearance distance is
maintained, and provide training for the
spotter, if needed (2 hours plus 15
minutes training).

PO 00000

Frm 00195

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48099

The Agency estimates that the total
costs of providing protective procedures
during A/D near power lines for a
typical crane job will cost less than
$100. Table B–9, Cost by Provision,
shows that the total costs of these
operations for all affected employers is
estimated to be about $16 million
annually.
Crane Operations Within 20 Feet of
Power Lines (§ 1926.1408)
Under the proposed standard, before
beginning crane or derrick operations,
employers must either: (1) Define a
work zone with demarcated boundaries
by using flags or a device such as a
range-limiting device or range-control
warning device that prohibits the
operator from operating the crane past
those boundaries, or (2) define the work
zone as the area 360 degrees around the
crane based on the crane’s maximum
working radius (see proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(1)). The Agency
estimates that, in most cases, the leastcost option would be to mark the zone
with flags. Based on the defined work
zone, the employer must determine
whether the crane, load, or load line, if
operated to its maximum working
radius, could get closer than 20 feet to
a power line.
If the 20-foot determination is
positive, then the employer would be
required to follow one of three options.
If any part of the crane, load, or load
line could not come within more than
20 feet of a power line at the crane’s
maximum radius, the employer would
not be required to take any further
action. If the crane operations could
take the crane closer than 20 feet, the
employer must either: (1) De-energize
and visibly ground the power line, (2)
maintain the 20-foot clearance by
employing a spotter or other warning
device, after having a planning meeting,
or (3) determine the line voltage and
minimum clearance distance and
maintain that distance between all crane
parts and the power line by employing
a spotter or other warning device, after
having a planning meeting.
If the employer follows Option (2) or
(3), the employer must then maintain
the appropriate distance by
implementing several encroachmentprevention procedures to ensure that the
crane does not contact the energized
power lines, including: Having a
planning meeting with the operator and
other workers who will be in the area
of the crane, and using either a
proximity alarm, operational aids/
limiting devices, a dedicated spotter, or
an elevated warning line. The Agency
estimates that a designated spotter
would be used to ensure that the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48100

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

appropriate distance is maintained
between the crane and power line.
In the SBAR panel process, many
small entity representatives commented
on this provision. The majority believed
that, most of the time, a dedicated
spotter would be used. For some, work
near electric lines was rare; for others,
it occurred several times each year. In
the PEA, the Agency estimates that work
potentially within 20 feet of a power
line, occurred on 22.5 percent of all
crane jobs. The Agency has simplified
this estimate for the final analysis, and
estimates that, as for A/D operations
near power lines, operations within 20
feet of power lines occur about 200,000
times per year.
Costs for working within 20 feet of
power lines thus consists of:
• Identifying and demarcating a work
zone and determining the maximum
swing radius of the crane (0.5 hours)
• Ensure that the crane does not come
within 20 feet of the power line by using
a dedicated spotter (2 hours), or
• Determine the line voltage and
maintain the minimum Table A
clearance distance by using a dedicated
spotter (2 hours).
• Seek voltage information.
The Agency estimates that, for
operations near power lines, crane
employers will do so about half the time
($100, or one-half of $200), on average,
for each occurrence.
The Agency estimates the average cost
for protective measures in the final
standard for cranes to work within 20
feet of a power line is about $160.
Crane Inspections
The Agency received little comment
on its estimates of costs of inspections.
Inspections were frequently mentioned
by commenters as necessary and already
being performed. However, the industry
consensus standard requires frequent
(daily to monthly) inspections and
periodic inspections (monthly to annual
ones). The final standard requires daily
visual inspections, and monthly and
annual inspections that must be
documented. In addition, the final
standard adds more specific checks on
more equipment that the consensus
standards. Thus, the Agency is keeping
its estimate that monthly and annual
inspections will take 15 minutes longer
than is typically done today. Due to an
error in the spreadsheet calculations, in
the PEA estimates of the monthly
inspections were too high—based on an
additional 30 minutes per month rather
than 15 minutes. When this error was
corrected the annual additional cost for
inspections fell from about $21 million
per year in the PEA to $16 million
annually. The final standard has a new

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

provision requiring written notification
when an operational aid is broken or a
repair is necessary (§ 1926.1417(j)(1)).
The Agency has estimated that
condition will occur to 30 percent of
(122,091) cranes annually and require
0.17 hours (10 minutes) of a crane
operator’s time (wage $35.62). This cost
of written notification (about $257,000
annually, or $2 per crane, on average)
has been added to the inspection costs
in the tables. The Agency has also
included in the inspection costs the
estimated the cost of providing affected
employees notice at the beginning of
each shift that a crane function or part
is broken (§ 1926.1417(j)(2)). The
Agency estimates that such notice will
take an average of 3 minutes for, on
average, 20 days by the crane operator.
Ground Conditions and Assembly/
Disassembly
In the PEA the Agency estimated that
for each crane job an assembly/
disassembly (A/D) supervisor—likely
the crane operator in many instances—
would assess ground conditions and
power line risks. Many commenters
reported that these functions were
routinely already performed, and the
Agency has adopted that practice as its
baseline. (ID–0341; –0343.) More
pointedly, most crane jobs today are
performed by truck-mounted cranes.
Several commenters noted in both
written comment and oral testimony
that these cranes have no assembly or
disassembly. While there is a lengthy
description in the A/D provision in the
final standard, with pictures, of steps
and procedures for lattice-boom cranes,
these cranes perform relatively few
crane jobs. A large lattice-boom crane
may be assembled for a job lasting
several months—one crane job—while a
truck-mounted hydraulic crane may
perform three or four jobs in a day.
While truck-mounted cranes have safety
hazards when extending stabilizers or
outriggers, these are not the same
hazards associated with lattice-boom
cranes—or tower cranes which have
their own specific provisions for
erection and climbing at § 1926.1435,
Tower Cranes. There are also relatively
few tower cranes, which also perform a
single ‘‘crane job’’ that may last many
months.
No commenter denied that current
crane operators assess conditions prior
to setting up and operating a crane. In
addition to comment in the record,
several organizations provided training
materials that indicated an assessment
of conditions was standard operating
procedures for crane work. (ID–0345.14;
–0345.17; –0380.) The Agency
eliminated these assessment costs in the

PO 00000

Frm 00196

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

final standard, but still included A/D
costs related to work near power lines.
There was considerable comment
about ground conditions. The final
standard places responsibility for
providing sufficient ground conditions
on the ‘‘controlling entity.’’ Small
builders and general contractors
objected to this provision. There were
several parts to most of the criticisms.
First, many builders and contractors
now rely on the crane company or the
crane operator to assess conditions for
safe crane operations, for example,
when hiring a crane company to set roof
trusses. (ID–0341; –0343.) In addition,
many builders or contractors who hire
cranes for particular construction jobs
have no expertise in ground conditions
(ID–0341), which the Agency
acknowledged in the proposal’s
preamble. In response to these
comments, the Agency accounted for
the new burden which controlling
entities will have under the final
standard.
These costs fall primarily on the
lessees of cranes or of cranes with
operators, not employers affected by the
crane standard who own their own
cranes. The Agency concludes that, for
estimating the costs of the ground
conditions provision, builders of large
commercial, residential, and industrial
buildings and contractors do not face a
new cost since they are, in general, at
the building site. However, small
builders and developers, or their
supervisors or representative, may not
be at one of their sites. (ID–0341.) The
Agency estimates that the ground
conditions duty will require two hours
of employer time to be present at the
site to meet their obligations. However,
the standard does not require that
controlling entities be physically
present, and the Agency concludes that
in most cases their attendance at the site
will not be necessary because, in most
situations, the ground conditions will be
dry and reasonably level, and the cranes
will be lifting materials such as roof
trusses and pre-fabricated wall
sections—i.e., low-risk ground
conditions. Any information that the
controlling entity has about
underground risks can be
communicated by telephone. The
Agency concludes that small builders in
three industries will, at most, be
affected by the ground condition
provision at 10 percent of their projects
involving crane operations. The Agency
concludes that the typical crane job—
setting roof trusses—and the fact that
these loads are generally not close to the
capacity of the truck-mounted cranes
that perform the task, means that
concern about ground conditions will

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
not arise often. The three affected
industries are: NAICS 236115 New
Single Family Housing Construction;
NAICS 236117 New Housing Operative
Builders; and NAICS 236118 Residential
Remodelers.
The Agency has estimated the costs of
complying with the controlling entities’
duties in regard to ground conditions for
SBA-size small entities in the three
affected industries. The criterion for
‘‘small entity’’ for these industries by
SBA is revenue of less than $31 million.
This is roughly comparable to
construction of about 100 single family
homes, and the Agency concludes that
all small builders are certainly captured
within this category. Accordingly, the
Agency calculated the costs of
expending two hours of time by
employers for 10 percent of all crane

jobs within the industry sectors by small
employers. The costs for the affected
sectors are presented in Table B–9.
Table B–10 presents average annual
costs per establishment across the
affected sectors. Table B–11 provides
the Agency’s estimate of the number of
cranes and crane jobs.
Language and Literacy
There was also comment in the record
about the difficulty some current crane
operators may have in achieving crane
operator certification due to a language
barrier or weak literacy skills, and thus
the FEA also describes possible impacts
on current and future crane operators.
Two testing organizations reported in
the public hearings that they neither
offer crane operator testing in languages
other than English nor had any plans to

48101

do so. (ID–0341: –0343.) Testing in other
languages would not merely require
translating existing written and practical
test materials, but developing and
evaluating tests as if they were
completely original. There was
comment in the record that some
current crane operators would not be
able to read and therefore successfully
pass a test in English. (ID–0100.1;
–0243.1; –0387.) The Agency is not
presenting any quantitative estimate of
the impact of the final standard on
individuals with language or literacy
issues. The final standard has a new
provision requiring that certification
exams ‘‘must be administered in a
language understood by the operator
candidate’’ which may alleviate any
burden imposed on non-English
speaking crane operators.

TABLE B–8—UNIT COST ESTIMATES FOR THE CRANES AND DERRICKS PROPOSED STANDARD
Section
Assembly/Disassembly Near
Power Lines.

Power Line Safety—Operations within
20 feet.

Power Line Safety—Operations (Closer Than Table A).

Incremental time/cost

Assess power line hazards ...............

........................................

Current practice.

If w/in 20′, determine voltage ............

$200 ...............................

Planning meeting ...............................

20 mins ..........................

Spotter ...............................................

1 hour .............................

25% of episodes = $50 on avg. per
episode.
Spotter ($18.35); operator or A/D director ($35.62); rigger ($21.12).
Spotter/ee ($18.35).

Demarcate work zone .......................

30 mins/instance ............

Employee ($18.35).

Planning Meeting ...............................

20 minutes .....................

Voltage information ............................
A dedicated spotter is needed ..........
Spotter training ..................................

$200 ...............................
2 hours per incident .......
15 minutes (each) ..........

AD director or operator ($35.62);
Rigger
($21.12)
Employee
($18.35).
50% of time = $100 avg.
Employee ($18.35), AD director/operator ($35.62).
Employee ($18.35).

Min. clearance determination; voltage
information; planning meeting, review procedures, identification of
implementer.
Planning meeting, review procedures, identify implementer.

6 hours, including travel

Professional engineer (PE) ($72.22)
or line owner/operator.

2 hours ...........................

Dedicated spotter ..............................
Barricades/work zone ........................
Equipment grounding ........................

4 hours ...........................
15 minutes .....................
30 minutes .....................

Rigger ($21.12); spotter ($18.35); A/
D director or crane operator
($35.62).
Employee ($18.35).
Employee ($18.35).
PE ($72.22).

Insulating Link ....................................

$210 per use.

Written procedures ............................

Developed during planning meeting.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Barricades ..........................................

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

15 minutes .....................

Employee ($18.36).

Limit access .......................................

Discussed during instruction/training.

Non-conductive rigging ......................

Current practice.

Line covers ........................................
Deactivate automatic Reclosure devices.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

Employee type
(wage)

Requirement

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00197

Fmt 4701

$400–800 .......................
$320 ...............................

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

Current practice.
Crane employer.

09AUR2

48102

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE B–8—UNIT COST ESTIMATES FOR THE CRANES AND DERRICKS PROPOSED STANDARD—Continued
Section

Requirement

Incremental time/cost

Crane Inspections ...............................

Monthly inspection .............................

15 minutes per crane in
addition to current
time spent (includes 2
minutes per crane for
recordkeeping).
15 minutes per crane in
addition to current
time spent (includes 2
minutes per crane for
recordkeeping).
15 minutes per crane
(includes 2 minutes
per crane for recordkeeping).
30% of cranes annually;
0.17 hrs;.
30% of cranes annually,
notify on avg. for 20
days, 3 minutes each
day.

Annual inspection ..............................

Repair inspections .............................

Written notification of inoperable
operational aid or repair needed.
Notify affected employees each shift
of a broken crane part or operational aid.
Operator Training for Certification/
Qualification.

Certify operators ................................

Employee type
(wage)
Competent person ($22.88).

Qualified person ($41.25).

Qualified person ($41.25).

Crane Operator ($35.62).
Crane Operator ($35.62).

Wages for operator’s training time (16 hours) for a 2-day prep
course with exams, plus 2 additional hours for travel time. Thus,
the total operator’s pre-course and exam time is 18 hours. Cost
for a 2-day course estimated to be $1,500. Total cost $2,054.
Annualized and adjusted for 5 percent turnover. Base line: 60%
of construction operators certified; 0% of crane operators in affected gen. indus sectors.

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis; BLS 2010 Wages and Earnings.

TABLE B–9—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COST BY SECTOR AND MAJOR PROVISION
NAIC

Number of
affected
firms

Industry

Number of
affected
estabs

Crane assembly/disassembly

Ground
conds

Power line
safety

Crane
inspections

Operator
qualification
certification

Total
annualized
cost

Crane Rental with Operators
238990 .............

All Other Specialty Trade
Cont.

1,244

1,304

....................

....................

....................

$823,510

$1,689,387

$2,512,898

....................

6,644,845

3,407,886

10,052,732

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals)
532412 .............

Const./Min./For. Machine &
Equip.

2,137

3,702

....................

....................

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators
236115 .............
236118 .............
236210 .............
236220 .............
237110 .............
237120 .............
237130 .............
237310 .............

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

237990 .............
238110 .............
238120 .............
238130 .............
238150 .............
238170 .............
238190 .............

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single-Family Housing
Const.
Residential Remodelers ......
Industrial Building Construction.
Commercial and Institutional
Building.
Water and Sewer Line and
Related Struct.
Oil and Gas Pipeline and
Related Struct.
Power and Communication
Line and Rel.
Highway, Street, and Bridge
Construction.
Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Const.
Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct.
Structural Steel and Precast
Concrete.
Framing Contractors ...........
Glass and Glazing Contractors.
Siding Contractors ..............
Other Foundation, Structure,
and Building.

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

178

178

0

6,321

26,332

13,337

26,331

72,322

25
9

25
12

0
0

1,786
23,633

7,442
98,449

3,798
50,242

7,441
98,441

20,467
270,766

23

31

0

20,783

86,575

44,183

86,568

238,109

52

69

0

45,692

190,340

97,138

190,326

523,496

20

26

0

23,103

96,241

49,116

96,233

264,693

34

34

0

15,788

65,769

33,565

65,765

180,887

80

107

0

0

0

432,238

846,896

1,279,134

76

101

0

166,149

692,126

353,220

692,074

1,903,569

261

261

0

95,662

398,499

203,371

398,470

1,096,002

200

266

0

147,527

614,552

313,631

614,507

1,690,217

26
42

26
42

0
0

643
4,174

2,680
17,387

1,368
8,873

2,680
17,386

7,372
47,819

5
49

5
65

0
0

400
15,817

1,667
65,888

851
33,625

1,666
65,883

4,584
181,212

PO 00000

Frm 00198

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48103

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE B–9—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COST BY SECTOR AND MAJOR PROVISION—Continued
Number of
affected
firms

NAIC

Industry

238210 .............
238220 .............

Electrical Contractors ..........
Plumbing, Heating, and AirConditioning.
Other Building Equipment
Contractors.
Painting and Wall Covering
Contract.
Site Preparation Contractors
Subtotal ...............................

238290 .............
238320 .............
238910 .............

Number of
affected
estabs

Crane assembly/disassembly

Ground
conds

Power line
safety

Crane
inspections

Operator
qualification
certification

Total
annualized
cost

15
2

15
3

0
0

0
2,823

0
11,760

6,700
6,001

13,128
11,759

19,828
32,343

113

151

0

84,587

352,364

179,826

352,338

969,116

21

21

0

3,103

12,926

6,597

12,925

35,552

400

400

0

107,618

448,301

228,787

448,268

1,232,974

1,630

1,838

0

765,611

3,189,297

2,066,467

4,049,086

10,070,461

Own but Do Not Rent
236115 .............
236116 .............
236117 .............
236118 .............
236210 .............
236220 .............
237110 .............
237120 .............
237130 .............
237210 .............
237310 .............
237990 .............
238110 .............
238120 .............
238130
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190

.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............

238210 .............
238220 .............
238290 .............
238310 .............
238320 .............
238330 .............
238340 .............
238350 .............
238390 .............
238910 .............
221110 .............
221120 .............

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

221210 .............
321213 .............
321214
336611
339950
423310

.............
.............
.............
.............

423330 .............
423390 .............
423730 .............
444110 .............

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family housing
construction.
New Multifamily housing
construction.
New housing operative
builders.
Residential Remodelers ......
Industrial building construction.
Commercial and Institutional
Bldg. Const.
Water and Sewer Line
Const.
Oil and gas pipeline construction.
Power and communication
line const.
Land subdivision .................
Highway, street and bridge
const.
Other heavy and civil eng ...
Poured Concrete foundation
and struct.
Structural steel and precast
concrete.
Framing Contractors ...........
Masonry Contractors ...........
Glass & Glazing Contractors
Roofing Contractors ............
Siding Contractors ..............
Other foundation, structure,
building, ext.
Electrical Contractors ..........
Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Cont.
Other building equipment
cont.
Drywall and insulation contractors.
Painting and wall covering
contractors.
Flooring Contractors ............
Tile and Terrazzo contractors.
Finish Carpentry contractors
Other building finishing contractors.
Site Preparation ..................
Electric Power Generation ..
Electric Power Transmission, Control, Dist.
Natural Gas Distribution ......
Engineered Wood Member
(exc Truss) Mfg.
Truss Manufacturing ...........
Ship Building and Repairing
Sign Manufacturing .............
Lumbr, Plywd, Millwork, Wd
Pnl Mrchnt Whle.
Roofing, Siding, and Insul
Material Merch Whle.
Other Construction Material
Merchant Whle.
Warm Air Heating and AirCond. Equip. & Suppl.
Home Centers .....................

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

3,097

3,097

0

242,637

832,026

424,617

831,965

2,331,245

217

217

0

17,027

58,388

29,798

58,384

163,597

1,699

1,699

0

133,123

456,493

232,967

456,459

1,279,042

985
276

985
325

0
0

77,148
25,482

264,548
87,381

135,010
44,594

264,528
87,374

741,233
244,832

4,141

4,141

0

324,459

1,112,602

567,806

1,112,520

3,117,387

1,028

1,371

0

107,390

368,252

187,934

231,198

894,775

128

171

0

13,384

45,894

23,421

9,178

91,877

213

285

0

0

0

39,013

76,439

115,452

0
88

0
118

0
0

0
9,209

0
31,580

0
16,117

0
31,578

0
88,484

273
267

273
267

0
0

21,392
20,914

73,355
71,716

37,436
36,599

73,349
71,710

205,532
200,940

334

334

0

26,187

89,799

45,828

89,793

251,607

1,395
137
54
197
53
25

1,395
137
54
197
53
25

0
0
0
0
0
0

109,345
10,747
4,253
15,405
4,129
1,997

374,956
36,852
14,582
52,826
14,158
6,849

191,355
18,807
7,442
26,959
7,225
3,495

374,928
36,849
14,581
52,822
14,157
6,849

1,050,585
103,255
40,858
148,013
39,668
19,191

78
98

78
98

0
0

0
7,690

0
26,371

10,633
13,458

20,834
26,369

31,468
73,889

49

65

0

5,103

17,498

8,930

17,496

49,027

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

41

41

0

3,248

11,139

5,685

11,138

31,211

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

389
524
1,232

389
2,101
7,393

0
0
0

30,454
0
0

104,430
2,304,000
9,216,000

53,295
363,390
777,517

104,422
4,063,374
8,694,086

292,601
6,730,763
18,687,603

526
132

2,458
162

0
0

192,605
12,694

660,462
43,529

337,061
22,215

1,256,324
82,801

2,446,452
161,239

902
575
6,291
6,450

1,085
635
6,415
8,715

0
0
0
0

85,019
21,549
186,336
0

291,538
73,892
638,966
0

148,784
37,710
326,091
0

554,561
281,114
1,215,434
0

1,079,902
414,265
2,366,828
0

1,142

2,762

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,363

3,155

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,533

5,193

0

813,831

2,790,707

1,424,213

5,308,453

10,337,204

2,553

6,749

0

0

0

0

0

0

PO 00000

Frm 00199

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48104

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE B–9—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COST BY SECTOR AND MAJOR PROVISION—Continued
Number of
affected
firms

Number of
affected
estabs

Crane assembly/disassembly

Ground
conds

Power line
safety

Crane
inspections

Operator
qualification
certification

Total
annualized
cost

NAIC

Industry

454312 .............

Liquefied Petroleum Gas
(Bottled Gas) Dealers.
Railroads .............................
Pipeline Transportation of
Natural Gas.
Wired Telecommunications
Carriers.

2,307

5,567

0

436,222

1,495,847

763,392

2,845,384

5,540,845

NA
127

NA
1,363

NA
0

NA
106,803

NA
366,237

NA
186,906

NA
696,651

0
1,356,596

2,517

27,159

0

0

0

411,384

1,533,349

1,944,733

Subtotal ...............................

45,436

96,725

0

3,065,783

22,032,873

6,967,089

30,606,452

62,672,198

482110 .............
486210 .............
517110 .............

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry
236115 .............
236116 .............
236117 .............
236118 .............
236210 .............
236220 .............
237110 .............
237120 .............
237130 .............
237210 .............
237310 .............
237990 .............
238110 .............
238120 .............
238130
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190

.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............

238210 .............
238220 .............
238290 .............
238310 .............
238320 .............
238330 .............
238340 .............
238350 .............
238390 .............
238910 .............

New Single family housing
construction.
New Multifamily housing
construction.
New housing operative
builders.
Residential Remodelers ......
Industrial building construction.
Commercial and Institutional
Bldg. Construction.
Water and Sewer Line
Const.
Oil and gas pipeline construction.
Power and communication
line const.
Land subdivision .................
Highway, street and bridge
const.
Other heavy and civil eng ...
Poured Concrete foundation
and struct.
Structural steel and precast
concrete.
Framing Contractors ...........
Masonry Contractors ...........
Glass & Glazing Contractors
Roofing Contractors ............
Siding Contractors ..............
Other foundation, structure,
building, ext.
Electrical Contractors ..........
Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Cont.
Other building equipment
cont.
Drywall and insulation contractors.
Painting and wall covering
contractors.
Flooring Contractors ............
Tile and Terrazzo contractors.
Finish Carpentry contractors
Other building finishing contractors.
Site Preparation ..................

31,054

31,054

1,276,695

2,433,344

8,344,177

....................

2,085,890

14,140,107

2,173

2,173

0

170,273

583,883

....................

145,960

900,116

16,989

16,989

681,229

1,331,232

4,564,926

....................

1,141,147

7,718,535

9,848
3,264

9,848
3,264

404,986
0

771,674
255,762

2,646,147
877,033

....................
....................

661,488
219,242

4,484,296
1,352,038

41,438

41,438

0

3,247,019

11,134,347

....................

2,783,381

17,164,747

13,774

13,774

0

1,079,310

3,701,059

....................

925,197

5,705,566

1,301

1,734

0

135,874

465,924

....................

116,472

718,270

2,147

2,862

0

0

0

....................

192,240

192,240

0
890

0
1,186

0
0

0
92,933

0
318,677

....................
....................

0
79,663

0
491,273

2,781
1,348

2,781
1,348

0
0

217,876
105,592

747,117
362,085

....................
....................

186,766
90,515

1,151,759
558,192

3,608

3,608

0

282,717

969,466

....................

242,349

1,494,532

13,974
1,372
547
1,966
527
258

13,974
1,372
547
1,966
527
258

0
0
0
0
0
0

1,094,981
107,469
42,854
154,053
41,307
20,228

3,754,799
368,521
146,951
528,262
141,645
69,365

....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................

938,630
92,123
36,735
132,056
35,409
17,340

5,788,411
568,113
226,541
814,371
218,360
106,933

776
981

776
981

0
0

0
76,906

0
263,720

....................
....................

52,096
65,925

52,096
406,552

4,997

6,663

0

522,103

1,790,341

....................

447,552

2,759,996

0

0

0

0

0

....................

0

0

415

415

0

32,501

111,448

....................

27,860

171,809

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

....................
....................

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

....................
....................

0
0

0
0

3,927

3,927

0

307,675

1,055,046

....................

263,742

1,626,463

Subtotal ...............................

160,352

163,463

2,362,911

12,523,682

42,944,942

....................

10,979,778

68,811,312

Total .............................

210,800

267,032

2,362,911

16,355,077

68,167,112

16,501,911

50,732,589

154,119,600

Source: ORA.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

TABLE B–10—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS PER ESTABLISHMENTS BY SECTOR
NAIC

Number of
affected firms

Industry

Number of
affected
estabs.

Annualized
compliance
cost

Cost per
estab.

Crane Rental With Operators
238990 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

All Other Specialty Trade Cont .....................................................

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00200

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1,244

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

1,304

09AUR2

$2,512,898

$1,927

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

48105

TABLE B–10—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS PER ESTABLISHMENTS BY SECTOR—Continued
NAIC

Number of
affected firms

Industry

Number of
affected
estabs.

Annualized
compliance
cost

Cost per
estab.

Crane Rental Without Operators (Bare Rentals)
532412 .........

Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip ................................................

2,137

3,702

10,052,732

2,934

Own and Rent Cranes With Operators
236115
236118
236210
236220
237110
237120
237130
237310
237990
238110
238120
238130
238150
238170
238190
238210
238220
238290
238320
238910

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

New Single-Family Housing Const ...............................................
Residential Remodelers ................................................................
Industrial Building Construction ....................................................
Commercial and Institutional Building ...........................................
Water and Sewer Line and Related Struct ...................................
Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Struct ......................................
Power and Communication Line and Rel .....................................
Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ....................................
Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Const ....................................
Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct ......................................
Structural Steel and Precast Concrete .........................................
Framing Contractors .....................................................................
Glass and Glazing Contractors .....................................................
Siding Contractors .........................................................................
Other Foundation, Structure, and Building ...................................
Electrical Contractors ....................................................................
Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning ......................................
Other Building Equipment Contractors .........................................
Painting and Wall Covering Contract ............................................
Site Preparation Contractors .........................................................

178
25
9
23
52
20
34
80
76
261
200
26
42
5
49
15
2
113
21
400

178
25
12
31
69
26
34
107
101
261
266
26
42
5
65
15
3
151
21
400

72,322
20,467
270,766
238,109
523,496
264,693
180,887
1,279,134
1,903,569
1,096,002
1,690,217
7,372
47,819
4,584
181,212
19,828
32,343
969,116
35,552
1,232,974

406
819
22,564
7,681
7,587
10,180
5,320
11,955
18,847
4,199
6,354
284
1,139
917
2,788
1,322
10,781
6,418
1,693
3,082

Subtotal .........................................................................................

1,630

1,838

10,070,461

......................

3,097
217
1,699
985
276
4,141
1,028
128
213
0
88
273
267
334
1,395
137
54
197
53
25
78
98
49
0
41
0
0
0
0
389
524
1,232
526
132
902
575
6,291
6,450
1,142
2,363

3,097
217
1,699
985
325
4,141
1,371
171
285
0
118
273
267
334
1,395
137
54
197
53
25
78
98
65
0
41
0
0
0
0
389
2,101
7,393
2,458
162
1,085
635
6,415
8,715
2,762
3,155

2,331,245
163,597
1,279,042
741,233
244,832
3,117,387
894,775
91,877
115,452
0
88,484
205,532
200,940
251,607
1,050,585
103,255
40,858
148,013
39,668
19,191
31,468
73,889
49,027
0
31,211
0
0
0
0
292,601
6,730,763
18,687,603
2,446,452
161,239
1,079,902
414,265
2,366,828
0
0
0

753
753
753
753
753
753
653
538
406
0
753
753
753
753
753
753
753
753
753
753
406
753
753
0
753
0
0
0
0
753
3,204
2,528
995
995
995
652
369
0
0
0

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Own but Do Not Rent
236115
236116
236117
236118
236210
236220
237110
237120
237130
237210
237310
237990
238110
238120
238130
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190
238210
238220
238290
238310
238320
238330
238340
238350
238390
238910
221110
221120
221210
321213
321214
336611
339950
423310
423330
423390

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family housing construction .......................................
New Multifamily housing construction ...........................................
New housing operative builders ....................................................
Residential Remodelers ................................................................
Industrial building construction ......................................................
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Const .....................................
Water and Sewer Line Const ........................................................
Oil and gas pipeline construction ..................................................
Power and communication line const ...........................................
Land subdivision ...........................................................................
Highway, street and bridge const .................................................
Other heavy and civil eng .............................................................
Poured Concrete foundation and struct ........................................
Structural steel and precast concrete ...........................................
Framing Contractors .....................................................................
Masonry Contractors .....................................................................
Glass & Glazing Contractors ........................................................
Roofing Contractors ......................................................................
Siding Contractors .........................................................................
Other foundation, structure, building, ext ......................................
Electrical Contractors ....................................................................
Plumbing, Heating and Air-conditioning Cont ...............................
Other building equipment cont ......................................................
Drywall and insulation contractors ................................................
Painting and wall covering contractors .........................................
Flooring Contractors ......................................................................
Tile and Terrazzo contractors .......................................................
Finish Carpentry contractors .........................................................
Other building finishing contractors ..............................................
Site Preparation ............................................................................
Electric Power Generation ............................................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, Dist ..................................
Natural Gas Distribution ................................................................
Engineered Wood Member (exc Truss) Mfg ................................
Truss Manufacturing .....................................................................
Ship Building and Repairing .........................................................
Sign Manufacturing .......................................................................
Lumbr, Plywd, Millwork, Wd Pnl Mrchnt Whle ..............................
Roofing, Siding, and Insul Material Merch Whle ..........................
Other Construction Material Merchant Whle ................................

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00201

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48106

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE B–10—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS PER ESTABLISHMENTS BY SECTOR—Continued

NAIC
423730
444110
454312
482110
486210
517110

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

Number of
affected
estabs.

Number of
affected firms

Industry

Annualized
compliance
cost

Cost per
estab.

Warm Air Heating and Air-Cond. Equip. & Suppl .........................
Home Centers ...............................................................................
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Bottled Gas) Dealers ..........................
Railroads .......................................................................................
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ........................................
Wired Telecommunications Carriers .............................................

2,533
2,553
2,307
NA
127
2,517

5,193
6,749
5,567
NA
1,363
27,159

10,337,204
0
5,540,845
NA
1,356,596
1,944,733

1,991
0
995
NA
995
72

Subtotal .........................................................................................

45,436

96,725

62,672,198

......................

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry
236115
236116
236117
236118
236210
236220
237110
237120
237130
237210
237310
237990
238110
238120
238130
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190
238210
238220
238290
238310
238320
238330
238340
238350
238390
238910

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

New Single family housing construction .......................................
New Multifamily housing construction ...........................................
New housing operative builders ....................................................
Residential Remodelers ................................................................
Industrial building construction ......................................................
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction ..........................
Water and Sewer Line Const ........................................................
Oil and gas pipeline construction ..................................................
Power and communication line const ...........................................
Land subdivision ...........................................................................
Highway, street and bridge const .................................................
Other heavy and civil eng .............................................................
Poured Concrete foundation and struct ........................................
Structural steel and precast concrete ...........................................
Framing Contractors .....................................................................
Masonry Contractors .....................................................................
Glass & Glazing Contractors ........................................................
Roofing Contractors ......................................................................
Siding Contractors .........................................................................
Other foundation, structure, building, ext ......................................
Electrical Contractors ....................................................................
Plumbing, Heating and Air-conditioning Cont ...............................
Other building equipment cont ......................................................
Drywall and insulation contractors ................................................
Painting and wall covering contractors .........................................
Flooring Contractors ......................................................................
Tile and Terrazzo contractors .......................................................
Finish Carpentry contractors .........................................................
Other building finishing contractors ..............................................
Site Preparation ............................................................................

31,054
2,173
16,989
9,848
3,264
41,438
13,774
1,301
2,147
0
890
2,781
1,348
3,608
13,974
1,372
547
1,966
527
258
776
981
4,997
0
415
0
0
0
0
3,927

31,054
2,173
16,989
9,848
3,264
41,438
13,774
1,734
2,862
0
1,186
2,781
1,348
3,608
13,974
1,372
547
1,966
527
258
776
981
6,663
0
415
0
0
0
0
3,927

14,140,107
900,116
7,718,535
4,484,296
1,352,038
17,164,747
5,705,566
718,270
192,240
0
491,273
1,151,759
558,192
1,494,532
5,788,411
568,113
226,541
814,371
218,360
106,933
52,096
406,552
2,759,996
0
171,809
0
0
0
0
1,626,463

455
414
454
455
414
414
414
552
90
NA
552
414
414
414
414
414
414
414
414
414
67
414
552
NA
414
NA
NA
NA
NA
414

Subtotal .........................................................................................

160,352

163,463

68,811,312

......................

Total ..............................................................................................

210,800

267,032

154,119,600

......................

Source: ORA.

TABLE B–11—ESTIMATES OF CRANES, CRANE JOBS, AND AFFECTED CRANE OPERATORS FOR ALL ESTABLISHMENTS
NAIC

Number of
affected
firms

Industry

Number of
affected
estabs.

Total cranes

Crane jobs

Affected
operators

Crane Rental With Operators
238990 .........

All Other Specialty Trade Cont .....................................

1,244

1,304

6,288

....................

6,288

3,702

50,735

....................

12,684

178
25
12
31
69
26
34

98
28
366
322
708
358
245

490
138
1,832
1,611
3,542
1,791
1,224

98
28
366
322
708
358
245

Crane Rental Without Operators (Bare Rentals)

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

532412 .........

Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip ................................

2,137

Own and Rent Cranes With Operators
236115
236118
236210
236220
237110
237120
237130

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single-Family Housing Const ...............................
Residential Remodelers ................................................
Industrial Building Construction .....................................
Commercial and Institutional Building ...........................
Water and Sewer Line and Related Struct ...................
Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Struct ......................
Power and Communication Line and Rel .....................

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00202

Fmt 4701

178
25
9
23
52
20
34

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48107

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–11—ESTIMATES OF CRANES, CRANE JOBS, AND AFFECTED CRANE OPERATORS FOR ALL ESTABLISHMENTS—
Continued
NAIC
237310
237990
238110
238120
238130
238150
238170
238190
238210
238220
238290
238320
238910

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

Number of
affected
firms

Industry

Number of
affected
estabs.

Total cranes

Crane jobs

Affected
operators

Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ....................
Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Const ....................
Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct ......................
Structural Steel and Precast Concrete .........................
Framing Contractors ......................................................
Glass and Glazing Contractors .....................................
Siding Contractors .........................................................
Other Foundation, Structure, and Building ...................
Electrical Contractors ....................................................
Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning ......................
Other Building Equipment Contractors .........................
Painting and Wall Covering Contract ............................
Site Preparation Contractors .........................................

80
76
261
200
26
42
5
49
15
2
113
21
400

107
101
261
266
26
42
5
65
15
3
151
21
400

3,152
2,576
1,483
2,287
10
65
6
245
49
44
1,311
48
1,668

15,760
12,879
7,415
11,436
50
324
31
1,226
244
219
6,557
241
8,342

3,152
2,576
1,483
2,287
10
65
6
245
49
44
1,311
48
1,668

Subtotal .........................................................................

1,630

1,838

15,070

75,352

15,070

3,097
217
1,699
985
276
4,141
1,028
128
213
0
88
273
267
334
1,395
137
54
197
53
25
78
98
49
0
41
0
0
0
0
389
524
1,232
526
132

3,097
217
1,699
985
325
4,141
1,371
171
285
0
118
273
267
334
1,395
137
54
197
53
25
78
98
65
0
41
0
0
0
0
389
2,101
7,393
2,458
162

3,097
217
1,699
985
325
4,141
1,371
171
285
0
118
273
267
334
1,395
137
54
197
53
25
78
98
65
0
41
0
0
0
0
389
2,650
5,670
2,458
162

15,483
1,087
8,495
4,923
1,626
20,704
6,853
854
1,423
0
588
1,365
1,335
1,671
6,977
686
271
983
263
127
388
491
326
0
207
0
0
0
0
1,943
13,250
28,350
12,290
810

3,097
217
1,699
985
325
4,141
1,371
171
285
0
118
273
267
334
1,395
137
54
197
53
25
78
98
65
0
41
0
0
0
0
389
7,950
17,010
2,458
162

902
575
6,291
6,450

1,085
635
6,415
8,715

1,085
275
2,378
0

5,425
1,375
11,890
0

1,085
550
2,378
0

Own But Do Not Rent
236115
236116
236117
236118
236210
236220
237110
237120
237130
237210
237310
237990
238110
238120
238130
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190
238210
238220
238290
238310
238320
238330
238340
238350
238390
238910
221110
221120
221210
321213

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

321214
336611
339950
423310

.........
.........
.........
.........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

423330 .........
423390
423730
444110
454312
482110
486210
517110

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family housing construction .......................
New Multifamily housing construction ...........................
New housing operative builders ....................................
Residential Remodelers ................................................
Industrial building construction ......................................
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Const .....................
Water and Sewer Line Const ........................................
Oil and gas pipeline construction ..................................
Power and communication line const ...........................
Land subdivision ............................................................
Highway, street and bridge const .................................
Other heavy and civil eng .............................................
Poured Concrete foundation and struct ........................
Structural steel and precast concrete ...........................
Framing Contractors ......................................................
Masonry Contractors .....................................................
Glass & Glazing Contractors .........................................
Roofing Contractors ......................................................
Siding Contractors .........................................................
Other foundation, structure, building, ext ......................
Electrical Contractors ....................................................
Plumbing, Heating and Air-Conditioning Cont ..............
Other building equipment cont ......................................
Drywall and insulation contractors ................................
Painting and wall covering contractors .........................
Flooring Contractors ......................................................
Tile and Terrazzo contractors .......................................
Finish Carpentry contractors .........................................
Other building finishing contractors ...............................
Site Preparation .............................................................
Electric Power Generation ............................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution
Natural Gas Distribution ................................................
Engineered Wood Member (except Truss) Manufacturing.
Truss Manufacturing ......................................................
Ship Building and Repairing ..........................................
Sign Manufacturing .......................................................
Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers+B42.
Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Material Merchant
Wholesalers.
Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers .....
Warm Air Heating and Air-Cond. Equip. and Supplies
Home Centers ...............................................................
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Bottled Gas) Dealers ..........
Railroads .......................................................................
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas .........................
Wired Telecommunications Carriers .............................

1,142

2,762

0

0

0

2,363
2,533
2,553
2,307
NA
127
2,517

3,155
5,193
6,749
5,567
NA
1,363
27,159

0
10,386
0
5,567
NA
1,363
3,000

0
51,930
0
27,835
NA
6,815
15,000

0
10,386
0
5,567
NA
1,363
3,000

Subtotal .........................................................................

45,436

96,725

50,807

254,036

67,722

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00203

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48108

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–11—ESTIMATES OF CRANES, CRANE JOBS, AND AFFECTED CRANE OPERATORS FOR ALL ESTABLISHMENTS—
Continued
NAIC

Number of
affected
firms

Industry

Number of
affected
estabs.

Total cranes

Crane jobs

Affected
operators

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry
236115
236116
236117
236118
236210
236220
237110
237120
237130
237210
237310
237990
238110
238120
238130
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190
238210
238220
238290
238310
238320
238330
238340
238350
238390
238910

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

Source:

New Single family housing construction .......................
New Multifamily housing construction ...........................
New housing operative builders ....................................
Residential Remodelers ................................................
Industrial building construction ......................................
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction ..........
Water and Sewer Line Const ........................................
Oil and gas pipeline construction ..................................
Power and communication line const ...........................
Land subdivision ............................................................
Highway, street and bridge const .................................
Other heavy and civil eng .............................................
Poured Concrete foundation and struct ........................
Structural steel and precast concrete ...........................
Framing Contractors ......................................................
Masonry Contractors .....................................................
Glass & Glazing Contractors .........................................
Roofing Contractors ......................................................
Siding Contractors .........................................................
Other foundation, structure, building, ext ......................
Electrical Contractors ....................................................
Plumbing, Heating and Air-Conditioning Cont ..............
Other building equipment cont ......................................
Drywall and insulation contractors ................................
Painting and wall covering contractors .........................
Flooring Contractors ......................................................
Tile and Terrazzo contractors .......................................
Finish Carpentry contractors .........................................
Other building finishing contractors ...............................
Site Preparation .............................................................

31,054
2,173
16,989
9,848
3,264
41,438
13,774
1,301
2,147
0
890
2,781
1,348
3,608
13,974
1,372
547
1,966
527
258
776
981
4,997
0
415
0
0
0
0
3,927

31,054
2,173
16,989
9,848
3,264
41,438
13,774
1,734
2,862
0
1,186
2,781
1,348
3,608
13,974
1,372
547
1,966
527
258
776
981
6,663
0
415
0
0
0
0
3,927

Subtotal .........................................................................

160,352

163,463

Total .......................................................................

210,800

267,032

7,764
543
4,247
2,462
816
10,360
3,444
434
716
0
297
695
337
902
3,494
343
137
492
132
65
194
245
1,666
0
104
0
0
0
0
982

....................

817,315

40,866

122,901

1,146,703

142,630

ORA.
U.S. Census Bureau data.

7. Economic Feasibility and Impacts

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

155,270
10,865
84,945
49,240
16,320
207,190
68,870
8,670
14,310
0
5,930
13,903
6,738
18,040
69,870
6,858
2,735
9,830
2,636
1,291
3,878
4,907
33,315
0
2,074
0
0
0
0
19,633

This section presents OSHA’s analysis
of the potential economic impacts of the
final standard and an assessment of its
economic feasibility. A separate analysis
of the potential economic impacts on
small entities (as defined by the Small
Business Administration) and on very
small entities (employers with fewer
than 20 employees) is presented in the
following section as part of the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
conducted in accordance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
A standard is economically feasible if
it does not threaten massive dislocation
to an industry or imperil its existence.
(See United Steelworkers v. Marshall,
647 F.2d 1189 (DC Cit. 1980).) The court
also found that a standard that is
financially burdensome or threatens the
survival of some companies in an
industry is not sufficient to render it
infeasible. Further, the cost of
compliance with an OSHA standard

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

must be analyzed ‘‘in relation to the
financial health and profitability of the
industry and the likely effect of such
costs on unit consumer prices.’’ Id. The
court also found that ‘‘the practical
question is whether the standard
threatens the competitive stability of an
industry, or whether any intra-industry
or inter-industry discrimination in the
standard might wreck such stability or
lead to undue concentration.’’ Id.
To assess the potential economic
impacts of the final rule, OSHA
compared the anticipated costs of
achieving compliance against revenues
and profits of establishments affected by
the rule. This screening analysis is
presented in Table B–12. This table is
considered a screening analysis because
it measures costs as a percent of pre-tax
profits and revenues, but does not
predict impacts on pre-tax profits and
sales. This screening analysis is used to
determine whether the compliance costs
potentially associated with the standard

PO 00000

Frm 00204

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

would lead to significant impacts on
establishments in the affected
industries. The actual impact of the
standard on the profits and revenues of
establishments in a given industry will
depend on the price elasticity of
demand for the services sold by
establishments in that industry.
Price elasticity refers to the
relationship between the price charged
for a service and the demand for that
service; the more elastic the
relationship, the less able an
establishment is to pass the costs of
compliance through to its customers in
the form of a price increase, and the
more it will have to absorb the costs of
compliance in the form of reduced
profits. In general, ‘‘when an industry is
subject to a higher cost, it does not
simply swallow it, it raises its price and
reduces its output, and in this way
shifts a part of the cost to its consumers
and a part to its suppliers.’’ American

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

48109

Dental Association v. Secretary of
Labor, 984 F.2d 823, 829 (7th Cir. 1993).

TABLE B–12—ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR AFFECTED ESTABLISHMENTS ACROSS INDUSTRY SECTORS
Affected
NAIC

Avg.
revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Industry
Firms

Estabs.

Avg. profits
per estab.
($1,000)

Cost per
estab.

Cost as a
percent of
revenues

Cost as a
percent of
profits

Crane Rental With Operators
238990 .........

All Other Specialty
Trade Cont.

1,244

1,304

1,918

79

1,927

0.10

2.45

145

2,934

0.13

2.02

Crane Rental Without Operators (Bare Rentals)
532412 .........

Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip.

2,137

3,702

2,258

Own and Rent Cranes With Operators
236115 .........
236118 .........
236210 .........
236220 .........
237110 .........
237120 .........
237130 .........
237310 .........
237990 .........
238110 .........
238120 .........
238130 .........
238150 .........
238170 .........
238190 .........
238210 .........
238220 .........
238290 .........
238320 .........
238910 .........

New Single-Family
Housing Const.
Residential Remodelers
Industrial Building Construction.
Commercial and Institutional Building.
Water and Sewer Line
and Related Struct.
Oil and Gas Pipeline
and Related Struct.
Power and Communication Line and Rel.
Highway, Street, and
Bridge Construction.
Other Heavy and Civil
Engineering Const.
Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct.
Structural Steel and
Precast Concrete.
Framing Contractors ....
Glass and Glazing
Contractors.
Siding Contractors .......
Other Foundation,
Structure, and Building.
Electrical Contractors ..
Plumbing, Heating, and
Air-Conditioning.
Other Building Equipment Contractors.
Painting and Wall Covering Contract.
Site Preparation Contractors.
Subtotal ........................

178

178

220

10

406

0.18

3.95

25
9

25
12

443
12,213

21
571

819
22,564

0.18
0.18

3.95
3.95

23

31

4,157

194

7,681

0.18

3.95

52

69

4,107

214

7,587

0.18

3.54

20

26

5,510

288

10,180

0.18

3.54

34

34

2,880

150

5,320

0.18

3.54

80

107

11,783

615

11,955

0.10

1.94

76

101

10,201

533

18,847

0.18

3.54

261

261

2,273

101

4,199

0.18

4.18

200

266

3,439

152

6,354

0.18

4.18

26
42

26
42

153
616

7
27

284
1,139

0.18
0.18

4.18
4.18

5
49

5
65

496
1,509

22
67

917
2,788

0.18
0.18

4.18
4.18

15
2

15
3

1,303
5,835

56
225

1,322
10,781

0.10
0.18

2.35
4.79

113

151

3,474

154

6,418

0.18

4.18

21

21

916

41

1,693

0.18

4.18

400

400

1,668

76

3,082

0.18

4.05

1,630

1,838

....................

....................

....................

......................

....................

Own but Do Not Rent
236115 .........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

236116 .........
236117 .........
236118 .........
236210 .........
236220 .........
237110 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family
housing construction.
New Multifamily housing construction.
New housing operative
builders.
Residential Remodelers
Industrial building construction.
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Const.
Water and Sewer Line
Const.

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

3,097

3,097

1,520

71

753

0.05

1.06

217

217

5,477

256

753

0.01

0.29

1,699

1,699

6,021

281

753

0.01

0.27

985
276

985
325

646
5,931

30
277

753
753

0.12
0.01

2.49
0.27

4,141

4,141

7,177

335

753

0.01

0.22

1,028

1,371

3,239

169

653

0.02

0.39

PO 00000

Frm 00205

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48110

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–12—ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR AFFECTED ESTABLISHMENTS ACROSS INDUSTRY SECTORS—
Continued
Affected
NAIC

Firms
237120 .........
237130 .........
237210 .........
237310 .........
237990 .........
238110 .........
238120 .........
238130 .........
238140 .........
238150 .........
238160 .........
238170 .........
238190 .........
238210 .........
238220 .........
238290 .........
238310 .........
238320 .........
238330 .........
238340 .........
238350 .........
238390 .........
238910 .........
221110 .........
221120 .........
221210 .........
321213 .........
321214 .........
336611 .........
339950 .........
423310 .........
423330 .........
423390 .........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

423730 .........
444110 .........
454312 .........
482110 .........
486210 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

Avg.
revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Industry

Oil and gas pipeline
construction.
Power and communication line const.
Land subdivision ..........
Highway, street and
bridge const.
Other heavy and civil
eng.
Poured Concrete foundation and struct.
Structural steel and
precast concrete.
Framing Contractors ....
Masonry Contractors ...
Glass & Glazing Contractors.
Roofing Contractors .....
Siding Contractors .......
Other foundation, structure, building, ext.
Electrical Contractors ..
Plumbing, Heating and
Air-conditioning Cont.
Other building equipment cont.
Drywall and insulation
contractors.
Painting and wall covering contractors.
Flooring Contractors ....
Tile and Terrazzo contractors.
Finish Carpentry contractors.
Other building finishing
contractors.
Site Preparation ...........
Electric Power Generation.
Electric Power Transmission, Control, Dist.
Natural Gas Distribution.
Engineered Wood
Member (exc Truss)
Mfg.
Truss Manufacturing ....
Ship Building and Repairing.
Sign Manufacturing ......
Lumbr, Plywd, Millwork,
Wd Pnl Mrchnt Whle.
Roofing, Siding, and
Insul Material Merch
Whle.
Other Construction Material Merchant Whle.
Warm Air Heating and
Air-Cond. Equip. &
Suppl.
Home Centers .............
Liquefied Petroleum
Gas (Bottled Gas)
Dealers.
Railroads ......................
Pipeline Transportation
of Natural Gas.

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Estabs.

Avg. profits
per estab.
($1,000)

Cost as a
percent of
revenues

Cost per
estab.

Cost as a
percent of
profits

128

171

9,189

480

538

0.01

0.11

213

285

5,581

291

406

0.01

0.14

0
88

0
118

2,878
8,279

318
432

0
753

0.00
0.01

0.00
0.17

273

273

3,965

207

753

0.02

0.36

267

267

1,682

74

753

0.04

1.01

334

334

2,712

120

753

0.03

0.63

1,395
137
54

1,395
137
54

936
876
1,470

41
39
65

753
753
753

0.08
0.09
0.05

1.82
1.94
1.16

197
53
25

197
53
25

1,390
580
1,013

61
26
45

753
753
753

0.05
0.13
0.07

1.22
2.94
1.68

78
98

78
98

1,321
1,473

57
57

406
753

0.03
0.05

0.71
1.32

49

65

2,959

131

753

0.03

0.58

0

0

1,751

77

0

0.00

0.00

41

41

530

23

753

0.14

3.21

0
0

0
0

811
698

36
31

0
0

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0

0

678

30

0

0.00

0.00

0

0

1,091

48

0

0.00

0.00

389
524

389
2,101

1,416
43,042

65
1,911

753
3,204

0.05
0.01

1.16
0.17

1,232

7,393

37,443

1,662

2,528

0.01

0.15

526

2,458

30,459

907

995

0.00

0.11

132

162

19,027

737

995

0.01

0.14

902
575

1,085
635

5,972
23,071

231
1,406

995
652

0.02
0.00

0.43
0.05

6,291
6,450

6,415
8,715

1,761
14,905

103
430

369
0

0.02
0.00

0.36
0.00

1,142

2,762

8,985

259

0

0.00

0.00

2,363

3,155

4,859

140

0

0.00

0.00

2,533

5,193

5,413

167

1,991

0.04

1.19

2,553
2,307

6,749
5,567

21,816
1,698

1,679
72

0
995

0.00
0.06

0.00
1.39

NA
127

NA
1,363

NA
15,037

NA
1,990

NA
995

NA
0.01

NA
0.05

PO 00000

Frm 00206

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

48111

TABLE B–12—ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR AFFECTED ESTABLISHMENTS ACROSS INDUSTRY SECTORS—
Continued
Affected
NAIC

Avg.
revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Industry
Firms

517110 .........

Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Subtotal ........................

Estabs.

Avg. profits
per estab.
($1,000)

Cost per
estab.

2,517

27,159

7,294

518

72

45,436

96,725

....................

....................

....................

Cost as a
percent of
revenues
0.00
......................

Cost as a
percent of
profits
0.01
....................

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry
236115 .........
236116 .........
236117 .........
236118 .........
236210 .........
236220 .........
237110 .........
237120 .........
237130 .........
237210 .........
237310 .........
237990 .........
238110 .........
238120 .........
238130 .........
238140 .........
238150 .........
238160 .........
238170 .........
238190 .........
238210 .........
238220 .........
238290 .........
238310 .........
238320 .........
238330 .........
238340 .........
238350 .........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

238390 .........
238910 .........

Source:

New Single family
housing construction.
New Multifamily housing construction.
New housing operative
builders.
Residential Remodelers
Industrial building construction.
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction.
Water and Sewer Line
Const.
Oil and gas pipeline
construction.
Power and communication line const.
Land subdivision ..........
Highway, street and
bridge const.
Other heavy and civil
eng.
Poured Concrete foundation and struct.
Structural steel and
precast concrete.
Framing Contractors ....
Masonry Contractors ...
Glass & Glazing Contractors.
Roofing Contractors .....
Siding Contractors .......
Other foundation, structure, building, ext.
Electrical Contractors ..
Plumbing, Heating and
Air-conditioning Cont.
Other building equipment cont.
Drywall and insulation
contractors.
Painting and wall covering contractors.
Flooring Contractors ....
Tile and Terrazzo contractors.
Finish Carpentry contractors.
Other building finishing
contractors.
Site Preparation ...........

31,054

31,054

3,040

142

455

0.01

0.32

2,173

2,173

10,954

512

414

0.00

0.08

16,989

16,989

12,041

563

454

0.00

0.08

9,848
3,264

9,848
3,264

6,456
5,931

302
277

455
414

0.01
0.01

0.15
0.15

41,438

41,438

7,177

335

414

0.01

0.12

13,774

13,774

3,239

169

414

0.01

0.24

1,301

1,734

9,189

480

552

0.01

0.12

2,147

2,862

11,163

583

90

0.00

0.02

0
890

0
1,186

0
82,791

0
4,323

NA
552

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.01

2,781

2,781

7,931

414

414

0.01

0.10

1,348

1,348

33,636

1,487

414

0.00

0.03

3,608

3,608

2,712

120

414

0.02

0.35

13,974
1,372
547

13,974
1,372
547

1,249
17,527
14,698

55
775
650

414
414
414

0.03
0.00
0.00

0.75
0.05
0.06

1,966
527
258

1,966
527
258

13,903
11,596
20,266

615
513
896

414
414
414

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.07
0.08
0.05

776
981

776
981

132,128
147,307

5,714
5,685

67
414

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.01

4,997

6,663

2,959

131

552

0.02

0.42

0

0

0

0

NA

0.00

0.00

415

415

52,995

2,343

414

0.00

0.02

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

NA
NA

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0

0

0

0

NA

0.00

0.00

0

0

0

0

NA

0.00

0.00

3,927

3,927

14,164

647

414

0.003

0.06

Subtotal ........................

160,352

163,463

....................

....................

....................

0.05

1.17

Total ......................

210,800

267,032

....................

....................

....................

U.S. Census Bureau data.
Country Business Patters, 2006; Statistics of U.S. Businesses 2006.
Internal Revenue Service, Source Book, profit rates over 2000–2006.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00207

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

......................

....................

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48112

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

In the extreme, if demand is perfectly
inelastic (i.e., the price elasticity is 0),
then the expected impact of compliance
costs equal to 1 percent of revenues
would be a 1 percent increase in the
price of the product or service, with no
decline in demand or profit. Such a
situation would be most likely when
there are few, if any, substitutes for the
product or service offered by the
affected sector or if the products or
services of the affected sector account
only for a small portion of the income
of its consumers. On the other hand, if
demand is perfectly elastic (i.e., the
price elasticity is infinitely large), then
no increase in price is possible, and
before-tax profits would be reduced by
an amount equal to the costs of
compliance (minus any cost savings
resulting from compliance, such as
improved worker health and reduced
insurance costs). Under this scenario, if
the costs of compliance represent a large
percentage of the sector’s profits, some
establishments might be forced to close.
This scenario is highly unlikely to
occur, however, because it can only
arise when there are other goods and
services that are, in the eye of the
consumer, perfect substitutes for the
goods and services the affected
establishments produce or provide.
A common intermediate case would
be a price elasticity of one. In this
situation, if the costs of compliance
amount to 1 percent of revenues, then
production would decline by 1 percent
and prices would rise by 1 percent. The
sector would be expected to remain in
business and maintain a comparable
profit rate as before implementation of
the standard, but would produce 1
percent less of its services. Consumers
would effectively absorb the costs
through a combination of increased
prices and reduced consumption; this,
as the court described in ADA v.
Secretary of Labor, is the more typical
case.
Table B–12 presents estimates for the
number of affected establishments,
average establishment revenues and
profits, and average establishment costs
for each affected industry sector.
Economic impacts in the table (the two
right-most columns) are represented by
two ratios: Of average establishment
costs to revenues, and of costs to profits.
The average (unweighted) cost of the
final standard per establishment is
about $560 annually. As is evident from
the data and estimates in Table B–12,
average establishment costs of
compliance for the final standard are
not large in relation to the
corresponding average establishment
revenues and profits in each of the
industry sectors. The estimated per

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

establishment cost of compliance
represents less than 0.2 percent (or
0.002) of average establishment
revenues for all affected sectors. In most
sectors it is lower. The average cost as
a percentage of revenues across all
sectors is 0.05 percent (0.0005).
The impact of the final standard
measured by the ratio of costs to profits
varies across the affected sectors.
Among the sectors in the Crane Lessees
sector, which includes about 163,000 of
the 267,000 affected establishments; in
this sector, employers, on average, are
expected to have costs that represent
about 1 percent of profits. Within the
sector of employers Own but Do Not
Rent, affected establishments in 14 of
the 46 sectors have average costs as a
percent of profits of 1 percent or higher
(from 1 to 3 percent); this impact of
costs as a percentage of profits is
relatively low.
In the two sectors that are most
intensively involved in crane use, Crane
Rental with Operators (employers
primarily in the crane rental business)
and Crane Rental without Operators
(bare rentals), estimated costs are about
2 percent of profits. In the Own and
Rent Cranes with Operators sectors,
costs as a percentage of profits are
estimated at about 4 percent. Because
these employers both own and use
cranes, as well as rent them, the cost
model estimates significantly higher
average establishment costs for them—
even in relation to the sectors involved
primarily in crane rentals. In addition,
as noted above for the Own but Do Not
Rent sector, most employers in these
sectors are quite small, with only a few
employees, and a relatively small
fraction of employers in the sectors that
own cranes. Consequently, average
establishment revenues and profits may
be lower for the average establishment
than for establishments that own cranes.
If so, the cost as a percentage of profits
overestimates that impact for affected
establishments.
The Agency concludes that the final
standard is economically feasible for the
affected industries. As described above,
a standard is economically feasible if
there is a reasonable likelihood that the
estimated costs of compliance ‘‘will not
threaten the existence or competitive
structure of an industry, even if it does
portend disaster for some marginal
firms.’’ United Steelworkers of America
v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (DC
Cir. 1980). The potential impacts on
employer costs associated with
achieving compliance with the final
standard fall well within the bounds of
economic feasibility in each industry
sector. Costs of 0.2 percent of revenues
and 4 percent of profits will not threaten

PO 00000

Frm 00208

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the existence of the construction
industry, affected general industry
sectors, or the use of cranes in affected
industry sectors. OSHA does not expect
compliance with the requirements of the
final standard to threaten the viability of
employers or the competitive structure
of any of the affected industry sectors.
When viewed in the larger context of
the construction sector, an increase in
costs of $148.2 million a year is
effectively negligible, and will have no
noticeable effect on the demand for
construction services. Even when
viewed as an increase in the costs of
using cranes, an increase in the cost of
rentals services of 0.2 percent will not
cause the construction industry to
forego the use of cranes and, thus, put
crane leasing firms out of business.
For several reasons, the Agency
believes that the impact of compliance
costs will be less than estimates in Table
B–12. For the affected construction
sectors, the economic impact of the final
standard is most likely to consist of a
very small increase in prices for
construction projects involving work
with cranes (0.2 percent or less,
depending on the sector). Crane rental
companies, all of which must incur the
costs of compliance unless they are
already in compliance, should be able to
pass through costs to lessees. The
additional costs of crane safety
measures are extremely small in relation
to the value of construction, and there
are no economic substitutes, or
alternatives, to the use of cranes in
construction. It is unlikely that a price
increase of this magnitude would
significantly alter the services
demanded by the public or any other
affected customers or intermediaries. If
the compliance costs of the final
standard are substantially recouped
with an increase in rental prices, there
would be little effect on profits. Impacts
on all affected general industry sectors
are slight, and far below any test of
economic feasibility.
Given the small incremental increases
in prices potentially resulting from
compliance with the final standard, and
the lack of readily available substitutes
for the products and services provided
by the covered construction and general
industry sectors, demand is expected to
be sufficiently inelastic in each affected
industry to enable entities to
substantially offset compliance costs
through minor price increases without
experiencing any significant reduction
in revenues or profits.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as
amended in 1996, requires the
preparation of a Final Regulatory

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48113

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for specified
proposed rules (5 U.S.C. 601–612).
Under the provisions of the law, each
such analysis must contain:
(1) A description of the impact of the
rule on small entities;
(2) A succinct statement of the need
for, and objectives of, the rule;
(3) A summary of the significant
issues raised by the public comments in
response to the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, a summary of the
assessment of the agency of such issues,
and a statement of any changes made in
the proposed rule as a result of such
comments;
(4) A description of and an estimate
of the number of small entities to which

the rule will apply or an explanation of
why no such estimate is available; and
(5) A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the rule,
including an estimate of the classes of
small entities which will be subject to
the requirement and the type of
professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
1. Impact of the Final Rule on Small
Entities
OSHA has analyzed the potential
impact of the final standard on small
entities. The total annual cost of
compliance with the final for small
entities is estimated to be $101 million,

as shown by industry in Table B–13.
The costs per establishment in the table
are identical in several sectors because
the cost model assumed that, on
average, the number of cranes,
operators, and crane jobs were the same
for each affected establishment. In the
crane-rental sectors, the Agency had
rental income data for each sector and
estimated the number of cranes owned
per establishment for each sector.
Different sizes of firms with different
numbers of cranes in the rental sectors
resulted in per establishment (average)
costs varying by industry NAICS.

TABLE B–13—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES BY MAJOR CATEGORY
Industry

Firms

Estabs.

Annualized
compliance
costs

Cost per
estab.

Crane Rental With Operators
238990 .........

All Other Specialty Trade Cont .....................................................

1,231

1,286

$1,991,485

$1,618

3,018

309,609

103

Crane Rental Without Operators (Bare Rentals)
532412 .........

Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip ................................................

1,782

Own and Rent Cranes With Operators
236115
236118
236210
236220
237110
237120
237130
237310
237990
238110
238120
238130
238150
238170
238190
238210
238220
238290
238320
238910

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

New Single-Family Housing Const ...............................................
Residential Remodelers ................................................................
Industrial Building Construction ....................................................
Commercial and Institutional Building ...........................................
Water and Sewer Line and Related Struct ...................................
Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Struct ......................................
Power and Communication Line and Rel .....................................
Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ....................................
Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Const ....................................
Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct ......................................
Structural Steel and Precast Concrete .........................................
Framing Contractors .....................................................................
Glass and Glazing Contractors .....................................................
Siding Contractors .........................................................................
Other Foundation, Structure, and Building ...................................
Electrical Contractors ....................................................................
Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning ......................................
Other Building Equipment Contractors .........................................
Painting and Wall Covering Contract ............................................
Site Preparation Contractors .........................................................

178
25
9
23
52
20
34
80
76
261
200
26
42
5
49
15
2
113
21
400

178
25
12
31
69
26
34
107
101
261
266
26
42
5
65
15
3
151
21
400

72,322
20,467
270,766
238,109
523,496
264,693
180,887
1,279,134
1,903,569
1,096,002
1,690,217
7,372
47,819
4,584
181,212
19,828
32,343
969,116
35,552
1,232,974

406
819
22,564
7,681
7,587
10,180
5,320
11,955
18,847
4,199
6,354
284
1,139
917
2,788
1,322
10,781
6,418
1,693
3,082

Subtotal .........................................................................................

1,630

1,838

10,070,461

......................

2,905
213
1,263
825
223
3,614
917
98
219
0
69
511
108
394
1,060

2,905
213
1,263
825
262
3,614
1,223
131
291
0
93
511
108
394
1,060

2,151,333
157,700
935,573
610,894
194,098
2,676,568
905,470
96,790
114,664
0
68,575
378,643
79,805
291,554
785,316

741
741
741
741
741
741
741
741
393
0
741
741
741
741
741

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Own but Do Not Rent
236115
236116
236117
236118
236210
236220
237110
237120
237130
237210
237310
237990
238110
238120
238130

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family housing construction .......................................
New Multifamily housing construction ...........................................
New housing operative builders ....................................................
Residential Remodelers ................................................................
Industrial building construction ......................................................
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Const .....................................
Water and Sewer Line Const ........................................................
Oil and gas pipeline construction ..................................................
Power and communication line const ...........................................
Land subdivision ...........................................................................
Highway, street and bridge const .................................................
Other heavy and civil eng .............................................................
Poured Concrete foundation and struct ........................................
Structural steel and precast concrete ...........................................
Framing Contractors .....................................................................

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00209

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48114

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–13—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES BY MAJOR CATEGORY—Continued
Industry
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190
238210
238220
238290
238310
238320
238330
238340
238350
238390
238910
221110
221120
221210
321213
321214
336611
339950
423310

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

423330
423390
423730
444110
454312
482110
486210
517110

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

Firms

Estabs.

Annualized
compliance
costs

Cost per
estab.

Masonry Contractors .....................................................................
Glass & Glazing Contractors ........................................................
Roofing Contractors ......................................................................
Siding Contractors .........................................................................
Other foundation, structure, building, ext ......................................
Electrical Contractors ....................................................................
Plumbing, Heating and Air-conditioning Cont ...............................
Other building equipment cont ......................................................
Drywall and insulation contractors ................................................
Painting and wall covering contractors .........................................
Flooring Contractors ......................................................................
Tile and Terrazzo contractors .......................................................
Finish Carpentry contractors .........................................................
Other building finishing contractors ..............................................
Site Preparation ............................................................................
Electric Power Generation ............................................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution ...............
Natural Gas Distribution ................................................................
Engineered Wood Member (except Truss) Manufacturing ...........
Truss Manufacturing .....................................................................
Ship Building and Repairing .........................................................
Sign Manufacturing .......................................................................
Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers.
Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Material Merchant Wholesalers ..
Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers .....................
Warm Air Heating and Air-Cond. Equip. and Supplies ................
Home Centers ...............................................................................
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Bottled Gas) Dealers ..........................
Railroads .......................................................................................
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ........................................
Wired Telecommunications Carriers .............................................

128
48
230
33
7
60
86
33
0
37
0
0
0
0
262
293
337
442
121
871
575
6,261
5,971

128
48
230
33
7
60
86
44
0
37
0
0
0
0
262
301
358
591
127
914
635
6,339
6,326

94,975
35,872
170,275
24,105
5,273
23,612
63,721
32,355
0
27,267
0
0
0
0
194,105
73,588
112,369
255,619
59,770
744,121
410,878
245,747
0

741
741
741
741
741
393
741
741
0
741
0
0
0
0
741
244
314
433
471
814
647
39
0

1,025
2,181
2,364
2,409
2,044
NA
65
2,517

1,173
2,296
2,958
2,575
2,317
NA
66
27,159

0
0
4,851,281
0
2,460,790
NA
14,333
1,907,788

0
0
1,640
0
1,062
NA
217
70

Subtotal .........................................................................................

32,430

59,267

21,254,828

......................

455
414
455
455
414
414
414
414
67
NA
414
414
414
414
414
414
414
414
414
414
67
414
414
NA
414
NA
NA
NA
NA
414

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry
236115
236116
236117
236118
236210
236220
237110
237120
237130
237210
237310
237990
238110
238120
238130
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190
238210
238220
238290
238310
238320
238330
238340
238350
238390
238910

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family housing construction .......................................
New Multifamily housing construction ...........................................
New housing operative builders ....................................................
Residential Remodelers ................................................................
Industrial building construction ......................................................
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction ..........................
Water and Sewer Line Const ........................................................
Oil and gas pipeline construction ..................................................
Power and communication line const ...........................................
Land subdivision ...........................................................................
Highway, street and bridge const .................................................
Other heavy and civil eng .............................................................
Poured Concrete foundation and struct ........................................
Structural steel and precast concrete ...........................................
Framing Contractors .....................................................................
Masonry Contractors .....................................................................
Glass & Glazing Contractors ........................................................
Roofing Contractors ......................................................................
Siding Contractors .........................................................................
Other foundation, structure, building, ext ......................................
Electrical Contractors ....................................................................
Plumbing, Heating and Air-conditioning Cont ...............................
Other building equipment cont ......................................................
Drywall and insulation contractors ................................................
Painting and wall covering contractors .........................................
Flooring Contractors ......................................................................
Tile and Terrazzo contractors .......................................................
Finish Carpentry contractors .........................................................
Other building finishing contractors ..............................................
Site Preparation ............................................................................

31,038
2,086
16,562
9,846
3,000
40,530
13,715
1,667
2,811
0
1,114
2,760
13,273
3,487
13,779
1,368
542
1,945
526
256
765
970
644
0
414
0
0
0
0
3,889

31,038
2,086
16,562
9,846
3,000
40,530
13,715
1,667
2,811
0
1,114
2,760
13,273
3,487
13,779
1,368
542
1,945
526
256
765
970
644
0
414
0
0
0
0
3,889

14,133,479
864,078
7,541,453
4,483,343
1,242,682
16,788,629
5,681,126
690,517
188,781
0
461,532
1,143,060
5,498,038
1,444,410
5,707,637
566,539
224,387
805,589
217,821
106,104
51,356
401,941
266,845
0
171,627
0
0
0
0
1,610,805

Subtotal .........................................................................................

166,985

166,985

70,291,778

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00210

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

48115

TABLE B–13—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES BY MAJOR CATEGORY—Continued
Industry

Firms

Total ..............................................................................................
Source:

Annualized
compliance
costs

Estabs.

204,058

232,394

Cost per
estab.

103,918,161

ORA.
U.S. Census Bureau data.
Country Business Patters, 2006; Statistics of U.S. Businesses 2006.
Statistics of U.S. Business (SUSB).

To assess the potential economic
impact of the proposal on small entities,
OSHA calculated the ratios of
compliance costs to profits and to
revenues. These impacts are presented
for each affected industry in Table B–14.
OSHA expects that, among small
entities potentially affected by the
proposal, the average increase in prices
necessary to completely offset the
compliance costs is 0.06 percent. The
average price increase necessary to
completely offset compliance costs
would not exceed 0.18 percent among
small entities in any industry. Only to
the extent that such price increases are
not possible would there be any effect
on the average profits of small entities.
Even in the unlikely event that no costs

OSHA calculated the ratios of
compliance costs to profits and to
revenues. These ratios are presented for
each affected industry in Table B–15.
OSHA expects that among very small
entities potentially affected by the final
standard, the average increase in prices
necessary to completely offset the
compliance costs would be 0.08 percent
(less than 1 percent). Only to the extent
that such price increases are not
possible, would there be any effect on
the average profits of very small entities.
Even in the unlikely event that no costs
could be passed through, the
compliance costs could be completely
absorbed through an average reduction
in profits of 1.68 percent among affected
very small entities.

could be passed through, the
compliance costs could be completely
absorbed through an average reduction
in profits of 1.2 percent. In most affected
industries, the compliance costs,
without any pass-through, could be
completely absorbed through an average
reduction in profits of less than 1
percent; the reduction would be no
more than 5.0 percent in any of the
affected industries.
To further ensure that potential
impacts on small entities were fully
analyzed and considered, OSHA also
separately examined the potential
impacts of the final standard on very
small entities, defined as employers
with fewer than 20 employees. To assess
the potential economic impact of the
final standard on very small entities,

TABLE B–14—ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES BY MAJOR CATEGORIES
0

Industry

Firms

Avg. rev’s
per estab.
($1,000)

Estabs.

Avg. profits
per estab.
($1,000)

Cost per
estab.

Cost as a
percent of
revenues

Cost as a
percent of
profits

Crane Rental with Operators
238990 .........

All Other Specialty
Trade Cont.

1,231

1,286

1,550

71

1,618

0.10

2.29

31

103

0.13

2.02

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals)
532412 .........

Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip.

1,782

3,018

482

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators
236115 .........
236118 .........
236210 .........
236220 .........
237110 .........
237120 .........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

237130 .........
237310 .........
237990 .........
238110 .........
238120 .........
238130 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single-Family
Housing Const.
Residential Remodelers
Industrial Building Construction.
Commercial and Institutional Building.
Water and Sewer Line
and Related Struct.
Oil and Gas Pipeline
and Related Struct.
Power and Communication Line and Rel.
Highway, Street, and
Bridge Construction.
Other Heavy and Civil
Engineering Const.
Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct.
Structural Steel and Precast Concrete.
Framing Contractors ......

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

178

178

220

10

406

0.18

3.95

25
9

25
12

443
12,213

21
571

819
22,564

0.18
0.18

3.95
3.95

23

31

4,157

194

7,681

0.18

3.95

52

69

4,107

214

7,587

0.18

3.54

20

26

5,510

288

10,180

0.18

3.54

34

34

2,880

150

5,320

0.18

3.54

80

107

11,783

615

11,955

0.10

1.94

76

101

10,201

533

18,847

0.18

3.54

261

261

2,273

101

4,199

0.18

4.18

200

266

3,439

152

6,354

0.18

4.18

26

26

153

7

284

0.18

4.18

Frm 00211

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48116

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–14—ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES BY MAJOR CATEGORIES—Continued
0

Industry

238150 .........

Glass and Glazing Contractors.
Siding Contractors .........
Other Foundation, Structure, and Building.
Electrical Contractors ....
Plumbing, Heating, and
Air-Conditioning.
Other Building Equipment Contractors.
Painting and Wall Covering Contract.
Site Preparation Contractors.

238170 .........
238190 .........
238210 .........
238220 .........
238290 .........
238320 .........
238910 .........

Firms

Subtotal .........................

Avg. rev’s
per estab.
($1,000)

Estabs.

Avg. profits
per estab.
($1,000)

Cost as a
percent of
revenues

Cost per
estab.

Cost as a
percent of
profits

42

42

616

27

1,139

0.18

4.18

5
49

5
65

496
1,509

22
67

917
2,788

0.18
0.18

4.18
4.18

15
2

15
3

1,303
5,835

56
225

1,322
10,781

0.10
0.18

2.35
4.79

113

151

3,474

154

6,418

0.18

4.18

21

21

916

41

1,693

0.18

4.18

400

400

1,668

76

3,082

0.18

4.05

1,630

1,838

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

Own but Do Not Rent
236115 .........
236116 .........
236117 .........
236118 .........
236210 .........
236220 .........
237110 .........
237120 .........
237130 .........
237210 .........
237310 .........
237990 .........
238110 .........
238120 .........
238130 .........
238140 .........
238150 .........
238160 .........
238170 .........
238190 .........
238210 .........
238220 .........
238290 .........
238310 .........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

238320 .........
238330 .........
238340 .........
238350 .........
238390 .........
238910 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family housing construction.
New Multifamily housing
construction.
New housing operative
builders.
Residential Remodelers
Industrial building construction.
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Const.
Water and Sewer Line
Const.
Oil and gas pipeline
construction.
Power and communication line const.
Land subdivision ............
Highway, street and
bridge const.
Other heavy and civil
eng.
Poured Concrete foundation and struct.
Structural steel and precast concrete.
Framing Contractors ......
Masonry Contractors .....
Glass & Glazing Contractors.
Roofing Contractors ......
Siding Contractors .........
Other foundation, structure, building, ext.
Electrical Contractors ....
Plumbing, Heating and
Air-conditioning Cont.
Other building equipment cont.
Drywall and insulation
contractors.
Painting and wall covering contractors.
Flooring Contractors ......
Tile and Terrazzo contractors.
Finish Carpentry contractors.
Other building finishing
contractors.
Site Preparation .............

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

2,905

2,905

1,000

47

741

0.07

1.58

213

213

3,400

159

741

0.02

0.47

1,263

1,263

5,104

239

741

0.01

0.31

825
223

825
262

543
2,570

25
120

741
741

0.14
0.03

2.92
0.62

3,614

3,614

3,661

171

741

0.02

0.43

917

1,223

2,324

121

741

0.03

0.61

98

131

3,743

195

741

0.02

0.38

219

291

4,656

243

393

0.01

0.16

0
69

0
93

0
3,225

0
168

0
741

0.00
0.02

0.00
0.44

511

511

1,500

78

741

0.05

0.95

108

108

1,000

44

741

0.07

1.67

394

394

1,425

63

741

0.05

1.18

1,060
128
48

1,060
128
48

798
675
900

35
30
40

741
741
741

0.09
0.11
0.08

2.10
2.48
1.86

230
33
7

230
33
7

801
600
900

35
27
40

741
741
741

0.09
0.12
0.08

2.09
2.79
1.86

60
86

60
86

1,100
1,100

48
42

393
741

0.04
0.07

0.83
1.74

33

44

1,664

74

741

0.04

1.01

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

0.00

37

37

419

19

741

0.18

4.00

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

0.00

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

0.00

262

262

962

44

741

0.08

1.69

PO 00000

Frm 00212

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

48117

TABLE B–14—ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES BY MAJOR CATEGORIES—Continued
0

Industry

221110 .........

Electric Power Generation.
Electric Power Trans,
Control, Dist.
Natural Gas Distribution
Engineered Wd Member
(exct Truss) Mfg.
Truss Manufacturing ......
Ship Building and Repairing.
Sign Manufacturing .......
Lumber, Plywd, Millwork,
Wood Panel Whle.
Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Merch Whle.
Other Construction Material Merch Whle.
Warm Air Heating and
A–C Equip & Supplies.
Home Centers ...............
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
(Bottled Gas) Dlrs.
Railroads .......................
Pipeline Transportation
of Natural Gas.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.

221120 .........
221210 .........
321213 .........
321214 .........
336611 .........
339950 .........
423310 .........
423330 .........
423390 .........
423730 .........
444110 .........
454312 .........
482110 .........
486210 .........
517110 .........

Firms

Subtotal .........................

Estabs.

Avg. rev’s
per estab.
($1,000)

Avg. profits
per estab.
($1,000)

Cost as a
percent of
revenues

Cost per
estab.

Cost as a
percent of
profits

293

301

7,313

325

244

0.00

0.08

337

358

6,882

306

314

0.00

0.10

442
121

591
127

28,428
4,720

847
183

433
471

0.00
0.01

0.05
0.26

871
575

914
635

4,706
10,204

182
622

814
647

0.02
0.01

0.45
0.10

6,261
5,971

6,339
6,326

1,532
7,084

89
204

39
0

0.00
0.00

0.04
0.00

1,025

1,173

7,159

207

0

0.00

0.00

2,181

2,296

3,260

94

0

0.00

0.00

2,364

2,958

3,790

117

1,640

0.04

1.41

2,409
2,044

2,575
2,317

2,335
2,415

180
102

0
1,062

0.00
0.04

0.00
1.04

NA
65

NA
66

NA
8,345

NA
1,105

NA
217

NA
0.00

NA
0.02

2,517

27,159

7,294

518

70

0.00

0.01

32,430

59,267

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry
236115 .........
236116 .........
236117 .........
236118 .........
236210 .........
236220 .........
237110 .........
237120 .........
237130 .........
237210 .........
237310 .........
237990 .........
238110 .........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

238120 .........
238130 .........
238140 .........
238150 .........
238160 .........
238170 .........
238190 .........
238210 .........
238220 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family housing construction.
New Multifamily housing
construction.
New housing operative
builders.
Residential Remodelers
Industrial building construction.
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction.
Water and Sewer Line
Const.
Oil and gas pipeline
construction.
Power and communication line const.
Land subdivision ............
Highway, street and
bridge const.
Other heavy and civil
eng.
Poured Concrete foundation and struct.
Structural steel and precast concrete.
Framing Contractors ......
Masonry Contractors .....
Glass & Glazing Contractors.
Roofing Contractors ......
Siding Contractors .........
Other foundation, structure, building, ext.
Electrical Contractors ....
Plumbing, Heating and
Air-conditioning Cont.

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

31,038

31,038

1,480

69

455

0.03

0.32

2,086

2,086

3,085

144

414

0.01

0.08

16,562

16,562

2,860

134

455

0.02

0.08

9,846
3,000

9,846
3,000

644
2,493

30
117

455
414

0.07
0.02

0.15
0.15

40,530

40,530

4,024

188

414

0.01

0.12

13,715

13,715

2,863

149

414

0.01

0.24

1,667

1,667

4,118

215

414

0.01

0.09

2,811

2,811

2,289

120

67

0.00

0.01

0
1,114

0
1,114

0
3,606

0
188

NA
414

0.00
0.01

0.00
0.01

2,760

2,760

2,919

152

414

0.01

0.10

13,273

13,273

1,189

53

414

0.03

0.03

3,487

3,487

1,927

85

414

0.02

0.35

13,779
1,368
542

13,779
1,368
542

559
814
1,319

25
36
58

414
414
414

0.07
0.05
0.03

0.75
0.05
0.06

1,945
526
256

1,945
526
256

1,125
529
628

50
23
28

414
414
414

0.04
0.08
0.07

0.07
0.08
0.05

765
970

765
970

874
1,049

38
40

67
414

0.01
0.04

0.00
0.01

PO 00000

Frm 00213

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48118

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–14—ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES BY MAJOR CATEGORIES—Continued
0

Industry

238290 .........

Other building equipment cont.
Drywall and insulation
contractors.
Painting and wall covering contractors.
Flooring Contractors ......
Tile and Terrazzo contractors.
Finish Carpentry contractors.
Other building finishing
contractors.
Site Preparation .............

238310 .........
238320 .........
238330 .........
238340 .........
238350 .........
238390 .........
238910 .........

Firms

Avg. rev’s
per estab.
($1,000)

Estabs.

Avg. profits
per estab.
($1,000)

Cost per
estab.

Cost as a
percent of
revenues

644

644

2,068

91

414

0.02

0.32

0

0

0

0

NA

0.00

0.00

414

414

513

23

414

0.08

0.02

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

NA
NA

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0

0

0

0

NA

0.00

0.00

0

0

0

0

NA

0.00

0.00

3,889

3,889

1,101

50

414

0.04

0.06

Subtotal .........................

166,985

166,985

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

Total ...............................

204,058

232,394

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

0.06

1.25

Simple Average of impacts:
Source:

Cost as a
percent of
profits

ORA.
U.S. Census Bureau data.
Country Business Patters, 2006; Statistics of U.S. Businesses 2006.
Internal Revenue Service, Source Book, profit rates over 2000–2006.
Statistics of U.S. Business (SUSB).

TABLE B–15—ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR VERY SMALL ENTITIES (LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES) BY MAJOR CATEGORY

Industry

Firms

Estabs.

Employees

Profit rate
(percent)

Cost as
a
percent
of revenues

Cost
as a
percent
of profits

$614

0.10

2.44

8

103

0.08

1.23

Revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Profits
per
estab.
($1,000)

$614

$25

129

Cost
per
estab.

Crane Rental With Operators
238990 .........

All Other Specialty Trade
Cont.

1,065

1,065

4,824

4.10

Crane Rental Without Operators (Bare Rentals)
532412 .........

Const./Min./For. Machine
& Equip.

1,782

3,018

19,423

6.42

Own and Rent Cranes With Operators
236115 .........
236118 .........
236210 .........
236220 .........
237110 .........
237120 .........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

237130 .........
237310 .........
237990 .........
238110 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single-Family Housing Const.
Residential Remodelers
Industrial Building Construction.
Commercial and Institutional Building.
Water and Sewer Line
and Related Struct.
Oil and Gas Pipeline and
Related Struct.
Power and Communication Line and Rel.
Highway, Street, and
Bridge Construction.
Other Heavy and Civil
Engineering Const.
Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct.

178

178

261

4.67

220

10

407

0.18

4.19

25
9

25
12

45
1,067

4.67
4.67

443
12,213

21
571

819
22,564

0.18
0.18

4.19
4.19

23

31

757

4.67

4,157

194

7,681

0.18

4.19

52

69

1,432

5.22

4,107

214

7,587

0.18

3.97

20

26

1,457

5.22

5,510

288

10,180

0.18

3.97

34

34

666

5.22

2,880

150

5,320

0.18

3.97

80

107

6,456

5.22

11,783

615

21,770

0.18

3.97

76

101

5,857

5.22

10,201

533

18,847

0.18

3.97

261

261

4,328

4.42

2,273

101

4,199

0.18

4.18

Subtotal ..........................

..............

758

844

22,326

..................

.............

............

..............

............

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00214

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48119

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–15—ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR VERY SMALL ENTITIES (LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES) BY MAJOR CATEGORY—
Continued

Industry

Firms

Estabs.

Employees

Profit rate
(percent)

Revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Profits
per
estab.
($1,000)

Cost
per
estab.

Cost as
a
percent
of revenues

Cost
as a
percent
of profits

Own Cranes but Do Not Rent Them
236115 .........
236116 .........
236117 .........
236118 .........
236210 .........
236220 .........
237110 .........
237120 .........
237130 .........
237210 .........
237310 .........
237990 .........
238110 .........
238120 .........
238130 .........
238140 .........
238150 .........
238160 .........
238170 .........
238190 .........
238210 .........
238220 .........
238290 .........
238310 .........
238320 .........
238330 .........
238340 .........
238350 .........
238390 .........
238910 .........
221110 .........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

221120 .........
221210 .........
321213 .........
321214 .........
336611 .........
339950 .........
423310 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family housing construction.
New Multifamily housing
construction.
New housing operative
builders.
Residential Remodelers
Industrial building construction.
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construc.
Water and Sewer Line
Const.
Oil and gas pipeline construction.
Power and communication line const.
Land subdivision ............
Highway, street and
bridge const.
Other heavy and civil
eng.
Poured Concrete foundation and struct.
Structural steel and precast concrete.
Framing Contractors ......
Masonry Contractors ......
Glass & Glazing Contractors.
Roofing Contractors .......
Siding Contractors ..........
Other foundation, structure, building, ext.
Electrical Contractors .....
Plumbing, Heating and
Air-conditioning Contractors.
Other building equipment
cont.
Drywall and insulation
contractors.
Painting and wall covering contractors.
Flooring Contractors .......
Tile and Terrazzo contractors.
Finish Carpentry contractors.
Other building finishing
contractors.
Site Preparation .............
Electric Power Generation.
Electric Power Trans,
Control, and Dist.
Natural Gas Distribution
Engineered Wood Member (except Truss) Mfg.
Truss Manufacturing ......
Ship Building and Repairing.
Sign Manufacturing ........
Lumber, Plywd, Millwork,
& Panel Merch Whl.

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

2,763

2,763

12,155

4.67

823

38

628

0.08

1.63

197

197

2,010

4.67

1,350

63

628

0.05

1.00

1,206

1,206

8,528

4.67

1,854

87

628

0.03

0.73

808
209

808
209

2,627
6,015

4.67
4.67

443
1,247

21
58

628
628

0.14
0.05

3.03
1.08

2,943

2,943

50,843

4.67

1,526

71

628

0.04

0.88

900

900

13,335

5.22

702

37

628

0.09

1.71

63

63

3,416

5.22

708

37

628

0.09

1.70

207

207

9,177

5.22

655

34

281

0.04

0.82

0
66

0
66

0
2,423

11.04
5.22

0
976

0
51

0
628

NA
0.06

NA
1.23

378

378

10,483

5.22

589

31

628

0.11

2.04

46

46

531

4.42

494

22

628

0.13

2.87

90

90

1,954

4.42

659

29

628

0.10

2.16

981
115
44

981
115
44

8,322
1,093
405

4.42
4.42
4.42

374
343
619

17
15
27

628
628
628

0.17
0.18
0.10

3.80
4.14
2.29

207
31
10

207
31
10

2,378
127
62

4.42
4.42
4.42

447
408
394

20
18
17

628
628
628

0.14
0.15
0.16

3.18
3.48
3.60

54
77

54
77

541
768

4.32
3.86

444
509

19
20

281
628

0.06
0.12

1.47
3.20

30

30

570

4.42

714

32

628

0.09

1.99

0

0

0

4.42

0

0

0

NA

NA

37

37

208

4.42

265

12

628

0.24

5.36

0
0

0
0

0
0

4.42
4.42

0
0

0
0

0
0

NA
NA

NA
NA

0

0

0

4.42

0

0

0

NA

NA

0

0

0

4.42

0

0

0

NA

NA

271
293

271
301

1,970
1,288

4.56
4.44

497
7,513

23
334

628
234

0.13
0.00

2.77
0.07

337

358

2,272

4.44

7,311

325

303

0.00

0.09

360
82

368
82

1,736
534

2.98
3.87

9,483
1,674

283
65

128
108

0.00
0.01

0.05
0.17

408
370

408
371

3,438
2,041

3.87
6.09

1,130
950

44
58

156
24

0.01
0.00

0.36
0.04

5,312
4,774

5,316
4,844

25,236
24,410

5.83
2.89

1,303
3,970

76
115

66
0

0.01
0.00

0.09
0.00

PO 00000

Frm 00215

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48120

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–15—ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR VERY SMALL ENTITIES (LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES) BY MAJOR CATEGORY—
Continued

Industry

423330 .........
423390 .........
423730 .........
444110 .........
454312 .........
482110 .........
486210 .........
517110 .........

Roofing, Siding, and
Insul Merchant Wholes.
Other Construction Material Merch Whleslrs.
Warm Air Heating and
A–C Equip. & Supplies.
Home Centers ................
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
(Bottled Gas) Dlrs.
Railroads ........................
Pipeline Transportation
of Natural Gas.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Subtotal ..........................

Firms

Estabs.

Employees

Profit rate
(percent)

Revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Profits
per
estab.
($1,000)

Cost
per
estab.

Cost as
a
percent
of revenues

Cost
as a
percent
of profits

831

857

4,764

2.89

4,461

129

0

0.00

0.00

1,886

1,907

9,298

2.89

2,199

63

0

0.00

0.00

1,929

2,017

11,007

3.08

2,537

78

888

0.03

1.14

1,879
1,881

1,904
2,001

12,389
11,711

7.70
4.22

1,344
1,333

103
56

0
651

0.00
0.05

0.00
1.16

NA
65

NA
66

NA
238

NA
13.24

NA
8,473

NA
1,122

NA
192

NA
0.00

NA
0.02

1,828

1,882

9,022

7.10

1,431

102

12

0.00

0.01

33,969

11,734

139,941

................

..................

.............

............

..............

............

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry
236115 .........
236116 .........
236117 .........
236118 .........
236210 .........
236220 .........
237110 .........
237120 .........
237130 .........
237210 .........
237310 .........
237990 .........
238110 .........
238120 .........
238130 .........
238140 .........
238150 .........
238160 .........
238170 .........
238190 .........

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

238210 .........
238220 .........
238290 .........
238310 .........
238320 .........
238330 .........
238340 .........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

New Single family housing construction.
New Multifamily housing
construction.
New housing operative
builders.
Residential Remodelers
Industrial building construction.
Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction.
Water and Sewer Line
Const.
Oil and gas pipeline construction.
Power and communication line const.
Land subdivision ............
Highway, street and
bridge const.
Other heavy and civil
engg.
Poured Concrete foundation and struct.
Structural steel and precast concrete.
Framing Contractors ......
Masonry Contractors ......
Glass & Glazing Contractors.
Roofing Contractors .......
Siding Contractors ..........
Other foundation, structure, building, ext.
Electrical Contractors .....
Plumbing, Heating and
Air-conditioning Contractors.
Other building equipment
cont.
Drywall and insulation
contractors.
Painting and wall covering contractors.
Flooring Contractors .......
Tile and Terrazzo contractors.

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

29,962

29,962

95,670

4.67

1,192

56

455

0.04

0.82

1,904

1,904

7,946

4.67

1,986

93

414

0.02

0.45

15,927

15,927

50,782

4.67

2,063

96

455

0.02

0.47

9,606
2,669

9,606
2,669

25,611
13,978

4.67
4.67

527
1,120

25
52

455
414

0.09
0.04

1.85
0.79

33,784

33,784

179,125

4.67

1,649

77

414

0.03

0.54

11,306

11,306

59,055

5.22

841

44

414

0.05

0.94

1,083

1,083

4,293

5.22

666

35

414

0.06

1.19

2,149

2,149

8,580

5.22

630

33

67

0.01

0.20

0
862

0
862

0
4,675

11.04
5.22

0
993

0
52

0
414

0.00
0.04

0.00
0.80

2,295

2,295

10,166

5.22

1,261

66

414

0.03

0.63

11,886

11,886

52,606

4.42

677

30

414

0.06

1.38

2,679

2,679

14,995

4.42

945

42

414

0.04

0.99

13,043
1,243
485

13,043
1,243
485

48,914
4,720
2,457

4.42
4.42
4.42

345
376
758

15
17
34

414
414
414

0.12
0.11
0.05

2.72
2.49
1.24

1,722
506
237

1,722
506
237

7,015
1,627
909

4.42
4.42
4.42

637
359
290

28
16
13

414
414
414

0.07
0.12
0.14

1.47
2.61
3.24

691
872

691
872

2,953
3,855

4.32
3.86

434
551

19
21

67
414

0.02
0.08

0.36
1.95

524

524

2,726

4.42

868

38

414

0.05

1.08

0

0

0

4.42

0

0

0

0.00

0.00

392

392

1,267

4.42

326

14

414

0.13

2.87

0
0

0
0

0
0

4.42
4.42

0
0

0
0

0
0

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

PO 00000

Frm 00216

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48121

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B–15—ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR VERY SMALL ENTITIES (LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES) BY MAJOR CATEGORY—
Continued

Industry

238350 .........
238390 .........
238910 .........

Source:

Finish Carpentry contractors.
Other building finishing
contractors.
Site Preparation .............

Firms

Estabs.

Employees

Profit rate
(percent)

Revenues
per estab.
($1,000)

Profits
per
estab.
($1,000)

Cost
per
estab.

Cost as
a
percent
of revenues

Cost
as a
percent
of profits

0

0

0

4.42

0

0

0

0.00

0.00

0

0

0

4.42

0

0

0

0.00

0.00

3,579

3,579

13,406

4.56

561

26

414

0.07

1.62

Subtotal ..........................

149,403

149,403

617,328

................

..................

.............

............

..............

............

Total ........................

186,977

166,064

803,843

................

..................

.............

............

0.08

1.69

ORA.
U.S. Census Bureau data.
Country Business Patterns, 2006; Statistics of U.S. Businesses 2006.
Internal Revenue Service, Source Book, profit rates over 2000–2006.

2. A Succinct Statement of the Need for,
and Objectives of, the Rule
The primary objective of the proposed
standard is to provide an increased
degree of occupational safety for
employees performing construction
work involving cranes/derricks. As
stated above, an estimated 157 injuries
and 21 fatalities would be prevented
annually through compliance with this
standard. Another objective of the
rulemaking is to provide employers and
employees updated and more complete
safety standards for construction work
involving cranes/derricks.
The legal basis for the rule is the
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)
Act of 1970. The OSH Act authorizes
and obligates the Secretary of Labor to
promulgate mandatory occupational
safety and health standards as necessary
‘‘to assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the Nation

safe and healthful working conditions
and to preserve our human resources.’’
29 U.S.C. 651(b).
3. Summary of the Significant Issues
Raised by the Public Comments in
Response to the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, a Summary of the
Assessment of the Agency of Such
Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes
Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result
of Such Comments
On August 18, 2006, OSHA convened
a Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel (the Panel) for this rulemaking in
accordance with the provisions of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
as codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The
Panel consisted of representatives of
OSHA, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs in the Office of
Management and Budget, and of the
Office of Advocacy within the U.S.

Small Business Administration. The
Panel received oral and written
comments on a draft proposal and a
draft economic analysis from small
entities (businesses) that would
potentially be affected by the rule. The
Panel, in turn, prepared a written report
which was delivered to the Assistant
Secretary for Occupational Safety and
Health (which can be found in the
docket for this rulemaking). The report
summarized the comments received
from the small entities, and included
recommendations from the Panel to
OSHA regarding the proposal and the
associated analysis of compliance costs.
OSHA sought comment on a variety of
issues of particular interest to small
businesses as a result of the
recommendations of the SBREFA Panel.
Table B–16 below summarizes the
responses to these Panel
recommendations.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

TABLE B–16—RESPONSE TO SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
SBREFA panel recommendation

OSHA response

The Panel recommends that OSHA provide full documentation for how
it estimated the number of affected small entities and all other calculations and estimates provided in the PIRFA.

OSHA has developed a full preliminary economic analysis (PEA) for
the proposal which explains all assumptions used in estimating the
costs and benefits of the proposed standard. The Final Economic
Analysis (FEA) also explains the changes made to the analysis as a
result of comments on the proposed rule, and OSHA’s responses to
these comments.
OSHA included homebuilding industries in the ‘‘Own but Do Not Rent
‘‘and ‘‘Crane Lessees’’ industrial profile categories.
OSHA has also made a number of additions to the industrial profile to
cover firms in general industry that sometimes use cranes for construction work, and has added costs for these sectors.
OSHA sought comments on the estimates and methodology. As a result of these comments, OSHA has increased its estimate of the unit
costs of certification.

The Panel recommends that OSHA reexamine its estimate of crane
use in home building, the coverage of crane trucks used for loading
and unloading, and the estimates of the number of jobs per crane.
Changes in these estimates should be incorporated into the estimates of costs and economic impacts.
The Panel recommends that OSHA review its estimates for the direct
costs of operator certification and seek comment on these cost estimates.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00217

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48122

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE B–16—RESPONSE TO SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS—Continued
SBREFA panel recommendation

OSHA response

The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully examine certain types of
impact that could result from an operator certification requirement, including reports of substantial increases in the wages of operators;
the possibility of increased market power for firms renting out cranes;
and loss of jobs for existing operators due to language, literacy, or
knowledge problems; and seek comment on these types of impacts.
The Panel also recommends studying the impacts of the implementation of operator certification in CA.

OSHA sought public comment on all aspects (including economic impacts, wages, number of operators, demand, etc.) of the operator
certification requirements, specifically as it pertains to the State of
California.
OSHA has included 2 hours of travel time per operator into the unit
costs for operator certification.
OSHA also increased the unit costs of operator certification as a result
of comments. However, based on comments, OSHA also reduced
the OSHA percentage of crane operators still needing certification.
The Agency reviewed data on wage rates for operators in California
immediately before and after operator certification was required (Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, State of California, 2007). The data did not show much change
in operators’ wages.
OSHA also evaluated the changes in crane related fatality rates in
California and found these had significantly declined after the California certification requirements were put into place.
OSHA sought comment on the methodology used to calculate all of the
costs in the PEA, which includes the costs for assessing ground conditions.
As a result of these comments, OSHA has added costs for examination of ground conditions. This addition of costs does not change
OSHA’s conclusion that this standard is economically feasible.
The Agency describes the documentation requirements, along with
cost estimates, in the section of this preamble entitled ‘‘OMB Review
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.’’

The Panel recommends that OSHA reexamine its estimates for the
amount of time required to assess ground conditions, the number of
persons involved in the assessment, and the amount of coordination
involved; clarify the extent to which such assessments are currently
being conducted and what OSHA estimates as new costs for this
rule represent; and seek comments on OSHA’s cost estimates.
The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully review the documentation
requirements of the standard, including documentation that employers may consider it prudent to maintain; estimate the costs of such
requirements; seek ways of minimizing these costs consistent with
the goals of the OSH Act; and solicit comment on these costs and
ways of minimizing these costs.
The Panel recommends that OSHA examine whether the inspection requirements of the proposed rule require procedures not normally
conducted currently, such as lowering and fully extending the boom
before the crane can be used, and removing non-hinged inspection
plates during the shift inspection, estimate the costs of any such requirements, and seek comment on these issues.

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider the costs of meeting the
requirements for original load charts and full manuals, and solicit
comments on such costs.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

The Panel recommends that OSHA provide full documentation for its
analysis of the benefits the proposed rule are expected to produce
and assure that the benefits analysis is reproducible by others.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on whether the scope language should be clarified to explicitly
state whether forklifts that are modified to perform tasks similar to
equipment (cranes and derricks) modified in that manner would be
covered.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00218

Fmt 4701

As explained in the discussion of § 1926.1412, Inspections, OSHA’s
former standard at former § 1926.550 required inspections each time
the equipment is used, as well as thorough annual inspections. In
addition, national consensus standards that are incorporated by reference include additional inspection requirements. This final standard
would list the inspection requirements in one place rather than rely
on incorporated consensus standards. This final standard does not
impose significant new requirements for inspections. OSHA received
comments on the issue of lowering and fully extending the boom before the crane can be used. However, OSHA concludes that the
comments were based on a general misunderstanding of the requirements. Section 1926.1413(a) explicitly says that booming down is
not required for shift (and therefore monthly) inspections.
Similarly, OSHA stated in the proposed preamble (73 FR 59770, Oct.
9, 2008) that it does not believe inspection of any of those items
would require removal of non-hinged inspection plates. In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1412, OSHA requested public comment on
this point. OSHA finalized § 1926.1412 as proposed because comments did not confirm that non-hinged plates needed to be removed
to meet the requirements of a shift inspection.
Previous subpart N, at former § 1926.550(a)(2), required load charts;
this is not a new cost. Subpart N did not require manuals. OSHA
concludes that most crane owners and operators have and maintain
crane manuals, which contain the load charts and other critical technical information about crane operations and maintenance. The
Agency determined that the cost of obtaining a copy of a manual
should be modest and solicited comment on how many owners or
operators do not have full manuals for their cranes or derricks. Few
commenters saw this as a major problem.
The Agency placed additional materials in the rulemaking docket to aid
in the reproduction of the benefits analysis. The Agency also developed a full benefits analysis (sec. 4 of the FEA) which includes the
methodology and data sources for the calculations.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1400(c)(8), OSHA requested public comment on this issue.

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

48123

TABLE B–16—RESPONSE TO SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS—Continued
SBREFA panel recommendation

OSHA response

The Panel recommends that there be a full explanation in the preamble
of how responsibility for ensuring adequate ground conditions is
shared between the controlling entity, and the employer of the individual supervising assembly/disassembly and/or the operator.

OSHA explained in the discussion of proposed § 1926.1402(e) how the
various employers, including the controlling entity, the employer
whose employees operate the equipment, and the employer of the
A/D director share responsibility for ensuring adequate ground conditions. OSHA did not receive any significant comments on this issue
and, therefore, considers this matter resolved.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1412(e) and requested public comment on the issue. Based
on these comments, OSHA concludes that the requirements were
clear as proposed, and repeating the provisions will create confusion. Therefore, OSHA did not restate the corrective actions in
§ 1926.1412(e).
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1412(d) and requested public comment on the issues raised
in the recommendation.

The Panel recommends that OSHA restate the applicable corrective
action provisions (which are set forth in the shift inspection) in the
monthly inspection section.

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether,
and under what circumstances, booming down should be specifically
excluded as a part of the shift inspection, and whether the removal
of non-hinged inspection plates should be required during the shift
inspection.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether
to include an exception for transportation systems in proposed
§ 1926.1412(a), which requires an inspection of equipment that has
had modifications or additions that affect its safe operation, and, if
so, what the appropriate terminology for such an exception would be.

The Panel recommends that OSHA explain in the preamble that the
shift inspection does not need to be completed prior to each shift but
may be completed during the shift.

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment about
whether it is necessary to clarify the requirement of proposed
§ 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) that the equipment be inspected for ‘‘level position.’’
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit comment on whether proposed § 1926.1412(f)(2)(xii)(D) should be changed to require that
pressure be inspected ‘‘at the end of the line,’’ as distinguished from
‘‘at each and every line,’’ and if so, what the best terminology would
be to meet this purpose. (An SER indicated that proposed
§ 1926.1412(f)(2)(xiv)(D) should be modified to ‘‘checking pressure
setting,’’ in part to avoid having to check the pressure at ‘‘each and
every line’’ as opposed to ‘‘at the end of the line.’’)
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether
proposed § 1926.1412(f)(2)(xx) should be deleted because an SER
believes that it is not always appropriate to retain originally-equipped
steps and ladders, such as in instances where they are replaced with
‘‘attaching dollies.’’

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on the extent of documentation of monthly and annual/comprehensive inspections the rule should require.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether
the provision for monthly inspections should, like the provision for annual inspections, specify who must keep the documentation associated with monthly inspections.

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider ways to account for the
possibility that there may sometimes be an extended delay in obtaining the part number for an operational aid for older equipment and
solicit public comment on the extent to which this is a problem.
The Panel recommends that the provision on fall protection (proposed
§ 1926.1423) be finalized as written and that OSHA explain in the
preamble how and why the Committee arrived at this provision.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00219

Fmt 4701

OSHA solicited comments on this issue, but the Agency did not receive
any significant comments supporting an exception for transportation
systems. Based on the analysis of comments received about
§ 1926.1412(a), OSHA concludes that the inspections of modifications as required by the final rule are sufficient to ensure that safe
equipment is used. Therefore, OSHA did include the recommended
exclusion in the final rule.
In the explanation of § 1926.1412(d)(1) of the proposed rule, OSHA explained that the shift inspection may be completed during the shift.
OSHA finalized § 1926.1412(d)(1) as proposed because the comments did not demonstrate how it was safer to deviate from the rule
as proposed.
OSHA requested public comment on this issue and revised the regulatory text of § 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) to provide more clarity, in response to the comments the Agency received.
There is no requirement to check the pressure ‘‘at each and every
line.’’ The provision simply states that relief valves should be
checked for failure to reach correct pressure. If this can be done at
one point for the entire system, then that would satisfy the requirement.

Section 1926.1412(f)(2)(xx) of the final rule does not require the corrective action to which the SER refers. If an inspection under
§ 1926.1412(f) reveals a deficiency, a qualified person must determine whether that deficiency is a safety hazard requiring immediate
correction. If the inspection reveals that original equipment, such as
stairs and ladders, have been replaced with something equally safe,
there would be no safety hazard and no requirement for corrective
action.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1412(f)(7), OSHA requested public comment on this issue. OSHA finalized § 1926.1412(f)(7) as proposed because the comments did not demonstrate a need to modify
the extent of required documentation.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1412(e), OSHA requested public
comment on this issue. In response to these comments, OSHA has
explained in the final preamble that the employer who performs the
inspection must maintain documentation. If another employer wants
to rely on this inspection, but cannot ensure completion and documentation of the inspection, then that employer must conduct a
monthly inspection.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1416(d), and requested public comment on the issue. The
Agency did not receive any significant comments.
Except for a minor change to § 1926.1423(h), which was made for clarity purposes, OSHA has finalized § 1926.1423 as proposed. OSHA
explained the Committee’s rationale in the proposed preamble discussion of § 1926.1423.

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48124

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE B–16—RESPONSE TO SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS—Continued
SBREFA panel recommendation

OSHA response

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider the potential advantages
of and solicit public comment on adding provisions to proposed
§ 1926.1427 that would allow an operator to be certified on a particular model of crane; allow tests to be administered by an accredited educational institution; and allow employers to use manuals that
have been re-written to accommodate the literacy level and English
proficiency of operators.

OSHA addressed these recommendations in the discussion of proposed § 1926.1427, and requested public comment on the issues
raised by the Panel. Based on these comments, OSHA is not permitting certification on a particular crane model because the body of
knowledge and skills required to be qualified/certified on a particular
model of crane is not less than that needed to be qualified/certified
for that model’s type and capacity. OSHA is not allowing an institution accredited by the Department of Education (DOE) to certify
crane operators solely on the basis of DOE accreditation; such institutions would, like other operator-certification entities used to fulfill
Option (1), be accredited by a ‘‘nationally recognized’’ accrediting
body. Finally, OSHA is permitting employers to re-write manuals to
accommodate the literacy level and English proficiency of operators.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1427(h), OSHA proposed to allow
the oral administration of tests if two prerequisites are met. None of
the comments explained why the rule as proposed was not effective
for evaluating the knowledge of the candidate.
OSHA received public comments on this issue. In the final preamble
discussion of § 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B), OSHA explains that the Agency added a definition of ‘‘type’’ in response to public comment. The
Agency also references ANSI crane categories to illustrate the
meaning of ‘‘type’’ in this standard.

The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify in the preamble how the
proposed rule addresses an SER’s concern that his crane operator
would not be able to pass a written qualification/certification exam
because the operator has difficulty in taking written exams.
The Panel recommends soliciting public comment on whether the
phrase
‘‘equipment
capacity
and
type’’
in
proposed
§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) needs clarification, suggestions on how to
accomplish this, and whether the categories represented in Figures 1
through 10 contained in ANSI B30.5–2000 (i.e., commercial truckmounted crane—telescoping boom; commercial truck-mounted
crane—non-telescoping boom; crawler crane; crawler crane—telescoping boom; locomotive crane; wheel-mounted crane (multiple
control station); wheel-mounted crane—telescoping boom (multiple
control station); wheel-mounted crane (single control station); wheelmounted crane—telescoping boom (single control station)) should be
used.
The Panel recommends that OSHA ask for public comment on whether
the rule needs to state more clearly that § 1926.1427(j)(1)(i) requires
more limited training for operators of smaller capacity equipment
used in less complex operations as compared with operators of higher capacity, more complex equipment used in more complex situations.

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

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and ask for public comment as to whether the supervisor responsible for oversight for an
operator in the pre-qualification period (§ 1926.1427(f)) should have
additional training beyond that required in the C–DAC document at
§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B).

The Panel recommends OSHA solicit comment on whether there are
qualified persons in the field with the necessary expertise to assess
how the rated capacity for land cranes and derricks used on barges
and other flotation devices needs to be modified as required by proposed § 1926.1437(n)(2).
The Panel also recommends that OSHA solicit comment on whether it
is necessary, from a safety standpoint, to apply this provision to
cranes used only for duty cycle work, and if so, why that is the case,
and how ‘‘duty cycle work’’ should be defined.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and ask for comment on
whether it would be appropriate to exempt from the rule small
sideboom cranes incapable of lifting above the height of a truck bed
and with a capacity of not more than 6,000 pounds.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00220

Fmt 4701

OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1430(c), and explained that § 1926.1427(j)(1)’s requirement
for operator training in ‘‘the information necessary for safe operation
of the specific type of equipment the individual will operate’’ addressed the SERs’ concern. However, the Agency sought public
comment on this issue. OSHA finalized § 1926.1427(j)(1) as proposed because the comments failed to explain how the hazards related to the operation of smaller equipment differed from larger
equipment. OSHA then concluded that the comments also were not
persuasive as to why operators of smaller capacity equipment should
be allowed limited training.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1430(c) requested public comment on the issue. The comments failed to explain how the hazards related to smaller equipment
were any different from larger equipment. OSHA then concluded that
the comments also were not persuasive as to why operators of
smaller capacity equipment should be allowed limited training.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1430(c). and requested public comment on the issue. In the
proposed preamble, OSHA stated that, where a supervisor is not a
certified operator, ‘‘he/she must be certified on the written portion of
the test and be familiar with the proper use of the equipment’s controls; the supervisor is not required to have passed a practical operating test.’’ OSHA finalized this requirement without substantive
change in § 1926.1427(f)(3)(ii) as proposed because none of the
comments demonstrated a need to require additional training for this
qualified individual.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1437(n)(2), OSHA requested public comment on this issue. Based on these comments, OSHA has
concluded that there are qualified persons with dual expertise, and
that the requirement in § 1926.1437(n)(2) is necessary for safety
when equipment is engaged in duty cycle work.

In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1440(a), OSHA requested public
comment on this issue. These comments did not provide any specific
reason for exempting these small sideboom cranes and, therefore,
OSHA has not provided a small capacity sideboom crane exemption
from this standard.

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

48125

TABLE B–16—RESPONSE TO SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS—Continued
SBREFA panel recommendation

OSHA response

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on how the
proposed rule could be simplified (without creating ambiguities) and
made easier to understand. (Several SERs believed that the C–DAC
document was so long and complex that small businesses would
have difficulty understanding it and complying with it.)
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider outlining the inspection
requirements in spreadsheet form in an Appendix or developing
some other means to help employers understand what inspections
are needed and when they must be done.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider whether use of the words
‘‘determine’’ and ‘‘demonstrate’’ would mandate that the employer
keep records of such determinations and if records would be required to make such demonstrations.

The length and comprehensiveness of the standard is an issue for this
rulemaking. In the proposed preamble Introduction, OSHA requested
public comment on this issue; however, the Agency did not receive
any comments objecting to the length or clarity of the overall rule or
offer any suggestions as to how it could be simplified.
OSHA will consider developing such an aid as a separate guidance
document.

The Panel recommends soliciting public comment on whether the word
‘‘days’’ as used in §§ 1926.1416(d) and 1926.1416(e) should be clarified to mean calendar days or business days.
The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully discuss what is included
and excluded from the scope of this standard.

The Panel recommends that OSHA gather data and analyze the effects
of already existing certification requirements.

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider excluding and soliciting
comment on whether equipment used solely to deliver materials to a
construction site by placing/stacking the materials on the ground
should be explicitly excluded from the proposed standard’s scope.

The Panel recommends that OSHA should consider the information
and range of opinions that were presented by the SERs on the issue
of operator qualification/certification when analyzing the public comments on this issue.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on expanding the levels of certification so as to allow an operator to be certified on a specific brand’s model of crane.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on expanding the levels of operator qualification/certification to
allow an operator to be certified for a specific, limited type of circumstance. Such a circumstance would be defined by a set of parameters that, taken together, would describe an operation characterized by simplicity and relatively low risk. The Agency should consider
and solicit comment on whether such parameters could be identified
in a way that would result in a clear, easily understood provision that
could be effectively enforced.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on allowing the written and practical tests described in Option
(1) to be administered by an accredited educational institution.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00221

Fmt 4701

Some SERs requested clarification as to when documentation was required, believing that the document implicitly requires documentation
when it states that the employer must ‘‘determine’’ or ‘‘demonstrate’’
certain actions or conditions. OSHA notes that it cannot cite an employer for failing to have documentation not explicitly required by a
standard. See also the discussion under proposed § 1926.1402(e).
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1416(d), OSHA requested public
comment on this issue. As a clarification in response to the comments received, OSHA determines that the term ‘‘days’’ refers to calendar days.
OSHA proposed a scope section, § 1926.1400, and discussed in detail
the types of machinery proposed to be included and excluded under
this standard. OSHA received public comments on this proposed
scope, analyzed the comments, and provided more discussion of the
scope section in the final preamble.
OSHA obtained and evaluated a study by the Construction Safety Association of Ontario showing that Ontario’s certification requirement
led to a substantial decrease in crane-related fatalities there. OSHA
also examined both economic data of crane operator wage rates before and after the certification requirements, and fatality rates before
and after the certification requirements.
This data shows that costs disruptions were minimal, and that crane fatalities were significantly reduced as a result of the California certification standard.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1400(c), OSHA requested public
comment on this issue. Based on the analysis of the comments received, OSHA recognized an exclusion for delivery materials that
should exclude most true deliveries, while avoiding creating a loophole to the standard that would allow materials-delivery firms to engage in extensive construction activities
The information and opinions submitted by the SERs are part of the
record for this rulemaking, and OSHA considered them along with
the other public comments on the proposed rule.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1427, and requested public comment on the issue. Based on
these comments, OSHA is not permitting certification on a particular
crane model because the body of knowledge and skills required to
be qualified/certified on a particular model of crane is not less than
that needed to be qualified/certified for that model’s type and capacity.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1427(j)(1), and requested public comment on this issue.
Though several commenters were in favor of this option, they did not
explain how these lifts could objectively be distinguished from lifts
generally. Several other commenters indicated that the types of hazards present and the knowledge needed to address those hazards,
remained the same, regardless of the capacity of the crane involved
or the ‘‘routine’’ nature of the lift (see discussion of § 1926.1427(a)).
Based on these comments, the Agency has not promulgated such a
provision.
OSHA addressed this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1427(b)(3), and requested public comment on the issue. Several comments were submitted in favor of allowing this option; however, they did not establish that Department of Education (DOE) accreditation would guarantee the same efficacy in certification as accreditation as a personnel certification entity.
The hearing testimony of Dr. Roy Swift explained the difference in the
types of accreditation and the reasons why DOE accreditation would
not adequately address operator certification issues. Therefore,
OSHA has finalized this provision as it was proposed.

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48126

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

TABLE B–16—RESPONSE TO SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS—Continued
SBREFA panel recommendation

OSHA response

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on making it
clear that: (1) An employer is permitted to equip its cranes with
manuals re-written in a way that would allow an operator with a low
literacy level to understand the material (such as substituting some
text with pictures and illustrations), and (2) making it clear that, when
the cranes are equipped with such re-written manuals and materials,
the ‘‘manuals’’ and ‘‘materials’’ referred to in these literacy provisions
would be the re-written manuals.
The Panel recommends that OSHA explain in a Small Business Compliance Guide that the certification/qualification test does not need to
be administered in English but can be administered in a language
that the candidate can read; and that while the employee would also
need to have a sufficient level of literacy to read and understand the
relevant information in the equipment manual, that requirement
would be satisfied if the material is written in a language that the employee can read and understand.

In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1427(h)(1), OSHA requested public comment on this issue. Based on the analysis of the comments
received, OSHA concludes that these manuals may not be re-written
as recommended because it could cause information important for
safety to be omitted.

In addition to these issues brought up
by the SBREFA panel, SBA’s office of
Advocacy provided a set of
recommendations for OSHA to consider.
(ID–0147.) These recommendations and
OSHA’s responses to them are
summarized as follows:
1. ‘‘OSHA should consider eliminating
the requirement for third-party
certification of crane operators—at least
for some small cranes or routine lifts.’’
OSHA carefully examined this
requirement. As noted in the benefits
sections, broadly speaking, such a
requirement resulted in major
reductions in crane fatalities in both
Ontario and California. Further, as
discussed in the preamble sections,
there is no easy way, beyond that
already allowed, to eliminate third-party
certification.
2. ‘‘OSHA should exempt equipment
used solely to deliver materials to a
construction site by placing or staking
the materials on the ground.’’ OSHA has
clearly exempted such activities from
the scope of the final standard.
3. ‘‘OSHA should clarify the meaning
of ‘construction’.’’ As noted above,
OSHA has added material designed to
aid in this distinction. However, the
definition of construction is not an issue
in this rulemaking, but is instead an
issue for all construction rules.
4. ‘‘OSHA should further limit the
‘controlling entity’ provisions in the
proposed rule.’’ Advocacy was
concerned that small businesses may
not be onsite, or may not have suitable
expertise to meet the requirements for
controlling entities. However, the fact
remains that only the controlling entity
can do what this section of the standard
requires: (1) Transfer any information
they know of to the crane operator; and
(2) authorize action that will change
ground conditions to assure they are
suitable for crane operations. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

OSHA will issue a Small Business Compliance Guide after the final
rule is issued, and will explain these points in the Guide.

controlling entity could, of course,
authorize the crane operator to alter site
conditions as they wished to assure
adequate safety—but it is the controlling
entity and not the crane operator that
inevitably has responsibility for site
conditions.
5. ‘‘OSHA should not mandate that
employers follow manufacturers’
recommendations.’’ Advocacy’s concern
here was that manufacturers may
unduly limit crane operations out of
liability concerns. However, only the
manufacturers know the limitations of
the cranes they produce. As a result,
OSHA has retained these provisions. If
Advocacy had provided examples of
clearly unnecessary provisions in
manuals, their argument might have
been more convincing. In the absence of
even a single example, there seems no
reason to reject this provision or provide
costs for it.
6. ‘‘OSHA should consider and
document any ‘significant alternatives’
to the proposed rule.’’ Advocacy was
concerned that some possible
alternatives were not fully analyzed
‘‘because OSHA had committed to
publishing the draft rule developed by
C–DAC as the proposed rule, [and did
not give] full consideration [to]
significant alternatives that would
specifically reduce the burden on small
businesses have not been documented
in the proposed rule.’’ OSHA believes
that reliance on the work of C–DAC was
and remains, appropriate. The two
largest sources of costs in the rule are
operator certification and rules covering
operations close to power lines. The
experience of Ontario and California
shows that operator certification can
make a major difference to crane
fatalities. Additional work done for this
final rule shows that construction crane
fatalities also occur in general industry
sectors where construction work is

PO 00000

Frm 00222

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

performed. As a result, and as more
fully discussed in the scope and
operator certification sections of this
preamble, OSHA continues to believe
that operator certification for cranes
doing construction work is necessary to
prevent crane-related deaths and injury.
OSHA also believes that the power line
rules developed through the expertise of
C–DAC remain necessary to address the
largest single source of crane-related
construction fatalities—fatalities due to
power line contact.
4. A Description of and an Estimate of
the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rule Will Apply
OSHA completed an analysis of the
economic impacts associated with this
final rule, including an analysis of the
type and number of small entities to
which the rule would apply, as
described above. To determine the
number of small entities potentially
affected by this rulemaking, OSHA used
the definitions of small entities
developed by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) for each industry.
For the construction industry
generally, SBA defines small businesses
using revenue-based criteria. For most
of the affected construction industries,
including those industries that are
mostly comprised of general contractors,
firms with annual revenues of less than
$31 million are classified as small
businesses. For specialty contractors,
such as structural-steel erection
contractors, firms with annual revenues
of less than $13 million are considered
to be small businesses. Based on the
definitions of small entities developed
by SBA for each industry, the final rule
is estimated to potentially affect a total
of 204,000 small entities, as shown in
Tables B–13 and B–14. Included in this
number are an estimated 187,000

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
entities with fewer than 20 employees
(Table B–15).

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

5. A Description of the Projected
Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule,
Including an Estimate of the Classes of
Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to
the Requirement and the Type of
Professional Skills Necessary for
Preparation of the Report or Record
The final rule addresses the work
practices used, as well as other
requirements, for performing
construction work involving cranes/
derricks. Employers are required to keep
specified records associated with
inspections and operator certification/
qualification.
Other compliance requirements in the
standard include the assembly and
disassembly requirements,
encroachment-prevention precautions
when working near power lines, and
ground condition and power line
assessments.
The preamble to the standard
provides a comprehensive description
of the standard’s requirements. The final
economic analysis located in the
preamble provides a description of the
types of business entities subject to
these requirements, and the types of
professional skills necessary to comply
with the requirements.
Regulatory Alternatives
The Agency considered alternatives to
the many provisions in the proposed
standard, and these are presented and
discussed in the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis below, as well as
throughout the Preamble. Crane
operator certification was one of the
main issues in the rulemaking, and the
Agency concludes that provisions for
certification offer the most prominent
way to consider both a more stringent
standard (requiring certification of
inspectors, riggers, and signal persons in
addition to crane operators) as well as
less stringent option of dropping the
requirement of crane operator
certification altogether.
The Agency has estimated the
additional annualized costs for crane
operator certification to be about $51
million annually—about one-third of
the estimated total costs of the final
standard. Dropping this requirement
would reduce costs and impacts by that
amount, roughly. Without a Federal
regulatory requirement, the level of
operator certification would be
uncertain. A substantial percentage of
operators have already been certified.
The Agency is convinced that
certification significantly improves the
safe practices of crane operators, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

that increased protection has been the
experience in several venues where
certification has been required. Liability
insurers have reduced the premium
rates on employers who use certified
operators. Some states and cities also
currently require crane operators to be
certified. It is likely that crane services
in construction work would be divided
into two separate worlds without a
Federal regulatory requirement: One
with certified operators, perhaps
slightly more expensive but safer, and
one where operators are not certified but
employers still have a requirement to
adequately train them. As it is difficult
to predict what the relative size of the
market would be, it is not possible to
predict or estimate what the effect
would be in terms of future crane safety.
The Agency did have substantial
evidence in the record that operator
certification, although costly, sharply
reduces crane accidents, and did not
adopt this alternative of dropping the
operator certification requirement.
Several commenters in the
rulemaking recommended that riggers,
crane inspectors, and signal persons
also be certified. The final standard
requires riggers who perform tasks such
as assembly/disassembly be qualified, as
defined in the construction standards’
definitions. The annualized cost of
certifying a crane operator is about $400
(spread over 5 years, 7 percent discount
rate). The Agency estimates that
certifying a rigger would cost much less,
about $100 per year; a signal person, on
average, $50 per year; and inspectors as
much as a crane operator. The Agency
estimates that there needs to be, at most,
on average, one certified rigger per
crane; one signal person for every 3
cranes; and about 1,000 certified
inspectors to conduct annual
inspections of all the estimated 123,000
construction cranes. The Agency
estimates that certification will annually
cost about $100 for a rigger, $50 for a
signal person, and $400 for an inspector
(as much as a for a crane operator). The
Agency estimates the total annual cost
of certifying will be $14.5 million ($12.3
million for riggers, $2 million for signal
persons, and $0.4 million for
inspectors). The cost of crane inspection
is likely to increase since many
employers will no longer be able to have
an employee perform an inspection, but
the Agency is not estimating that
increased cost.
Riggers are injured and killed more
frequently than workers in any other
occupation during construction crane
activities. They are injured when cranes
tip over or booms fall, by falling loads,
by electrical shock from power line
contact, and through falls. The

PO 00000

Frm 00223

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48127

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
focused on the safety of the crane itself
(capacity or loading limits, for example),
crane movement or operations,
assembly/disassembly, and power line
risk rather than risks faced by riggers
and signal persons who work with
them. The Agency concludes that more
training and certification for riggers
could provide greater safety for them,
but information in IMIS did not permit
a separate analysis of the role of riggers
in crane safety. No commenter who
advocated certification for riggers
provided more than a qualitative
assertion that increased crane safety
would result. There was similarly no
information in the record that
inspection failures had resulted in
accidents, save for one accident in New
York City that resulted from an
inadequate repair to a tower crane part.
The Agency did not have enough
information in the record to recommend
or support this alternative of requiring
certification for riggers, signal persons,
or inspectors.
C. OMB Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
The final Cranes and Derricks
Standard contains collection of
information requirements (paperwork)
that are subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). In
accordance with the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA–95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)), the
proposed regulation solicited comments
on the information collection included
in the proposal. The Department also
submitted an information collection
request (ICR), titled ‘‘Cranes and
Derricks in Construction (29 CFR part
1926 subpart CC),’’ to OMB for review in
accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) on
the date the proposed regulation was
published. On January 8, 2009, OMB
informed the Department of Labor to use
OMB control number 1218–0261 in
future submissions involving this
rulemaking. OMB also commented,
‘‘This OMB action is not an approval to
conduct or sponsor an information
collection under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.’’
OSHA received no public comments
that addressed specifically the
paperwork burden analysis of the
information collections. A number of
comments, described earlier in this
preamble, contained information
relevant to the costs and burden hours
attendant to the non-paperwork
provisions of the proposal, which OSHA
considered when it developed the
revised burden analysis for the ICR
associated with this final rule.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48128

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Prior to publishing this final
rulemaking, the Department of Labor
submitted the Cranes and Derricks ICR
to OMB for OMB approval. OSHA will
publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register that will announce the results
of that review and include any
applicable OMB control number. That
notice also will include a summary of
the information collection requirements
and burdens imposed by the new
standard. A copy of the ICR is available
as an exhibit at http://
www.regulations.gov. The Department
of Labor notes that a Federal agency
cannot conduct or sponsor a collection
of information unless it is approved by
OMB under the PRA, and displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Also, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no employer shall be
subject to penalty for failing to comply
with a collection of information if the
collection of information does not
display a currently valid OMB control
number.
The final Cranes and Derricks
standard imposes new informationcollection requirements for purposes of
PRA–95. These provisions are necessary
to protect the health and safety of
employees who work with equipment at
construction worksites. The paperwork
requirements impose on employers a
duty to produce and maintain records
when they implement controls and take
other measures to protect workers from
hazards related to cranes and derricks
used in construction. For example, each
construction business that has workers
who operate or are in the vicinity of
cranes and derricks must have, as
applicable, the following documents on
file and available at the job site:
Equipment ratings, employee training
records, written authorizations from
qualified individuals, and qualification
program audits. During an inspection,
OSHA must have access to these records
to determine compliance under
conditions specified by the final
standard. An employer’s failure to
generate and disclose the information
required by this standard will have a
substantial affect on the Agency’s effort
to control and reduce injuries and
fatalities related to the use of cranes and
derricks in construction.
D. Federalism
The Agency reviewed this final rule
according to the most recent Executive
Order (‘‘E.O.’’) on Federalism (E.O.
13132, 64 FR 43225, Aug. 10, 1994).
This E.O. requires that Federal agencies,
to the extent possible, refrain from
limiting State or local policy options,
consult with States before taking actions
that restrict State or local policy

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

options, and take such actions only
when clear constitutional authority
exists, and the problem is national in
scope. The E.O. allows Federal agencies
to preempt State and local law only
with the expressed consent of Congress.
In such cases, Federal agencies must
limit preemption of State and local law
to the extent possible.
Under section 18 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (‘‘OSH
Act’’; 29 U.S.C. 667), Congress expressly
provides that States may adopt, with
Federal approval, a plan for the
development and enforcement of
occupational safety and health
standards; States that obtain Federal
approval for such a plan are referred to
as ‘‘State-Plan States.’’ (29 U.S.C. 667.)
Occupational safety and health
standards developed by State-Plan
States must be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful
employment and places of employment
as the Federal standards. Subject to
these requirements, State-Plan States are
free to develop and enforce under State
law their own requirements for
occupational safety and health
standards.
OSHA has authority under E.O. 13132
to promulgate the final rule in 29 CFR
part 1926 because the employee
exposures related to cranes and derricks
used in construction addressed by the
requirements of the final standard are
national in scope. The Agency
concludes that the requirements in this
final rule will provide employers in
every State with critical information to
use when protecting their employees
from the hazards presented when
working with cranes and derricks.
A number of commenters were
concerned with the preemptive effect of
the final rule in jurisdictions not
covered by an approved State plan.
Representatives of New York City urged
OSHA to make clear that the new
standard will not preempt the City’s
ordinances governing the erection,
dismantling, and operation of cranes,
including crane operator licensing
requirements, that protect the public in
general. (ID–0342; –0404.1.) 142 The
Allied Building Metal Industries
Association, on the other hand, stated
that preemption of local crane laws is
not only preferable, but is mandated by
the OSH Act. (ID–0344.)

The OSH Act does not contain an
express preemption provision.143
However, in accordance with ordinary
conflict preemption principles,
preemption may be implied where the
State law conflicts with Federal law or
is an impediment to full
accomplishment of the Federal purpose.
Gade v. National Solid Wastes
Management Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 100
(1992). The determination whether,
under Gade, a State or local law is
impliedly preempted by a Federal
occupational safety or health standard
involves a detailed examination of the
specific provisions and purposes of the
law. The Secretary previously examined
New York City’s crane ordinances and
concluded that they were not preempted
by the prior crane standard. OSHA has
placed the Secretary’s amicus brief in
Steel Institute of New York v. The City
of New York, No. 09–CV–6539 (CM)
(JCF) on the record. (ID–0419.1.) This
brief presents the agency’s
interpretation of the preemptive effect of
the prior rule on New York City’s crane
ordinances. For the same reasons set
forth in the amicus brief—which are
summarized below—New York City’s
crane ordinances are not preempted by
this final rule.
In the Steel Institute case, the
Secretary concluded that the OSH Act
does not preempt municipal building
codes like New York City’s crane
ordinances, which are designed to
protect the public and neighboring
structures from the hazards of cranes
and do not conflict with OSHA
standards. In Gade, a plurality read the
provisions of sec. 18 of the Act to
preempt supplementary State laws that
are not part of an approved State plan.
505 U.S. at 100–108. However, sec. 18
refers to states, not localities, and does
not evince a clear intention to preempt
local building codes. The Gade decision
did not address local building codes,
and the plurality’s rationale for
concluding that State laws may be
preempted does not apply with equal
measure to municipal building codes.
The plurality relied chiefly on the
availability of sec. 18’s State plan
mechanism for states that wish to
supplement Federal requirements, and
Congress’s intent to encourage states to
assume full responsibility for safety and
health through the State plan process.
(ID–0419.1.) Cities and localities,
however, have no authority under the
Act to submit a State plan. Only a State

142 The City of Chicago Department of Buildings
submitted a late comment expressing the same
concerns as those of New York City. (ID–0348.1.)
The concerns expressed by Chicago are mainly the
same as those of New York, and are addressed in
the discussion of the New York laws.

143 The proposed rule incorrectly stated that sec.
18 of the Act expressly provides OSHA with
authority to preempt State occupational safety and
health standards to the extent that the Agency
promulgates a permanent Federal standard (73 FR
59913, Oct. 9, 2008).

PO 00000

Frm 00224

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
itself may submit a plan and that plan
must apply throughout the State. (ID–
0419.1.) There was no majority
consensus in Gade as to the preemptive
effect of an OSHA standard on
supplementary laws not addressed by
sec. 18.
A variety of factors support the view
that building codes are not the type of
laws Congress intended to preempt in
enacting sec. 18. There is legislative
history supporting this conclusion.
Representative Steiger, a primary
sponsor of the Act, indicated that the
Act would not be preemptive in the
event of an overlap between an OSHA
standard and a local building code. (ID–
0419.1.) The Secretary has interpreted
the Act as not preempting laws such as
building codes and OSHA rulemaking
has long proceeded on the assumption
that local building codes exist in
parallel to OSHA regulations and are
not preempted by them. For example, in
the preamble to the final rule on Exit
Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and
Fire Prevention Plans, OSHA
commended the effectiveness of
building codes while declining to
recognize compliance with building
codes as compliance with the OSHA
standard (67 FR 67950, 67954, Nov. 7,
2002). Strong policy considerations
bolster this understanding. Work
practices and conditions pose a variety
of serious hazards to the public, and
local jurisdictions have enacted a
network of industrial codes, such as
building and electrical codes, that touch
on issues for which there are OSHA
standards. If New York City’s crane
ordinances are preempted because of
their incidental impact on worker
safety, building and electrical codes,
and many other types of local regulation
will also be in jeopardy. The text and
history of the Act give no indication that
Congress intended such a sweeping
preemptive effect. (ID–0419.1.)
A separate reason for concluding that
New York City’s crane laws are not
preempted is that they are laws of
general applicability. The Gade
plurality stated that laws of general
applicability, such as traffic or fire
safety laws, that regulate the conduct of
workers and nonworkers as members of
the general public would not be
preempted regardless of their
substantial effect on worker safety. 505
U.S. at 107.
The New York City crane ordinances
are not designed to protect workers as
a class; they regulate crane operations
only to the extent they pose a hazard to
the public. The effect of the ordinances
is to protect a group far larger than
employees on a construction site.
Cranes operate in some of the most

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

densely populated areas of the city. (ID–
0404.1; –0342.) This density makes it
generally impossible to locate a crane or
derrick so that it will not operate over
or adjacent to crowded streets,
sidewalks and occupied buildings. Id.
For the same reason, mobile cranes,
which can have booms hundreds of feet
in length, must park on and operate
from, the street. Id. On any given day,
more than 300 cranes, including 30–40
tower cranes, operate in New York
City.144 Id. A recent study concluded
that a tower crane operating in NYC
poses a risk to 12 to 15 surrounding
buildings, several streets, and 1,000–
1,500 people. Id. A crane accident on
March 15, 2008 killed a woman in a
brownstone one block away, destroyed
eighteen buildings and damaged many
more within a several-block radius, and
forced hundreds of people from their
homes. Id. Twelve members of the
public were injured in crane accidents
between 2006 and 2008. Id. Although
compliance with the City’s ordinances
will unquestionably protect workers,
such protection is incidental to
protection of all persons in the vicinity
regardless of their status as employees
or non-employees.
The City’s crane laws are analogous to
fire and safety laws in that they
comprehensively address a public
hazard by imposing obligations on a
wide variety of persons without regard
to the existence of an employment
relationship. Many of these duties are
imposed on manufacturers, owners,
engineers, designated representatives
and others who need not be employers
or employees. By contrast, this final
rule, like the prior crane rule, applies
only to construction work as defined in
OSHA regulations, which relates to the
performance of physical trade labor on
site and does not generally include
engineers, who are the subject of several
of the City’s ordinances.
Comparison of the City’s crane
ordinances to fire safety laws—a
category of laws expressly recognized in
Gade as being ‘‘generally applicable’’—
further bolsters the argument that the
City’s laws are not preempted. 505 U.S.
at 107. Fire safety laws impose
requirements that directly and
substantially regulate workplace
conduct to protect the public and
property from fire. (ID–0419.1.) For
example, both the International Fire
Code, on which many local codes are
based, and the New York City Fire Code,
contain provisions applicable to specific
workplaces, such as Aviation Facilities
144 This means that tower cranes pose a risk to
upwards of 60,000 people on any given day (40 ×
1,500 = 60,000).

PO 00000

Frm 00225

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48129

and Operations, and Semiconductor
Fabrication Facilities, and specific work
operations, such as Combustible DustProducing Operations and Welding and
Other Hot Work. Id. The New York and
International Fire Codes also contain
requirements applicable during the
construction of buildings, including
requirements for daily disposal of waste
and limitations on the use of portable
oxygen containers and internalcombustion-powered equipment at the
construction site. Id. Like the City’s
crane safety laws, these work-related
fire safety laws include training,
certification and recordkeeping
requirements. Id. The fact that New
York City’s crane ordinances similarly
regulate workplace conduct is therefore
fully consistent with the City
ordinances being laws of general
applicability.
Although the interpretation outlined
above was developed based on
consideration of the specific provisions
of New York City’s crane ordinances,
the preemption principles set forth are
generally applicable. The agency does
not believe that this final rule preempts
any non-conflicting local or municipal
building code designed to protect the
public from the hazards of cranes.
E. State-Plan States
When Federal OSHA promulgates a
new standard or more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, the
27 States and U.S. Territories with their
own OSHA-approved occupational
safety and health plans (‘‘State-Plan
States’’) must amend their standards to
reflect the new standard or amendment,
or show OSHA why such action is
unnecessary, e.g., because an existing
State standard covering this area is ‘‘at
least as effective’’ as the new Federal
standard or amendment. 29 CFR
1953.5(a). The State standard must be at
least as effective as the final Federal
rule, must be applicable to both the
private and public (State and local
government employees) sectors, and
must be completed within six months of
the promulgation date of the final
Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates
a new standard or amendment that does
not impose additional or more stringent
requirements than an existing standard,
State-Plan States are not required to
amend their standards, although the
Agency may encourage them to do so.
The 27 States and U.S. Territories with
OSHA-approved occupational safety
and health plans are: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48130

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming;
Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New
York, and the Virgin Islands have
OSHA-approved State Plans that apply
to State and local government
employees only.
This final rule results in more
stringent requirements for the work it
covers. Therefore, States and Territories
with approved State Plans must adopt
comparable amendments to their
standards within six months of the
promulgation date of this rule unless
they demonstrate that such amendments
are not necessary because their existing
standards are at least as effective in
protecting workers as this final rule.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
OSHA reviewed this final rule
according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’; 2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.) and Executive Order 12875
(58 FR 58093, Oct. 28, 1993). As
discussed above in section V.B of this
preamble (‘‘Summary of the Final
Economic Analysis, and Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis’’), the Agency
estimates that compliance with this rule
will require private-sector employers to
expend about $154.1 million each year.
However, while this rule establishes a
Federal mandate in the private sector,
the Agency’s standards do not apply to
State, local, or Tribal governments
except in States that have elected
voluntarily to adopt a State Plan
approved by the Agency. Consequently,
this final rule does not meet the
definition of a ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandate’’ (see sec.
421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5))).
However, the rule imposes costs of over
$100 million per year on the private
sector, and is thus subject to the
requirement under UMRA for review of
private sector costs. That requirement is
met in section V.B. of the preamble.
G. Applicability of Existing Consensus
Standards
Some of the types of equipment
subject to this final standard are
addressed by current national consensus
standards in the ASME B30 series,
including: ASME B30.5–2004, ‘‘Mobile
and Locomotive Cranes’’; ASME B30.6–
2003, ‘‘Derricks’’; ASME B30.8–2004,
‘‘Floating Cranes and Floating Derricks’’;
ASME B30.3–2004, ‘‘Construction
Tower Cranes’’; ASME B30.14–2004,
‘‘Side Boom Tractors’’; and ASME
B30.2–2001, ‘‘Overhead and Gantry
Cranes.’’ In addition, ASME B30.7–2005,
‘‘Base-Mounted Drum Hoists,’’ addresses
a type of equipment that is often a
component of derricks, and ASME
B30.23–2005, ‘‘Personnel Lifting
Systems,’’ addresses issues that are

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

covered by § 1926.1431, Hoisting
personnel.
The Committee consulted these
ASME standards (or the most current
versions available at the time) and other
resources in developing its proposal. In
most instances, the ASME standards
that the Committee consulted were
entered into the docket, including:
ASME B30.5–2000 (OSHA–S030–2006–
0663–0334); ASME B30.5a–2002
Addenda (OSHA–S030–2006–0663–
0335); ASME B30.6–2003 (OSHA–S030–
2006–0663–0337); ASME B30.17–2003
(OSHA–S030–2006–0663–0338); ASME
B30.3–1996 (OSHA–S030–2006–0663–
0353); and ASME B30.23–1998 (OSHA–
S030–2006–0663–0354). When newer
versions of the ASME standards were
issued after the Committee finished its
work, OSHA examined the updated
standards to determine if the provisions
of the updated standards deviated in a
significant way from provisions on
which the Committee relied. OSHA
entered the updated standards into the
record of this rulemaking. For the most
part, OSHA did not find significant
deviations between the updated
versions and the versions reviewed by
the Committee. In the few instances in
which deviations occurred, OSHA
identified those deviations and asked
for public comment on any issues
raised.
As discussed in detail in the
Summary and Explanation of the
standard, a number of provisions in this
final rule contain concepts that are
similar to the concepts underlying the
various ASME standards. However, the
Committee determined that, in most
instances, the wording of the provisions
in these ASME standards needed
revision to improve the enforceability,
clarity, and ease of use.
For some issues, the ASME standards
do not address issues covered by this
final rule, or the Committee determined
that a different approach was necessary.
For example, in the provisions on
inspections (§§ 1926.1412 and
1926.1413), the Committee concluded
that shift, monthly, and annual
inspection intervals are most
appropriate, in contrast to the ASME
approach, which uses ‘‘frequent’’ and
‘‘periodic’’ intervals. In the provisions
addressing assembly/disassembly
(§§ 1926.1403 through 1926.1406) and
the encroachment-prevention provisions
for power lines (§§ 1926.1407 through
1926.1411), the Committee adopted
approaches with no comparable
counterparts in the ASME standards.
In some instances, the Committee
determined that it was appropriate to
incorporate ASME standards by
reference, in whole or in part. For

PO 00000

Frm 00226

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

example, in § 1926.1433 (Design,
construction and testing), the rule
incorporates by reference ANSI B30.5–
1968, safety code for ‘‘Crawler,
Locomotive, and Truck Cranes,’’ PCSA
Std. No. 2 (1968), for crawler, truck and
locomotive cranes manufactured prior
to the effective date of this final rule,
and incorporates portions of ASME
B30.5a–2004, ‘‘Mobile and Locomotive
Cranes,’’ for mobile cranes (including
crawler and truck cranes) and
locomotive cranes manufactured on or
after the effective date of this final rule.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926
Construction industry, Incorporation
by reference, Occupational safety and
health, Safety.
VI. Authority and Signature
David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, directed the
preparation of this notice. The Agency
is issuing this final rule under the
following authorities: Sections 4, 6(b),
8(c), and 8(g) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,
655, 657); Section 3704 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.); Section 4 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 5–
2007 (72 FR 31159, Jun. 5, 2007); and
29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, on July 16,
2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.

VII. Amendments to Standards
For the reasons stated in the preamble
of this final rule, the Agency is
amending 29 CFR part 1926 to read as
follows:

■

PART 1926—[AMENDED]
Subpart A—General
1. The authority citation for subpart A
of 29 CFR part 1926 is retained as
follows:

■

Authority: Sec. 3704, Contract Work Hours
and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333);
secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);
Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR
8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR
35736), 6–96 (62 FR 111), or 5–2007 (72 FR
31160) as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

2. Section 1926.6 is added to read as
follows:

■

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.6

Incorporation by reference.

(a) The standards of agencies of the
U.S. Government, and organizations
which are not agencies of the U.S.
Government which are incorporated by
reference in this part, have the same
force and effect as other standards in
this part. Only the mandatory
provisions (i.e., provisions containing
the word ‘‘shall’’ or other mandatory
language) of standards incorporated by
reference are adopted as standards
under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act. The locations where these
standards may be examined are as
follows:
(1) Offices of the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Frances Perkins
Building, Washington, DC 20210.
(2) The Regional and Field Offices of
the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, which are listed in the
U.S. Government Manual.
(b) The materials listed in paragraphs
(g) through (ff) of this section are
incorporated by reference in the
corresponding sections noted as they
exist on the date of the approval, and a
notice of any change in these materials
will be published in the Federal
Register. These incorporations by
reference were approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(c) Copies of standards listed in this
section and issued by private standards
organizations are available for purchase
from the issuing organizations at the
addresses or through the other contact
information listed below for these
private standards organizations. In
addition, these standards are available
for inspection at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of
these standards at NARA, telephone:
202–741–6030, or go to http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html. Also, the standards
are available for inspection at any
Regional Office of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), or at the OSHA Docket Office,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N–
2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
202–693–2350 (TTY number: 877–889–
5627).
(d) [Reserved.]
(e) [Reserved.]
(f) [Reserved.]
(g) The following material is available
for purchase from the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH), 1330 Kemper
Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240;
telephone: 513–742–6163; fax: 513–

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

742–3355; e-mail: [email protected]; Web
site: http://www.acgih.org:
(1) Threshold Limit Values of
Airborne Contaminants for 1970, 1970,
IBR approved for § 1926.55(a) and
Appendix A of § 1926.55.
(h) The following material is available
for purchase from the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25
West 43rd Street, Fourth Floor, New
York, NY 10036; telephone: 212–642–
4900; fax: 212–302–1286; e-mail:
[email protected]; Web site: http://
www.ansi.org/.
(1) ANSI A10.3–1970, Safety
Requirements for Explosive-Actuated
Fastening Tools, IBR approved for
§ 1926.302(e).
(2) ANSI A10.4–1963, Safety
Requirements for Workmen’s Hoists,
IBR approved for § 1926.552(c).
(3) ANSI A10.5–1969, Safety
Requirements for Material Hoists, IBR
approved for § 1926.552(b).
(4) ANSI A11.1–1965 (R1970),
Practice for Industrial Lighting, IBR
approved for § 1926.56(b).
(5) ANSI A17.1–1965, Elevators,
Dumbwaiters, Escalators, and Moving
Walks, IBR approved for § 1926.552(d).
(6) ANSI A17.1a–1967, Elevators,
Dumbwaiters, Escalators, and Moving
Walks Supplement, IBR approved for
§ 1926.552(d).
(7) ANSI A17.1b–1968, Elevators,
Dumbwaiters, Escalators, and Moving
Walks Supplement, IBR approved for
§ 1926.552(d).
(8) ANSI A17.1c–1969, Elevators,
Dumbwaiters, Escalators, and Moving
Walks Supplement, IBR approved for
§ 1926.552(d).
(9) ANSI A17.1d–1970, Elevators,
Dumbwaiters, Escalators, and Moving
Walks Supplement, IBR approved for
§ 1926.552(d).
(10) ANSI A17.2–1960, Practice for
the Inspection of Elevators (Inspector’s
Manual), IBR approved for
§ 1926.552(d).
(11) ANSI A17.2a–1965, Practice for
the Inspection of Elevators (Inspector’s
Manual) Supplement, IBR approved for
§ 1926.552(d).
(12) ANSI A17.2b–1967, Practice for
the Inspection of Elevators (Inspector’s
Manual) Supplement, IBR approved for
§ 1926.552(d).
(13) ANSI A92.2–1969, Vehicle
Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work
Platforms, IBR approved for
§§ 1926.453(a) and 1926.453(b).
(14) ANSI B7.1–1970, Safety Code for
the Use, Care, and Protection of
Abrasive Wheels, IBR approved for
§§ 1926.57(g), 1926.303(b), 1926.303(c),
and 1926.303(d).
(15) ANSI B20.1–1957, Safety Code
for Conveyors, Cableways, and Related

PO 00000

Frm 00227

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48131

Equipment, IBR approved for
§ 1926.555(a).
(16) ANSI B56.1–1969, Safety
Standards for Powered Industrial
Trucks, IBR approved for § 1926.602(c).
(17) ANSI J6.1–1950 (R1971), Rubber
Insulating Line Hose, IBR approved for
§ 1926.951(a).
(18) ANSI J6.2–1950 (R1971), Rubber
Insulating Hoods, IBR approved for
§ 1926.951(a).
(19) ANSI J6.4–1971, Rubber
Insulating Blankets, IBR approved for
§ 1926.951(a).
(20) ANSI J6.5–1971, Rubber
Insulating Sleeves, IBR approved for
§ 1926.951(a).
(21) ANSI J6.6–1971, Rubber
Insulating Gloves, IBR approved for
§ 1926.951(a).
(22) ANSI J6.7–1935 (R1971), Rubber
Matting for Use Around Electric
Apparatus, IBR approved for
§ 1926.951(a).
(23) ANSI O1.1–1961, Safety Code for
Woodworking Machinery, IBR approved
for § 1926.304(f).
(24) ANSI Z35.1–1968, Specifications
for Accident Prevention Signs, IBR
approved for § 1926.200(i).
(25) ANSI Z35.2–1968, Specifications
for Accident Prevention Tags, IBR
approved for § 1926.200(i).
(26) ANSI Z49.1–1967, Safety in
Welding and Cutting, IBR approved for
§ 1926.350(j).
(27) ANSI Z87.1–1968, Practice for
Occupational and Educational Eye and
Face Protection, IBR approved for
§ 1926.102(a).
(28) ANSI Z89.1–1969, Safety
Requirements for Industrial Head
Protection, IBR approved for
§ 1926.100(b).
(29) ANSI Z89.2–1971, Industrial
Protective Helmets for Electrical
Workers, Class B, IBR approved for
§§ 1926.100(c) and 1926.951(a).
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) The following material is available
for purchase from the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, PO Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA, 19428–2959;
telephone: 610–832–9585; fax: 610–
832–9555; e-mail: [email protected];
Web site: http://www.astm.org/:
(1) ASTM A370–1968, Methods and
Definitions for Mechanical Testing and
Steel Products, IBR approved for
§ 1926.1001(f).
(2) ASTM B117–1964, 50 Hour Test,
IBR approved for § 1926.959(a).
(3) ASTM D56–1969, Standard
Method of Test for Flash Point by the
Tag Closed Tester, IBR approved for
§ 1926.155(i).
(4) ASTM D93–1969, Standard
Method of Test for Flash Point by the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48132

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Pensky Martens Closed Tester, IBR
approved for § 1926.155(i).
(5) ASTM D323–1958 (R1968),
Standard Method of Test for Vapor
Pressure of Petroleum Products (Reid
Method), IBR approved for
§ 1926.155(m).
(k) The following material is available
for purchase from the American Society
of Agricultural and Biological Engineers
(ASABE), 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph,
MI 49085; telephone: 269–429–0300;
fax: 269–429–3852; e-mail:
[email protected]; Web site: http://
www.asabe.org/:
(1) ASAE R313.1–1971, Soil Cone
Penetrometer, reaffirmed 1975, IBR
approved for § 1926.1002(e).
(l) The following material is available
for purchase from the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three
Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016;
telephone: 1–800–843–2763; fax: 973–
882–1717; e-mail: [email protected];
Web site: http://www.asme.org/:
(1) ASME B30.2–2005, Overhead and
Gantry Cranes (Top Running Bridge,
Single or Multiple Girder, Top Running
Trolley Hoist), issued Dec. 30, 2005
(‘‘ASME B30.2–2005’’), IBR approved for
§ 1926.1438(b).
(2) ASME B30.5–2004, Mobile and
Locomotive Cranes, issued Sept. 27,
2004 (‘‘ASME B30.5–2004’’), IBR
approved for §§ 1926.1414(b);
1926.1414(e); 1926.1433(b).
(3) ASME B30.7–2001, Base-Mounted
Drum Hoists, issued Jan. 21, 2002
(‘‘ASME B30.7–2001’’), IBR approved for
§ 1926.1436(e).
(4) ASME B30.14–2004, Side Boom
Tractors, issued Sept. 20, 2004 (‘‘ASME
B30.14–2004’’), IBR approved for
§ 1926.1440(c).
(5) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Section VIII, 1968, IBR approved
for §§ 1926.152(i), 1926.306(a), and
1926.603(a).
(6) ASME Power Boilers, Section I,
1968, IBR approved for § 1926.603(a).
(m) The following material is
available for purchase from the
American Welding Society (AWS), 550
N.W. LeJeune Road, Miami, Florida
33126; telephone: 1–800–443–9353;
Web site: http://www.aws.org/:
(1) AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2002, Structural
Welding Code—Steel, 18th ed., ANSI
approved Aug. 31, 2001 (‘‘AWS D1.1/
D1.1M:2002’’), IBR approved for
§ 1926.1436(c).
(2) ANSI/AWS D14.3–94,
Specification for Welding Earthmoving
and Construction Equipment, ANSI
approved Jun. 11, 1993 (‘‘ANSI/AWS
D14.3–94’’), IBR approved for
§ 1926.1436(c).
(n) The following material is available
for purchase from the British Standards

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Institution (BSI), 389 Chiswick High
Road, London, W4 4AL, United
Kingdom; telephone: +44 20 8996 9001;
fax: +44 20 8996 7001; e-mail:
[email protected]; Web site:
http://www.bsigroup.com/:
(1) BS EN 13000:2004, Cranes—
Mobile Cranes, published Jan. 4, 2006
(‘‘BS EN 13000:2004’’), IBR approved for
§ 1926.1433(c).
(2) BS EN 14439:2006, Cranes—
Safety—Tower Cranes, published Jan.
31, 2007 (‘‘BS EN 14439:2006’’), IBR
approved for § 1926.1433(c).
(o) The following material is available
for purchase from the Bureau of
Reclamation, United States Department
of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW.,
Washington DC 20240; telephone: 202–
208–4501; Web site: http://
www.usbr.gov/:
(1) Safety and Health Regulations for
Construction, Part II, Sept. 1971, IBR
approved for § 1926.1000(f).
(p) The following material is available
for purchase from the California
Department of Industrial Relations, 455
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco CA
94102; telephone: (415) 703–5070; email: [email protected]; Web site: http://
www.dir.ca.gov/:
(1) Construction Safety Orders, IBR
approved for § 1926.1000(f).
(q) [Reserved.]
(r) [Reserved.]
(s) [Reserved.]
(t) [Reserved.]
(u) The following material is available
for purchase from the Federal Highway
Administration, United States
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC
20590; telephone: 202–366–4000; Web
site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/:
(1) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, Millennium Edition, Dec. 2000,
IBR approved for §§ 1926.200(g),
1926.201(a), and 1926.202.
(v) The following material is available
for purchase from the General Services
Administration (GSA), 1800 F Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20405; telephone:
(202) 501–0800; Web site: http://
www.gsa.gov/:
(1) QQ–P–416, Federal Specification
Plating Cadmium (Electrodeposited),
IBR approved for § 1926.104(e).
(w) The following material is
available for purchase from the Institute
of Makers of Explosives (IME), 1120
19th Street, NW., Suite 310,
Washington, DC 20036; telephone: 202–
429–9280; fax: 202–429–9280; e-mail:
[email protected]; Web site: http://
www.ime.org/:
(1) IME Pub. No. 2, American Table of
Distances for Storage of Explosives, Jun.
5, 1964, IBR approved for § 1926.914(a).
(2) IME Pub. No. 20, Radio Frequency
Energy—A Potential Hazard in the Use

PO 00000

Frm 00228

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of Electric Blasting Caps, Mar. 1968, IBR
approved for § 1926.900(k).
(x) The following material is available
for purchase from the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO),
1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, Case postale
56, CH–1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland;
telephone: +41 22 749 01 11; fax: +41 22
733 34 30; Web site: http://
www.iso.org/:
(1) ISO 11660–1:2008(E), Cranes—
Access, guards and restraints—Part 1:
General, 2d ed., Feb. 15, 2008 (‘‘ISO
11660–1:2008(E)’’), IBR approved for
§ 1926.1423(c).
(2) ISO 11660–2:1994(E), Cranes—
Access, guards and restraints—Part 2:
Mobile cranes, 1994 (‘‘ISO 11660–
2:1994(E)’’), IBR approved for
§ 1926.1423(c).
(3) ISO 11660–3:2008(E), Cranes—
Access, guards and restraints—Part 3:
Tower cranes, 2d ed., Feb. 15, 2008
(‘‘ISO 11660–3:2008(E)’’), IBR approved
for § 1926.1423(c).
(y) The following material is available
for purchase from the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), 1
Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169;
telephone: 617–770–3000; fax: 617–
770–0700; Web site: http://
www.nfpa.org/:
(1) NFPA 10A–1970, Maintenance
and Use of Portable Fire Extinguishers,
IBR approved for § 1926.150(c).
(2) NFPA 13–1969, Standard for the
Installation of Sprinkler Systems, IBR
approved for § 1926.152(d).
(3) NFPA 30–1969, The Flammable
and Combustible Liquids Code, IBR
approved for § 1926.152(c).
(4) NFPA 80–1970, Standard for Fire
Doors and Windows, Class E or F
Openings, IBR approved for
§ 1926.152(b).
(5) NFPA 251–1969, Standard
Methods of Fire Test of Building
Construction and Material, IBR
approved for §§ 1926.152(b) and
1926.155(f).
(6) NFPA 385–1966, Standard for
Tank Vehicles for Flammable and
Combustible Liquids, IBR approved for
§ 1926.152(g).
(z) [Reserved.]
(aa) The following material is
available for purchase from the Power
Crane and Shovel Association (PCSA),
6737 W. Washington Street, Suite 2400,
Milwaukee, WI 53214; telephone: 1–
800–369–2310; fax: 414–272–1170; Web
site: http://www.aem.org/CBC/
ProdSpec/PCSA/:
(1) PCSA Std. No. 1, Mobile Crane
and Excavator Standards, 1968, IBR
approved for § 1926.602(b).
(2) PCSA Std. No. 2, Mobile Hydraulic
Crane Standards, 1968 (‘‘PCSA Std. No.
2 (1968)’’), IBR approved for

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
§§ 1926.602(b), 1926.1433(a), and
1926.1501(a).
(3) PCSA Std. No. 3, Mobile Hydraulic
Excavator Standards, 1969, IBR
approved for § 1926.602(b).
(bb) [Reserved.]
(cc) [Reserved.]
(dd) The following material is
available for purchase from the Society
of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 400
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA
15096; telephone: 1–877–606–7323; fax:
724–776–0790; Web site: http://
www.sae.org/:
(1) SAE 1970 Handbook, IBR
approved for § 1926.602(b).
(2) SAE 1971 Handbook, IBR
approved for § 1926.1001(h).
(3) SAE J166–1971, Trucks and
Wagons, IBR approved for § 1926.602(a).
(4) SAE J168–1970, Protective
Enclosures—Test Procedures and
Performance Requirements, IBR
approved for § 1926.1002(a).
(5) SAE J185 (reaf. May 2003), Access
Systems for Off-Road Machines,
reaffirmed May 2003 (‘‘SAE J185 (May
1993)’’), IBR approved for
§ 1926.1423(c).
(6) SAE J236–1971, Self-Propelled
Graders, IBR approved for § 1926.602(a).
(7) SAE J237–1971, Front End Loaders
and Dozers, IBR approved for
§ 126.602(a).
(8) SAE J319b–1971, Self-Propelled
Scrapers, IBR approved for
§ 1926.602(a).
(9) SAE J320a–1971, Minimum
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired,
Self-Propelled Scrapers, IBR approved
for § 1926.1001(h).
(10) SAE J321a–1970, Fenders for
Pneumatic-Tired Earthmoving Haulage
Equipment, IBR approved for
§ 1926.602(a).
(11) SAE J333a–1970, Operator
Protection for Agricultural and Light
Industrial Tractors, IBR approved for
§ 1926.602(a).
(11) SAE J386–1969, Seat Belts for
Construction Equipment, IBR approved
for § 1926.602(a).
(12) SAE J394–1971, Minimum
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired
Front End Loaders and Robber-Tired
Dozers, IBR approved for
§ 1926.1001(h).
(13) SAE J395–1971, Minimum
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors
and Crawler-Type Loaders, IBR
approved for § 1926.1001(h).
(14) SAE J396–1971, Minimum
Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Motor Graders,
IBR approved for § 1926.1001(h).
(15) SAE J397–1969, Critical Zone
Characteristics and Dimensions for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Operators of Construction and Industrial
Machinery, IBR approved for
§ 1926.1001(f).
(16) SAE J743a–1964, Tractor
Mounted Side Boom, 1964 (‘‘SAE J743a–
1964’’), IBR approved for § 1926.1501(a).
(17) SAE J959–1966, Lifting Crane
Wire-Rope Strength Factors, 1966 (‘‘SAE
J959–1966’’), IBR approved for
§ 1926.1501(a).
(18) SAE J987 (rev. Jun. 2003), Lattice
Boom Cranes—Method of Test, revised
Jun. 2003 (‘‘SAE J987 (Jun. 2003)’’), IBR
approved for § 1926.1433(c).
(19) SAE J1063 (rev. Nov. 1993),
Cantilevered Boom Crane Structures—
Method of Test, revised Nov. 1993
(‘‘SAE J1063 (Nov. 1993)’’), IBR
approved for § 1926.1433(c).
(ee) The following material is
available for purchase from the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314;
telephone: 202–761–0011; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site:
http://www.usace.army.mil/:
(1) EM–385–1–1, General Safety
Requirements, Mar. 1967, IBR approved
for § 1926.1000(f).
(ff) The following material is available
for purchase from standards resellers
such as the Document Center Inc., 111
Industrial Road, Suite 9, Belmont, CA
94002; telephone: 650–591–7600; fax:
650–591–7617; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://
www.document-center.com/:
(1) ANSI B15.1–1953 (R1958), Safety
Code for Mechanical PowerTransmission Apparatus, revised 1958,
IBR approved for §§ 1926.300(b)(2) and
1926.1501(a).
(2) ANSI B30.2.0–1967, Safety Code
for Overhead and Gantry Cranes,
approved May 4, 1967, IBR approved for
§ 1926.1501(d).
(3) ANSI B30.5–1968, Crawler,
Locomotive, and Truck Cranes,
approved Dec. 16, 1968, IBR approved
for §§ 1926.1433(a), 1926.1501(a), and
1926.1501(b).
(4) ANSI B30.6–1969, Safety Code for
Derricks, approved Dec. 18, 1967, IBR
approved for § 1926.1501(e).
Subpart C—General Safety and Health
Provisions
3. The authority citation for subpart C
of 29 CFR part 1926 is retained as
follows:

■

Authority: Sec. 3704, Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C.
333); secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–71
(36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48
FR 35736), 6–96 (62 FR 111), or 5–2007 (72
FR 31160) as applicable; and 29 CFR part
1911.

PO 00000

Frm 00229

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

§ 1926.31

48133

[Reserved.]

4. Section 1926.31 is removed and
reserved.

■

Subpart L—Scaffolds
5. The authority citation for subpart L
of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised to read
as follows:

■

Authority: Section 107, Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act
(Construction Safety Act)(40 U.S.C. 333);
Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);
Secretary of Labor’s Order Nos. 1–90 (55 FR
9033) and 5–2007 (72 FR 31159); and 29 CFR
part 1911.

6. Section 1926.450 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

■

§ 1926.450 Scope, application, and
definitions applicable to this subpart.

(a) Scope and application. This
subpart applies to all scaffolds used in
workplaces covered by this part. It does
not apply to crane or derrick suspended
personnel platforms. The criteria for
aerial lifts are set out exclusively in
§ 1926.453.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart M—Fall Protection
7. The authority citation for subpart M
of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised to read
as follows:

■

Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 3701);
Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,
655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s Order Nos. 1–
90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000
(65 FR 50017), and 5–2007 (72 FR 31159);
and 29 CFR part 1911.

8. Section 1926.500 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding
paragraph (a)(3)(v), and revising
paragraph (a)(4), to read as follows:

■

§ 1926.500 Scope, application, and
definitions applicable to this subpart.

(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Requirements relating to fall
protection for employees working on
cranes and derricks are provided in
subpart CC of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(v) Criteria for steps, handholds,
ladders, and grabrails/guardrails/
railings required by subpart CC are
provided in subpart CC. Sections
1926.502(a), (c) through (e), and (i)
apply to activities covered under
subpart CC unless otherwise stated in
subpart CC. No other paragraphs of
§ 1926.502 apply to subpart CC.
*
*
*
*
*

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48134

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
conjunction with derricks. Basemounted drum hoists used in
conjunction with derricks must conform
to § 1926.1436(e).

(4) Section 1926.503 sets forth
requirements for training in the
installation and use of fall protection
systems, except in relation to steel
erection activities and the use of
equipment covered by subpart CC.
Subpart DD—Cranes and Derricks
Used in Demolition and Underground
Construction
9. New subpart DD, consisting of
§ 1926.1500 is added to read as follows:

■

Subpart DD—Cranes and Derricks
Used in Demolition and Underground
Construction
Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s
Order Nos. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR
25059), or 9–83 (49 FR 35736), and 5–2007
(72 FR 31159).
§ 1926.1500

Scope.

This subpart applies only to
employers engaged in demolition work
covered by § 1926.856 and § 1926.858,
and underground construction work
covered by § 1926.800. This subpart
applies in lieu of § 1926 subpart CC.
Subpart N—Cranes, Derricks, Hoists,
Elevators, and Conveyors
10. The authority citation for subpart
N of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised to read
as follows:

■

Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s
Order Nos. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR
25059), or 9–83 (49 FR 35736), and 5–2007
(72 FR 31159).

11. The heading to subpart N of 29
CFR part 1926 is revised to read as
follows:

■

Subpart N—Helicopters, Hoists,
Elevators, and Conveyors
*

*

*

§ 1926.550

*

*

[Redesignated as § 1926.1501]

12. Section 1926.550 is redesignated
as § 1926.1501 in subpart DD.

■

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.550

[Reserved]

13. Section 1926.550 is reserved.
■ 14. Section 1926.553 is amended by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■

§ 1926.553

Base-mounted drum hoists.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) This section does not apply to
base-mounted drum hoists used in

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Subpart O—Motorized Vehicles,
Mechanical Equipment, and Marine
Operations
15. The authority citation for subpart
O of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised to read
as follows:

■

Authority: Section 107, Construction
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333);
Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);
Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR
8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR
35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111),
or 5–2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable.
Section 1926.602 also issued under 29 CFR
part 1911.

16. Section 1926.600 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(6) to read as
follows:

■

§ 1926.600

Equipment.

(a) General Requirements. * * *
(6) All equipment covered by this
subpart shall comply with the following
requirements when working or being
moved in the vicinity of power lines or
energized transmitters, except where
electrical distribution and transmission
lines have been deenergized and visibly
grounded at point of work or where
insulating barriers, not a part of or an
attachment to the equipment or
machinery, have been erected to prevent
physical contact with the lines:
(i) For lines rated 50 kV or below,
minimum clearance between the lines
and any part of the crane or load shall
be 10 feet;
(ii) For lines rated over 50 kV,
minimum clearance between the lines
and any part of the crane or load shall
be 10 feet plus 0.4 inch for each 1 kV
over 50 kV, or twice the length of the
line insulator, but never less than 10
feet;
(iii) In transit with no load and boom
lowered, the equipment clearance shall
be a minimum of 4 feet for voltages less
than 50 kV, and 10 feet for voltages over
50 kV, up to and including 345 kV, and
16 feet for voltages up to and including
750 kV;
(iv) A person shall be designated to
observe clearance of the equipment and
give timely warning for all operations
where it is difficult for the operator to
maintain the desired clearance by visual
means;
(v) Cage-type boom guards, insulating
links, or proximity warning devices may
be used on cranes, but the use of such
devices shall not alter the requirements
of any other regulation of this part even

PO 00000

Frm 00230

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

if such device is required by law or
regulation;
(vi) Any overhead wire shall be
considered to be an energized line
unless and until the person owning
such line or the electrical utility
authorities indicate that it is not an
energized line and it has been visibly
grounded;
(vii) Prior to work near transmitter
towers where an electrical charge can be
induced in the equipment or materials
being handled, the transmitter shall be
de-energized or tests shall be made to
determine if electrical charge is induced
on the crane. The following precautions
shall be taken when necessary to
dissipate induced voltages:
(A) The equipment shall be provided
with an electrical ground directly to the
upper rotating structure supporting the
boom; and
(B) Ground jumper cables shall be
attached to materials being handled by
boom equipment when electrical charge
is induced while working near
energized transmitters. Crews shall be
provided with nonconductive poles
having large alligator clips or other
similar protection to attach the ground
cable to the load.
(C) Combustible and flammable
materials shall be removed from the
immediate area prior to operations.
Subpart R—Steel Erection
17. The authority citation for subpart
R of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised to read
as follows:

■

Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s
Order Nos. 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002 (67
FR 65008), and 5–2007 (72 FR 31159); and
29 CFR part 1911.

18. Section 1926.753 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(4) to read
as follows:

■

§ 1926.753

Hoisting and rigging.

(a) All the provisions of subpart CC
apply to hoisting and rigging with the
exception of § 1926.1431(a).
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4) Cranes or derricks may be used to
hoist employees on a personnel
platform when work under this subpart
is being conducted, provided that all
provisions of § 1926.1431 (except for
§ 1926.1431(a)) are met.
*
*
*
*
*

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart S—Underground
Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams,
and Compressed Air
19. The authority citation for subpart
S of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised to read
as follows:

■

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours
and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333);
secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor’s Orders 12–71 (36
FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR
35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111),
or 5–2007 (72 FR 31159) as applicable.

24. The authority citation for subpart
V of part 1926 is revised to read as
follows:

■

Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 3701); Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s
Order Nos. 12–71 (36 FR 8754); 8–76 (41 FR
25059); 9–83 (48 FR 35736, 1–90 (55 FR
9033), and 5–2007 (72 FR 31159). Section
1926.951 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

25. Section 1926.952 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

20. Section 1926.800 is amended by
revising paragraph (t) to read as follows:

■

§ 1926.800

§ 1926.952

■

Underground construction.

*

*
*
*
*
(t) Hoisting unique to underground
construction. Employers must comply
with § 1926.1501(g) of § 1926 subpart
DD. Except as modified by this
paragraph (t), the following provisions
of subpart N of this part apply:
Requirements for material hoists are
found in §§ 1926.552(a) and (b) of this
part. Requirements for personnel hoists
are found in the personnel hoists
requirements of §§ 1926.552(a) and (c)
of this part and in the elevator
requirement of §§ 1926.552(a) and (d) of
this part.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart T—Demolition
21. The authority citation for subpart
S of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised to read
as follows:

■

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours
and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333);
secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor’s Orders 12–71 (36
FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR
35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111),
or 5–2007 (72 FR 31159) as applicable.

22. Section 1926.856 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

■

§ 1926.856 Removal of walls, floors, and
material with equipment.

*

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Subpart V—Power Transmission and
Distribution

*
*
*
*
(c) Mechanical equipment used shall
meet the requirements specified in
subparts N and O and § 1926.1501 of
§ 1926 subpart DD.
■ 23. Section 1926.858 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1926.858 Removal of walls, floors, and
material with equipment.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Cranes, derricks, and other
hoisting equipment used shall meet the
requirements specified in § 1926.1501 of
§ 1926 subpart DD.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Mechanical equipment.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) Cranes and other lifting
equipment.
(1) All equipment shall comply with
subparts CC and O of this part, as
applicable.
(2) Digger derricks used for augering
holes for poles carrying electric lines,
placing and removing poles, or for
handling associated materials to be
installed or removed from the poles
must comply with 29 CFR 1910.269.
(3) With the exception of equipment
certified for work on the proper voltage,
mechanical equipment shall not be
operated closer to any energized line or
equipment than the clearances set forth
in § 1926.950(c) unless, in addition to
the requirements in § 1926.1410:
(i) The mechanical equipment is
insulated, or
(ii) The mechanical equipment is
considered as energized.
Note to paragraph (c)(3): In accordance
with 29 CFR 1926.1400(g), compliance with
29 CFR 1910.269(p) will be deemed
compliance with §§ 1926.1407 through
1926.1411, including § 1926.1410.

Subpart X—Stairways and Ladders
26. The authority citation for subpart
X of 29 CFR part 1926 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

■

Authority: Section 107, Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act
(Construction Safety Act](40 U.S.C. 333);
Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);
Secretary of Labor’s Order Nos. 1–90 (55 FR
9033), 5–2007 (72 FR 31159); and 29 CFR
part 1911.

27. Section 1926.1050 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

■

§ 1926.1050 Scope, application, and
definitions applicable to this subpart.

(a) Scope and application. This
subpart applies to all stairways and
ladders used in construction, alteration,
repair (including painting and

PO 00000

Frm 00231

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48135

decorating), and demolition workplaces
covered under 29 CFR part 1926, and
also sets forth, in specified
circumstances, when ladders and
stairways are required to be provided.
Additional requirements for ladders
used on or with scaffolds are contained
in subpart L—Scaffolds. This subpart
does not apply to integral components
of equipment covered by subpart CC.
Subpart CC exclusively sets forth the
circumstances when ladders and
stairways must be provided on
equipment covered by subpart CC.
*
*
*
*
*
Appendix A to Part 1926—Designations
for General Industry Standards
Incorporated into Body of Construction
Standards
28. Appendix A to part 1926 is
amended by removing the row
containing ‘‘1926.550(a)(19)’’ and
‘‘1910.184(c)(9)’’ from the table ‘‘1926
DESIGNATIONS FOR APPLICABLE
1910 STANDARDS.’’
■

Subparts AA and BB—[Reserved]
29. Subparts AA and BB are reserved
and subpart CC is added to read as
follows:

■

Subpart CC—Cranes and Derricks in
Construction
Sec.
1926.1400 Scope.
1926.1401 Definitions.
1926.1402 Ground conditions.
1926.1403 Assembly/Disassembly—
selection of manufacturer or employer
procedures.
1926.1404 Assembly/Disassembly—general
requirements (applies to all assembly
and disassembly operations).
1926.1405 Disassembly—additional
requirements for dismantling of booms
and jibs (applies to both the use of
manufacturer procedures and employer
procedures).
1926.1406 Assembly/Disassembly—
employer procedures—general
requirements.
1926.1407 Power line safety (up to 350
kV)—assembly and disassembly.
1926.1408 Power line safety (up to 350
kV)—equipment operations.
1926.1409 Power line safety (over 350 kV).
1926.1410 Power line safety (all voltages)—
equipment operations closer than the
Table A zone.
1926.1411 Power line safety—while
traveling.
1926.1412 Inspections.
1926.1413 Wire rope—inspection.
1926.1414 Wire rope—selection and
installation criteria.
1926.1415 Safety devices.
1926.1416 Operational aids.
1926.1417 Operation.
1926.1418 Authority to stop operation.
1926.1419 Signals—general requirements.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48136

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

1926.1420 Signals—radio, telephone or
other electronic transmission of signals.
1926.1421 Signals—voice signals—
additional requirements.
1926.1422 Signals—hand signal chart.
1926.1423 Fall protection.
1926.1424 Work area control.
1926.1425 Keeping clear of the load.
1926.1426 Free fall and controlled load
lowering.
1926.1427 Operator qualification and
certification.
1926.1428 Signal person qualifications.
1926.1429 Qualifications of maintenance &
repair employees.
1926.1430 Training.
1926.1431 Hoisting personnel.
1926.1432 Multiple-crane/derrick lifts—
supplemental requirements.
1926.1433 Design, construction and testing.
1926.1434 Equipment modifications.
1926.1435 Tower cranes.
1926.1436 Derricks.
1926.1437 Floating cranes/derricks and
land cranes/derricks on barges.
1926.1438 Overhead & gantry cranes.
1926.1439 Dedicated pile drivers.
1926.1440 Sideboom cranes.
1926.1441 Equipment with a rated hoisting/
lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or less.
1926.1442 Severability.
Appendix A to Subpart CC of part 1926—
Standard Hand Signals
Appendix B to Subpart CC of part 1926—
Assembly/Disassembly—Sample
Procedures for Minimizing the Risk of
Unintended Dangerous Boom Movement
Appendix C to Subpart CC of part 1926—
Operator Certification—Written
Examination—Technical Knowledge
Criteria

Subpart CC—Cranes and Derricks in
Construction
Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 3701); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s
Order No. 5–2007 (72 FR 31159); and 29 CFR
part 1911.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1400

Scope.

(a) This standard applies to poweroperated equipment, when used in
construction, that can hoist, lower and
horizontally move a suspended load.
Such equipment includes, but is not
limited to: Articulating cranes (such as
knuckle-boom cranes); crawler cranes;
floating cranes; cranes on barges;
locomotive cranes; mobile cranes (such
as wheel-mounted, rough-terrain, allterrain, commercial truck-mounted, and
boom truck cranes); multi-purpose
machines when configured to hoist and
lower (by means of a winch or hook)
and horizontally move a suspended
load; industrial cranes (such as carrydeck cranes); dedicated pile drivers;
service/mechanic trucks with a hoisting
device; a crane on a monorail; tower
cranes (such as a fixed jib, i.e.,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

‘‘hammerhead boom’’), luffing boom and
self-erecting); pedestal cranes; portal
cranes; overhead and gantry cranes;
straddle cranes; sideboom cranes;
derricks; and variations of such
equipment. However, items listed in
paragraph (c) of this section are
excluded from the scope of this
standard.
(b) Attachments. This standard
applies to equipment included in
paragraph (a) of this section when used
with attachments. Such attachments,
whether crane-attached or suspended
include, but are not limited to: Hooks,
magnets, grapples, clamshell buckets,
orange peel buckets, concrete buckets,
drag lines, personnel platforms, augers
or drills and pile driving equipment.
(c) Exclusions. This subpart does not
cover:
(1) Machinery included in paragraph
(a) of this section while it has been
converted or adapted for a non-hoisting/
lifting use. Such conversions/
adaptations include, but are not limited
to, power shovels, excavators and
concrete pumps.
(2) Power shovels, excavators, wheel
loaders, backhoes, loader backhoes,
track loaders. This machinery is also
excluded when used with chains, slings
or other rigging to lift suspended loads.
(3) Automotive wreckers and tow
trucks when used to clear wrecks and
haul vehicles.
(4) Digger derricks when used for
augering holes for poles carrying electric
and telecommunication lines, placing
and removing the poles, and for
handling associated materials to be
installed on or removed from the poles.
Digger derricks used in work subject to
29 CFR part 1926, subpart V, must
comply with 29 CFR 1910.269. Digger
derricks used in construction work for
telecommunication service (as defined
at 29 CFR 1910.268(s)(40)) must comply
with 29 CFR 1910.268.
(5) Machinery originally designed as
vehicle-mounted aerial devices (for
lifting personnel) and self-propelled
elevating work platforms.
(6) Telescopic/hydraulic gantry
systems.
(7) Stacker cranes.
(8) Powered industrial trucks
(forklifts), except when configured to
hoist and lower (by means of a winch
or hook) and horizontally move a
suspended load.
(9) Mechanic’s truck with a hoisting
device when used in activities related to
equipment maintenance and repair.
(10) Machinery that hoists by using a
come-a-long or chainfall.
(11) Dedicated drilling rigs.
(12) Gin poles when used for the
erection of communication towers.

PO 00000

Frm 00232

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(13) Tree trimming and tree removal
work.
(14) Anchor handling or dredgerelated operations with a vessel or barge
using an affixed A-frame.
(15) Roustabouts.
(16) Helicopter cranes.
(17) Material Delivery
(i) Articulating/knuckle-boom truck
cranes that deliver material to a
construction site when used to transfer
materials from the truck crane to the
ground, without arranging the materials
in a particular sequence for hoisting.
(ii) Articulating/knuckle-boom truck
cranes that deliver material to a
construction site when the crane is used
to transfer building supply sheet goods
or building supply packaged materials
from the truck crane onto a structure,
using a fork/cradle at the end of the
boom, but only when the truck crane is
equipped with a properly functioning
automatic overload prevention device.
Such sheet goods or packaged materials
include, but are not limited to: Sheets of
sheet rock, sheets of plywood, bags of
cement, sheets or packages of roofing
shingles, and rolls of roofing felt.
(iii) This exclusion does not apply
when:
(A) The articulating/knuckle-boom
crane is used to hold, support or
stabilize the material to facilitate a
construction activity, such as holding
material in place while it is attached to
the structure;
(B) The material being handled by the
articulating/knuckle-boom crane is a
prefabricated component. Such
prefabricated components include, but
are not limited to: Precast concrete
members or panels, roof trusses
(wooden, cold-formed metal, steel, or
other material), prefabricated building
sections such as, but not limited to:
Floor panels, wall panels, roof panels,
roof structures, or similar items;
(C) The material being handled by the
crane is a structural steel member (for
example, steel joists, beams, columns,
steel decking (bundled or unbundled) or
a component of a systems-engineered
metal building (as defined in 29 CFR
1926 subpart R).
(D) The activity is not specifically
excluded under § 1400(c)(17)(i) and (ii).
(d) All sections of this subpart CC
apply to the equipment covered by this
standard unless specified otherwise.
(e) The duties of controlling entities
under this subpart include, but are not
limited to, the duties specified in
§ 1926.1402(c), § 1926.1402(e) and
§ 1926.1424(b).
(f) Where provisions of this standard
direct an operator, crewmember, or
other employee to take certain actions,
the employer must establish, effectively

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
communicate to the relevant persons,
and enforce, work rules to ensure
compliance with such provisions.
(g) For work covered by subpart V of
this part, compliance with 29 CFR
§ 1910.269(p) is deemed compliance
with §§ 1926.1407 through 1926.1411.
(h) Section 1926.1402 does not apply
to cranes designed for use on railroad
tracks, when used on railroad tracks that
are part of the general railroad system of
transportation that is regulated pursuant
to the Federal Railroad Administration
under 49 CFR part 213, and that comply
with applicable Federal Railroad
Administration requirements. See
§ 1926.1402(f).

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1401

Definitions.

A/D director (Assembly/Disassembly
director) means an individual who
meets this subpart’s requirements for an
A/D director, irrespective of the
person’s formal job title or whether the
person is non-management or
management personnel.
Articulating crane means a crane
whose boom consists of a series of
folding, pin connected structural
members, typically manipulated to
extend or retract by power from
hydraulic cylinders.
Assembly/Disassembly means the
assembly and/or disassembly of
equipment covered under this standard.
With regard to tower cranes, ‘‘erecting
and climbing’’ replaces the term
‘‘assembly,’’ and ‘‘dismantling’’ replaces
the term ‘‘disassembly.’’ Regardless of
whether the crane is initially erected to
its full height or is climbed in stages, the
process of increasing the height of the
crane is an erection process.
Assist crane means a crane used to
assist in assembling or disassembling a
crane.
Attachments means any device that
expands the range of tasks that can be
done by the equipment. Examples
include, but are not limited to: An
auger, drill, magnet, pile-driver, and
boom-attached personnel platform.
Audible signal means a signal made
by a distinct sound or series of sounds.
Examples include, but are not limited
to, sounds made by a bell, horn, or
whistle.
Blocking (also referred to as
‘‘cribbing’’) is wood or other material
used to support equipment or a
component and distribute loads to the
ground. It is typically used to support
lattice boom sections during assembly/
disassembly and under outrigger and
stabilizer floats.
Boatswain’s chair means a singlepoint adjustable suspension scaffold
consisting of a seat or sling (which may
be incorporated into a full body harness)

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

designed to support one employee in a
sitting position.
Bogie means ‘‘travel bogie,’’ which is
defined below.
Boom (equipment other than tower
crane) means an inclined spar, strut, or
other long structural member which
supports the upper hoisting tackle on a
crane or derrick. Typically, the length
and vertical angle of the boom can be
varied to achieve increased height or
height and reach when lifting loads.
Booms can usually be grouped into
general categories of hydraulically
extendible, cantilevered type, latticed
section, cable supported type or
articulating type.
Boom (tower cranes): On tower
cranes, if the ‘‘boom’’ (i.e., principal
horizontal structure) is fixed, it is
referred to as a jib; if it is moveable up
and down, it is referred to as a boom.
Boom angle indicator means a device
which measures the angle of the boom
relative to horizontal.
Boom hoist limiting device includes
boom hoist disengaging device, boom
hoist shut-off, boom hoist disconnect,
boom hoist hydraulic relief, boom hoist
kick-outs, automatic boom stop device,
or derricking limiter. This type of device
disengages boom hoist power when the
boom reaches a predetermined
operating angle. It also sets brakes or
closes valves to prevent the boom from
lowering after power is disengaged.
Boom length indicator indicates the
length of the permanent part of the
boom (such as ruled markings on the
boom) or, as in some computerized
systems, the length of the boom with
extensions/attachments.
Boom stop includes boom stops,
(belly straps with struts/standoff),
telescoping boom stops, attachment
boom stops, and backstops. These
devices restrict the boom from moving
above a certain maximum angle and
toppling over backward.
Boom suspension system means a
system of pendants, running ropes,
sheaves, and other hardware which
supports the boom tip and controls the
boom angle.
Builder means the builder/constructor
of equipment.
Center of gravity: The center of gravity
of any object is the point in the object
around which its weight is evenly
distributed. If you could put a support
under that point, you could balance the
object on the support.
Certified welder means a welder who
meets nationally recognized
certification requirements applicable to
the task being performed.
Climbing means the process in which
a tower crane is raised to a new working
height, either by adding additional

PO 00000

Frm 00233

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48137

tower sections to the top of the crane
(top climbing), or by a system in which
the entire crane is raised inside the
structure (inside climbing).
Come-a-long means a mechanical
device typically consisting of a chain or
cable attached at each end that is used
to facilitate movement of materials
through leverage.
Competent person means one who is
capable of identifying existing and
predictable hazards in the surroundings
or working conditions which are
unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to
employees, and who has authorization
to take prompt corrective measures to
eliminate them.
Controlled load lowering means
lowering a load by means of a
mechanical hoist drum device that
allows a hoisted load to be lowered with
maximum control using the gear train or
hydraulic components of the hoist
mechanism. Controlled load lowering
requires the use of the hoist drive motor,
rather than the load hoist brake, to
lower the load.
Controlling entity means an employer
that is a prime contractor, general
contractor, construction manager or any
other legal entity which has the overall
responsibility for the construction of the
project—its planning, quality and
completion.
Counterweight means a weight used to
supplement the weight of equipment in
providing stability for lifting loads by
counterbalancing those loads.
Crane/derrick includes all equipment
covered by this subpart.
Crawler crane means equipment that
has a type of base mounting which
incorporates a continuous belt of
sprocket driven track.
Crossover points means locations on a
wire rope which is spooled on a drum
where one layer of rope climbs up on
and crosses over the previous layer.
This takes place at each flange of the
drum as the rope is spooled onto the
drum, reaches the flange, and begins to
wrap back in the opposite direction.
Dedicated channel means a line of
communication assigned by the
employer who controls the
communication system to only one
signal person and crane/derrick or to a
coordinated group of cranes/derricks/
signal person(s).
Dedicated pile-driver is a machine
that is designed to function exclusively
as a pile-driver. These machines
typically have the ability to both hoist
the material that will be pile-driven and
to pile-drive that material.
Dedicated spotter (power lines): To be
considered a dedicated spotter, the
requirements of § 1926.1428 (Signal
person qualifications) must be met and

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48138

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

his/her sole responsibility is to watch
the separation between the power line
and the equipment, load line and load
(including rigging and lifting
accessories), and ensure through
communication with the operator that
the applicable minimum approach
distance is not breached.
Directly under the load means a part
or all of an employee is directly beneath
the load.
Dismantling includes partial
dismantling (such as dismantling to
shorten a boom or substitute a different
component).
Drum rotation indicator means a
device on a crane or hoist which
indicates in which direction and at what
relative speed a particular hoist drum is
turning.
Electrical contact occurs when a
person, object, or equipment makes
contact or comes in close proximity
with an energized conductor or
equipment that allows the passage of
current.
Employer-made equipment means
floating cranes/derricks designed and
built by an employer for the employer’s
own use.
Encroachment is where any part of
the crane, load line or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories) breaches
a minimum clearance distance that this
subpart requires to be maintained from
a power line.
Equipment means equipment covered
by this subpart.
Equipment criteria means
instructions, recommendations,
limitations and specifications.
Fall protection equipment means
guardrail systems, safety net systems,
personal fall arrest systems, positioning
device systems or fall restraint systems.
Fall restraint system means a fall
protection system that prevents the user
from falling any distance. The system is
comprised of either a body belt or body
harness, along with an anchorage,
connectors and other necessary
equipment. The other components
typically include a lanyard, and may
also include a lifeline and other devices.
Fall zone means the area (including
but not limited to the area directly
beneath the load) in which it is
reasonably foreseeable that partially or
completely suspended materials could
fall in the event of an accident.
Flange points are points of contact
between rope and drum flange where
the rope changes layers.
Floating cranes/derricks means
equipment designed by the
manufacturer (or employer) for marine
use by permanent attachment to a barge,
pontoons, vessel or other means of
flotation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

For example means ‘‘one example,
although there are others.’’
Free fall (of the load line) means that
only the brake is used to regulate the
descent of the load line (the drive
mechanism is not used to drive the load
down faster or retard its lowering).
Free surface effect is the uncontrolled
transverse movement of liquids in
compartments which reduce a vessel’s
transverse stability.
Hoist means a mechanical device for
lifting and lowering loads by winding a
line onto or off a drum.
Hoisting is the act of raising, lowering
or otherwise moving a load in the air
with equipment covered by this
standard. As used in this standard,
‘‘hoisting’’ can be done by means other
than wire rope/hoist drum equipment.
Include/including means ‘‘including,
but not limited to.’’
Insulating link/device means an
insulating device listed, labeled, or
accepted by a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory in accordance with
29 CFR 1910.7.
Jib stop (also referred to as a jib
backstop), is the same type of device as
a boom stop but is for a fixed or luffing
jib.
Land crane/derrick is equipment not
originally designed by the manufacturer
for marine use by permanent attachment
to barges, pontoons, vessels, or other
means of floatation.
List means the angle of inclination
about the longitudinal axis of a barge,
pontoons, vessel or other means of
floatation.
Load refers to the object(s) being
hoisted and/or the weight of the
object(s); both uses refer to the object(s)
and the load-attaching equipment, such
as, the load block, ropes, slings,
shackles, and any other ancillary
attachment.
Load moment (or rated capacity)
indicator means a system which aids the
equipment operator by sensing (directly
or indirectly) the overturning moment
on the equipment, i.e., load multiplied
by radius. It compares this lifting
condition to the equipment’s rated
capacity, and indicates to the operator
the percentage of capacity at which the
equipment is working. Lights, bells, or
buzzers may be incorporated as a
warning of an approaching overload
condition.
Load moment (or rated capacity)
limiter means a system which aids the
equipment operator by sensing (directly
or indirectly) the overturning moment
on the equipment, i.e., load multiplied
by radius. It compares this lifting
condition to the equipment’s rated
capacity, and when the rated capacity is
reached, it shuts off power to those

PO 00000

Frm 00234

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

equipment functions which can increase
the severity of loading on the
equipment, e.g., hoisting, telescoping
out, or luffing out. Typically, those
functions which decrease the severity of
loading on the equipment remain
operational, e.g., lowering, telescoping
in, or luffing in.
Locomotive crane means a crane
mounted on a base or car equipped for
travel on a railroad track.
Luffing jib limiting device is similar to
a boom hoist limiting device, except
that it limits the movement of the
luffing jib.
Marine hoisted personnel transfer
device means a device, such as a
‘‘transfer net,’’ that is designed to protect
the employees being hoisted during a
marine transfer and to facilitate rapid
entry into and exit from the device.
Such devices do not include
boatswain’s chairs when hoisted by
equipment covered by this standard.
Marine worksite means a construction
worksite located in, on or above the
water.
Mobile crane means a lifting device
incorporating a cable suspended latticed
boom or hydraulic telescopic boom
designed to be moved between
operating locations by transport over the
road.
Moving point-to-point means the
times during which an employee is in
the process of going to or from a work
station.
Multi-purpose machine means a
machine that is designed to be
configured in various ways, at least one
of which allows it to hoist (by means of
a winch or hook) and horizontally move
a suspended load. For example, a
machine that can rotate and can be
configured with removable forks/tongs
(for use as a forklift) or with a winch
pack, jib (with a hook at the end) or jib
used in conjunction with a winch.
When configured with the forks/tongs, it
is not covered by this subpart. When
configured with a winch pack, jib (with
a hook at the end) or jib used in
conjunction with a winch, it is covered
by this subpart.
Nationally recognized accrediting
agency is an organization that, due to its
independence and expertise, is widely
recognized as competent to accredit
testing organizations. Examples of such
accrediting agencies include, but are not
limited to, the National Commission for
Certifying Agencies and the American
National Standards Institute.
Nonconductive means that, because of
the nature and condition of the
materials used, and the conditions of
use (including environmental
conditions and condition of the
material), the object in question has the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
property of not becoming energized
(that is, it has high dielectric properties
offering a high resistance to the passage
of current under the conditions of use).
Operational aids are devices that
assist the operator in the safe operation
of the crane by providing information or
automatically taking control of a crane
function. These include, but are not
limited to, the devices listed in
§ 1926.1416 (‘‘listed operational aids’’).
Operational controls means levers,
switches, pedals and other devices for
controlling equipment operation.
Operator means a person who is
operating the equipment.
Overhead and gantry cranes includes
overhead/bridge cranes, semigantry,
cantilever gantry, wall cranes, storage
bridge cranes, launching gantry cranes,
and similar equipment, irrespective of
whether it travels on tracks, wheels, or
other means.
Paragraph refers to a paragraph in the
same section of this subpart that the
word ‘‘paragraph’’ is used, unless
otherwise specified.
Pendants includes both wire and bar
types. Wire type: A fixed length of wire
rope with mechanical fittings at both
ends for pinning segments of wire rope
together. Bar type: Instead of wire rope,
a bar is used. Pendants are typically
used in a latticed boom crane system to
easily change the length of the boom
suspension system without completely
changing the rope on the drum when
the boom length is increased or
decreased.
Personal fall arrest system means a
system used to arrest an employee in a
fall from a working level. It consists of
an anchorage, connectors, a body
harness and may include a lanyard,
deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable
combination of these.
Portal crane is a type of crane
consisting of a rotating upperstructure,
hoist machinery, and boom mounted on
top of a structural gantry which may be
fixed in one location or have travel
capability. The gantry legs or columns
usually have portal openings in between
to allow passage of traffic beneath the
gantry.
Power lines means electric
transmission and distribution lines.
Procedures include, but are not
limited to: Instructions, diagrams,
recommendations, warnings,
specifications, protocols and
limitations.
Proximity alarm is a device that
provides a warning of proximity to a
power line and that has been listed,
labeled, or accepted by a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory in
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.7.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Qualified evaluator (not a third party)
means a person employed by the signal
person’s employer who has
demonstrated that he/she is competent
in accurately assessing whether
individuals meet the Qualification
Requirements in this subpart for a signal
person.
Qualified evaluator (third party)
means an entity that, due to its
independence and expertise, has
demonstrated that it is competent in
accurately assessing whether
individuals meet the Qualification
Requirements in this subpart for a signal
person.
Qualified person means a person who,
by possession of a recognized degree,
certificate, or professional standing, or
who by extensive knowledge, training
and experience, successfully
demonstrated the ability to solve/
resolve problems relating to the subject
matter, the work, or the project.
Qualified rigger is a rigger who meets
the criteria for a qualified person.
Range control limit device is a device
that can be set by an equipment operator
to limit movement of the boom or jib tip
to a plane or multiple planes.
Range control warning device is a
device that can be set by an equipment
operator to warn that the boom or jib tip
is at a plane or multiple planes.
Rated capacity means the maximum
working load permitted by the
manufacturer under specified working
conditions. Such working conditions
typically include a specific combination
of factors such as equipment
configuration, radii, boom length, and
other parameters of use.
Rated capacity indicator: See load
moment indicator.
Rated capacity limiter: See load
moment limiter.
Repetitive pickup points refer to,
when operating on a short cycle
operation, the rope being used on a
single layer and being spooled
repetitively over a short portion of the
drum.
Running wire rope means a wire rope
that moves over sheaves or drums.
Runway means a firm, level surface
designed, prepared and designated as a
path of travel for the weight and
configuration of the crane being used to
lift and travel with the crane suspended
platform. An existing surface may be
used as long as it meets these criteria.
Section means a section of this
subpart, unless otherwise specified.
Sideboom crane means a track-type or
wheel-type tractor having a boom
mounted on the side of the tractor, used
for lifting, lowering or transporting a
load suspended on the load hook. The

PO 00000

Frm 00235

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48139

boom or hook can be lifted or lowered
in a vertical direction only.
Special hazard warnings means
warnings of site-specific hazards (for
example, proximity of power lines).
Stability (flotation device) means the
tendency of a barge, pontoons, vessel or
other means of flotation to return to an
upright position after having been
inclined by an external force.
Standard Method means the protocol
in Appendix A of this subpart for hand
signals.
Such as means ‘‘such as, but not
limited to.’’
Superstructure: See Upperworks.
Tagline means a rope (usually fiber)
attached to a lifted load for purposes of
controlling load spinning and pendular
motions or used to stabilize a bucket or
magnet during material handling
operations.
Tender means an individual
responsible for monitoring and
communicating with a diver.
Tilt up or tilt down operation means
raising/lowering a load from the
horizontal to vertical or vertical to
horizontal.
Tower crane is a type of lifting
structure which utilizes a vertical mast
or tower to support a working boom (jib)
in an elevated position. Loads are
suspended from the working boom.
While the working boom may be of the
fixed type (horizontal or angled) or have
luffing capability, it can always rotate to
swing loads, either by rotating on the
top of the tower (top slewing) or by the
rotation of the tower (bottom slewing).
The tower base may be fixed in one
location or ballasted and moveable
between locations. Mobile cranes that
are configured with luffing jib and/or
tower attachments are not considered
tower cranes under this section.
Travel bogie (tower cranes) is an
assembly of two or more axles arranged
to permit vertical wheel displacement
and equalize the loading on the wheels.
Trim means angle of inclination about
the transverse axis of a barge, pontoons,
vessel or other means of floatation.
Two blocking means a condition in
which a component that is uppermost
on the hoist line such as the load block,
hook block, overhaul ball, or similar
component, comes in contact with the
boom tip, fixed upper block or similar
component. This binds the system and
continued application of power can
cause failure of the hoist rope or other
component.
Unavailable procedures means
procedures that are no longer available
from the manufacturer, or have never
been available, from the manufacturer.
Upperstructure: See Upperworks.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48140

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Upperworks means the revolving
frame of equipment on which the
operating machinery (and many cases
the engine) are mounted along with the
operator’s cab. The counterweight is
typically supported on the rear of the
upperstructure and the boom or other
front end attachment is mounted on the
front.
Up to means ‘‘up to and including.’’
Wire rope means a flexible rope
constructed by laying steel wires into
various patterns of multi-wired strands
around a core system to produce a
helically wound rope.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1402

Ground conditions.

(a) Definitions.
(1) ‘‘Ground conditions’’ means the
ability of the ground to support the
equipment (including slope,
compaction, and firmness).
(2) ‘‘Supporting materials’’ means
blocking, mats, cribbing, marsh buggies
(in marshes/wetlands), or similar
supporting materials or devices.
(b) The equipment must not be
assembled or used unless ground
conditions are firm, drained, and graded
to a sufficient extent so that, in
conjunction (if necessary) with the use
of supporting materials, the equipment
manufacturer’s specifications for
adequate support and degree of level of
the equipment are met. The requirement
for the ground to be drained does not
apply to marshes/wetlands.
(c) The controlling entity must:
(1) Ensure that ground preparations
necessary to meet the requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section are
provided.
(2) Inform the user of the equipment
and the operator of the location of
hazards beneath the equipment set-up
area (such as voids, tanks, utilities) if
those hazards are identified in
documents (such as site drawings, asbuilt drawings, and soil analyses) that
are in the possession of the controlling
entity (whether at the site or off-site) or
the hazards are otherwise known to that
controlling entity.
(d) If there is no controlling entity for
the project, the requirement in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be
met by the employer that has authority
at the site to make or arrange for ground
preparations needed to meet paragraph
(b) of this section.
(e) If the A/D director or the operator
determines that ground conditions do
not meet the requirements in paragraph
(b) of this section, that person’s
employer must have a discussion with
the controlling entity regarding the
ground preparations that are needed so
that, with the use of suitable supporting
materials/devices (if necessary), the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section can be met.
(f) This section does not apply to
cranes designed for use on railroad
tracks when used on railroad tracks that
are part of the general railroad system of
transportation that is regulated pursuant
to the Federal Railroad Administration
under 49 CFR part 213 and that comply
with applicable Federal Railroad
Administration requirements.
§ 1926.1403 Assembly/Disassembly—
selection of manufacturer or employer
procedures.

When assembling or disassembling
equipment (or attachments), the
employer must comply with all
applicable manufacturer prohibitions
and must comply with either:
(a) Manufacturer procedures
applicable to assembly and disassembly,
or
(b) Employer procedures for assembly
and disassembly. Employer procedures
may be used only where the employer
can demonstrate that the procedures
used meet the requirements in
§ 1926.1406. Note: The employer must
follow manufacturer procedures when
an employer uses synthetic slings
during assembly or disassembly rigging.
(See § 1926.1404(r).)
§ 1926.1404 Assembly/Disassembly—
general requirements (applies to all
assembly and disassembly operations).

(a) Supervision—competent-qualified
person.
(1) Assembly/disassembly must be
directed by a person who meets the
criteria for both a competent person and
a qualified person, or by a competent
person who is assisted by one or more
qualified persons (‘‘A/D director’’).
(2) Where the assembly/disassembly
is being performed by only one person,
that person must meet the criteria for
both a competent person and a qualified
person. For purposes of this standard,
that person is considered the A/D
director.
(b) Knowledge of procedures. The
A/D director must understand the
applicable assembly/disassembly
procedures.
(c) Review of procedures. The A/D
director must review the applicable
assembly/disassembly procedures
immediately prior to the
commencement of assembly/
disassembly unless the A/D director
understands the procedures and has
applied them to the same type and
configuration of equipment (including
accessories, if any).
(d) Crew instructions.
(1) Before commencing assembly/
disassembly operations, the A/D

PO 00000

Frm 00236

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

director must ensure that the crew
members understand all of the
following:
(i) Their tasks.
(ii) The hazards associated with their
tasks.
(iii) The hazardous positions/
locations that they need to avoid.
(2) During assembly/disassembly
operations, before a crew member takes
on a different task, or when adding new
personnel during the operations, the
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)
through (d)(1)(iii) of this section must be
met.
(e) Protecting assembly/disassembly
crew members out of operator view.
(1) Before a crew member goes to a
location that is out of view of the
operator and is either in, on, or under
the equipment, or near the equipment
(or load) where the crew member could
be injured by movement of the
equipment (or load), the crew member
must inform the operator that he/she is
going to that location.
(2) Where the operator knows that a
crew member went to a location covered
by paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the
operator must not move any part of the
equipment (or load) until the operator is
informed in accordance with a prearranged system of communication that
the crew member is in a safe position.
(f) Working under the boom, jib or
other components.
(1) When pins (or similar devices) are
being removed, employees must not be
under the boom, jib, or other
components, except where the
requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this
section are met.
(2) Exception. Where the employer
demonstrates that site constraints
require one or more employees to be
under the boom, jib, or other
components when pins (or similar
devices) are being removed, the A/D
director 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 B of this subpart for an
example.)
(g) Capacity limits. During all phases
of assembly/disassembly, rated capacity
limits for loads imposed on the
equipment, equipment components
(including rigging), lifting lugs and
equipment accessories, must not be
exceeded for the equipment being
assembled/disassembled.
(h) Addressing specific hazards. The
A/D director supervising the assembly/
disassembly operation must address the
hazards associated with the operation,
which include:

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Site and ground bearing
conditions. Site and ground conditions
must be adequate for safe assembly/
disassembly operations and to support
the equipment during assembly/
disassembly (see § 1926.1402 for ground
condition requirements).
(2) Blocking material. The size,
amount, condition and method of
stacking the blocking must be sufficient
to sustain the loads and maintain
stability.
(3) Proper location of blocking. When
used to support lattice booms or
components, blocking must be
appropriately placed to:
(i) Protect the structural integrity of
the equipment, and
(ii) Prevent dangerous movement and
collapse.
(4) Verifying assist crane loads. When
using an assist crane, the loads that will
be imposed on the assist crane at each
phase of assembly/disassembly must be
verified in accordance with
§ 1926.1417(o)(3) before assembly/
disassembly begins.
(5) Boom and jib pick points. The
point(s) of attachment of rigging to a
boom (or boom sections or jib or jib
sections) must be suitable for preventing
structural damage and facilitating safe
handling of these components.
(6) Center of gravity.
(i) The center of gravity of the load
must be identified if that is necessary
for the method used for maintaining
stability.
(ii) Where there is insufficient
information to accurately identify the
center of gravity, measures designed to
prevent unintended dangerous
movement resulting from an inaccurate
identification of the center of gravity
must be used. (See Non-mandatory
Appendix B of this subpart for an
example.)
(7) Stability upon pin removal. The
boom sections, boom suspension
systems (such as gantry A-frames and jib
struts), and components must be rigged
or supported to maintain stability upon
the removal of the pins.
(8) Snagging. Suspension ropes and
pendants must not be allowed to catch
on the boom or jib connection pins or
cotter pins (including keepers and
locking pins).
(9) Struck by counterweights. The
potential for unintended movement
from inadequately supported
counterweights and from hoisting
counterweights.
(10) Boom hoist brake failure. Each
time reliance is to be placed on the
boom hoist brake to prevent boom
movement during assembly/
disassembly, the brake must be tested
prior to such reliance to determine if it

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

is sufficient to prevent boom movement.
If it is not sufficient, a boom hoist pawl,
other locking device/back-up braking
device, or another method of preventing
dangerous movement of the boom (such
as blocking or using an assist crane)
from a boom hoist brake failure must be
used.
(11) Loss of backward stability.
Backward stability before swinging the
upperworks, travel, and when attaching
or removing equipment components.
(12) Wind speed and weather. The
effect of wind speed and weather on the
equipment.
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) Cantilevered boom sections.
Manufacturer limitations on the
maximum amount of boom supported
only by cantilevering must not be
exceeded. Where these are unavailable,
a registered professional engineer
familiar with the type of equipment
involved must determine in writing this
limitation, which must not be exceeded.
(k) Weight of components. The weight
of each of the components must be
readily available.
(l) [Reserved.]
(m) Components and configuration.
(1) The selection of components, and
configuration of the equipment, that
affect the capacity or safe operation of
the equipment must be in accordance
with:
(i) Manufacturer instructions,
prohibitions, limitations, and
specifications. Where these are
unavailable, a registered professional
engineer familiar with the type of
equipment involved must approve, in
writing, the selection and configuration
of components; or
(ii) Approved modifications that meet
the requirements of § 1926.1434
(Equipment modifications).
(2) Post-assembly inspection. Upon
completion of assembly, the equipment
must be inspected to ensure compliance
with paragraph (m)(1) of this section
(see § 1926.1412(c) for post-assembly
inspection requirements).
(n) [Reserved.]
(o) Shipping pins. Reusable shipping
pins, straps, links, and similar
equipment must be removed. Once they
are removed they must either be stowed
or otherwise stored so that they do not
present a falling object hazard.
(p) Pile driving. Equipment used for
pile driving must not have a jib attached
during pile driving operations.
(q) Outriggers and Stabilizers. When
the load to be handled and the operating
radius require the use of outriggers or
stabilizers, or at any time when
outriggers or stabilizers are used, all of
the following requirements must be met
(except as otherwise indicated):

PO 00000

Frm 00237

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48141

(1) The outriggers or stabilizers must
be either fully extended or, if
manufacturer procedures permit,
deployed as specified in the load chart.
(2) The outriggers must be set to
remove the equipment weight from the
wheels, except for locomotive cranes
(see paragraph (q)(6) of this section for
use of outriggers on locomotive cranes).
This provision does not apply to
stabilizers.
(3) When outrigger floats are used,
they must be attached to the outriggers.
When stabilizer floats are used, they
must be attached to the stabilizers.
(4) Each outrigger or stabilizer must
be visible to the operator or to a signal
person during extension and setting.
(5) Outrigger and stabilizer blocking
must:
(i) Meet the requirements in
paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this
section.
(ii) Be placed only under the outrigger
or stabilizer float/pad of the jack or,
where the outrigger or stabilizer is
designed without a jack, under the outer
bearing surface of the extended
outrigger or stabilizer beam.
(6) For locomotive cranes, when using
outriggers or stabilizers to handle loads,
the manufacturer’s procedures must be
followed. When lifting loads without
using outriggers or stabilizers, the
manufacturer’s procedures must be met
regarding truck wedges or screws.
(r) Rigging. In addition to following
the requirements in 29 CFR 1926.251
and other requirements in this and other
standards applicable to rigging, when
rigging is used for assembly/
disassembly, the employer must ensure
that:
(1) The rigging work is done by a
qualified rigger.
(2) Synthetic slings are protected
from: Abrasive, sharp or acute edges,
and configurations that could cause a
reduction of the sling’s rated capacity,
such as distortion or localized
compression. Note: Requirements for
the protection of wire rope slings are
contained in 29 CFR 1926.251(c)(9).
(3) When synthetic slings are used,
the synthetic sling manufacturer’s
instructions, limitations, specifications
and recommendations must be
followed.
§ 1926.1405 Disassembly—additional
requirements for dismantling of booms and
jibs (applies to both the use of
manufacturer procedures and employer
procedures).

Dismantling (including dismantling
for changing the length of) booms and
jibs.
(a) None of the pins in the pendants
are to be removed (partly or completely)
when the pendants are in tension.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48142

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

(b) None of the pins (top or bottom)
on boom sections located between the
pendant attachment points and the
crane/derrick body are to be removed
(partly or completely) when the
pendants are in tension.
(c) None of the pins (top or bottom)
on boom sections located between the
uppermost boom section and the crane/
derrick body are to be removed (partly
or completely) when the boom is being
supported by the uppermost boom
section resting on the ground (or other
support).
(d) None of the top pins on boom
sections located on the cantilevered
portion of the boom being removed (the
portion being removed ahead of the
pendant attachment points) are to be
removed (partly or completely) until the
cantilevered section to be removed is
fully supported.
§ 1926.1406 Assembly/Disassembly—
employer procedures—general
requirements.

(a) When using employer procedures
instead of manufacturer procedures for
assembly/disassembly, the employer
must ensure that the procedures:
(1) Prevent unintended dangerous
movement, and prevent collapse, of any
part of the equipment.
(2) Provide adequate support and
stability of all parts of the equipment.
(3) Position employees involved in
the assembly/disassembly operation so
that their exposure to unintended
movement or collapse of part or all of
the equipment is minimized.
(b) Qualified person. Employer
procedures must be developed by a
qualified person.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1407 Power line safety (up to 350
kV)—assembly and disassembly.

(a) Before assembling or
disassembling equipment, the employer
must determine if any part of the
equipment, load line, or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories) could
get, in the direction or area of assembly/
disassembly, closer than 20 feet to a
power line during the assembly/
disassembly process. If so, the employer
must meet the requirements in Option
(1), Option (2), or Option (3) of this
section, as follows:
(1) Option (1)—Deenergize and
ground. Confirm from the utility owner/
operator that the power line has been
deenergized and visibly grounded at the
worksite.
(2) Option (2)—20 foot clearance.
Ensure that no part of the equipment,
load line or load (including rigging and
lifting accessories), gets closer than 20
feet to the power line by implementing
the measures specified in paragraph (b)
of this section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(3) Option (3)—Table A clearance.
(i) Determine the line’s voltage and
the minimum clearance distance
permitted under Table A (see
§ 1926.1408).
(ii) Determine if any part of the
equipment, load line, or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories), could
get closer than the minimum clearance
distance to the power line permitted
under Table A (see § 1926.1408). If so,
then the employer must follow the
requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section to ensure that no part of the
equipment, load line, or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories), gets
closer to the line than the minimum
clearance distance.
(b) Preventing encroachment/
electrocution. Where encroachment
precautions are required under Option
(2), or Option (3) of this section, all of
the following requirements must be met:
(1) Conduct a planning meeting with
the Assembly/Disassembly director
(A/D director), operator, assembly/
disassembly crew and the other workers
who will be in the assembly/
disassembly area to review the location
of the power line(s) and the steps that
will be implemented to prevent
encroachment/electrocution.
(2) If tag lines are used, they must be
nonconductive.
(3) At least one of the following
additional measures must be in place.
The measure selected from this list must
be effective in preventing
encroachment.
The additional measures are:
(i) Use a dedicated spotter who is in
continuous contact with the equipment
operator. The dedicated spotter must:
(A) Be equipped with a visual aid to
assist in identifying the minimum
clearance distance. Examples of a visual
aid include, but are not limited to: A
clearly visible line painted on the
ground; a clearly visible line of
stanchions; a set of clearly visible lineof-sight landmarks (such as a fence post
behind the dedicated spotter and a
building corner ahead of the dedicated
spotter).
(B) Be positioned to effectively gauge
the clearance distance.
(C) Where necessary, use equipment
that enables the dedicated spotter to
communicate directly with the operator.
(D) Give timely information to the
operator so that the required clearance
distance can be maintained.
(ii) A proximity alarm set to give the
operator sufficient warning to prevent
encroachment.
(iii) A device that automatically warns
the operator when to stop movement,
such as a range control warning device.
Such a device must be set to give the

PO 00000

Frm 00238

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

operator sufficient warning to prevent
encroachment.
(iv) A device that automatically limits
range of movement, set to prevent
encroachment.
(v) An elevated warning line,
barricade, or line of signs, in view of the
operator, equipped with flags or similar
high-visibility markings.
(c) Assembly/disassembly below
power lines prohibited. No part of a
crane/derrick, load line, or load
(including rigging and lifting
accessories), whether partially or fully
assembled, is allowed below a power
line unless the employer has confirmed
that the utility owner/operator has
deenergized and (at the worksite) visibly
grounded the power line.
(d) Assembly/disassembly inside
Table A clearance prohibited. No part of
a crane/derrick, load line, or load
(including rigging and lifting
accessories), whether partially or fully
assembled, is allowed closer than the
minimum approach distance under
Table A (see § 1926.1408) to a power
line unless the employer has confirmed
that the utility owner/operator has
deenergized and (at the worksite) visibly
grounded the power line.
(e) Voltage information. Where
Option (3) of this section is used, the
utility owner/operator of the power
lines must provide the requested voltage
information within two working days of
the employer’s request.
(f) Power lines presumed energized.
The employer must assume that all
power lines are energized unless the
utility owner/operator confirms that the
power line has been and continues to be
deenergized and visibly grounded at the
worksite.
(g) Posting of electrocution warnings.
There must be at least one electrocution
hazard warning conspicuously posted in
the cab so that it is in view of the
operator and (except for overhead gantry
and tower cranes) at least two on the
outside of the equipment.
§ 1926.1408 Power line safety (up to 350
kV)—equipment operations.

(a) Hazard assessments and
precautions inside the work zone.
Before beginning equipment operations,
the employer must:
(1) Identify the work zone by either:
(i) Demarcating boundaries (such as
with flags, or a device such as a range
limit device or range control warning
device) and prohibiting the operator
from operating the equipment past those
boundaries, or
(ii) Defining the work zone as the area
360 degrees around the equipment, up
to the equipment’s maximum working
radius.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Determine if any part of the
equipment, load line or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories), if
operated up to the equipment’s
maximum working radius in the work
zone, could get closer than 20 feet to a
power line. If so, the employer must
meet the requirements in Option (1),
Option (2), or Option (3) of this section,
as follows:
(i) Option (1)—Deenergize and
ground. Confirm from the utility owner/
operator that the power line has been
deenergized and visibly grounded at the
worksite.
(ii) Option (2)—20 foot clearance.
Ensure that no part of the equipment,
load line, or load (including rigging and
lifting accessories), gets closer than 20
feet to the power line by implementing
the measures specified in paragraph (b)
of this section.
(iii) Option (3)—Table A clearance.
(A) Determine the line’s voltage and
the minimum approach distance
permitted under Table A (see
§ 1926.1408).
(B) Determine if any part of the
equipment, load line or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories), while
operating up to the equipment’s
maximum working radius in the work
zone, could get closer than the
minimum approach distance of the
power line permitted under Table A (see
§ 1926.1408). If so, then the employer
must follow the requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section to ensure
that no part of the equipment, load line,
or load (including rigging and lifting
accessories), gets closer to the line than
the minimum approach distance.
(b) Preventing encroachment/
electrocution. Where encroachment
precautions are required under Option
(2) or Option (3) of this section, all of
the following requirements must be met:
(1) Conduct a planning meeting with
the operator and the other workers who
will be in the area of the equipment or
load to review the location of the power
line(s), and the steps that will be
implemented to prevent encroachment/
electrocution.
(2) If tag lines are used, they must be
non-conductive.
(3) Erect and maintain an elevated
warning line, barricade, or line of signs,
in view of the operator, equipped with
flags or similar high-visibility markings,
at 20 feet from the power line (if using
Option (2) of this section) or at the
minimum approach distance under
Table A (see § 1926.1408) (if using
Option (3) of this section). If the
operator is unable to see the elevated
warning line, a dedicated spotter must
be used as described in
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii) in addition to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

implementing one of the measures
described in §§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(i), (iii),
(iv) and (v).
(4) Implement at least one of the
following measures:
(i) A proximity alarm set to give the
operator sufficient warning to prevent
encroachment.
(ii) A dedicated spotter who is in
continuous contact with the operator.
Where this measure is selected, the
dedicated spotter must:
(A) Be equipped with a visual aid to
assist in identifying the minimum
clearance distance. Examples of a visual
aid include, but are not limited to: A
clearly visible line painted on the
ground; a clearly visible line of
stanchions; a set of clearly visible lineof-sight landmarks (such as a fence post
behind the dedicated spotter and a
building corner ahead of the dedicated
spotter).
(B) Be positioned to effectively gauge
the clearance distance.
(C) Where necessary, use equipment
that enables the dedicated spotter to
communicate directly with the operator.
(D) Give timely information to the
operator so that the required clearance
distance can be maintained.
(iii) A device that automatically warns
the operator when to stop movement,
such as a range control warning device.
Such a device must be set to give the
operator sufficient warning to prevent
encroachment.
(iv) A device that automatically limits
range of movement, set to prevent
encroachment.
(v) An insulating link/device, as
defined in § 1926.1401, installed at a
point between the end of the load line
(or below) and the load.
(5) The requirements of paragraph
(b)(4) of this section do not apply to
work covered by subpart V of this part.
(c) Voltage information. Where
Option (3) of this section is used, the
utility owner/operator of the power
lines must provide the requested voltage
information within two working days of
the employer’s request.
(d) Operations below power lines.
(1) No part of the equipment, load
line, or load (including rigging and
lifting accessories) is allowed below a
power line unless the employer has
confirmed that the utility owner/
operator has deenergized and (at the
worksite) visibly grounded the power
line, except where one of the exceptions
in paragraph (d)(2) of this section
applies.
(2) Exceptions. Paragraph (d)(1) of this
section is inapplicable where the
employer demonstrates that one of the
following applies:
(i) The work is covered by subpart V
of this part.

PO 00000

Frm 00239

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48143

(ii) For equipment with nonextensible booms: The uppermost part
of the equipment, with the boom at true
vertical, would be more than 20 feet
below the plane of the power line or
more than the Table A of this section
minimum clearance distance below the
plane of the power line.
(iii) For equipment with articulating
or extensible booms: The uppermost
part of the equipment, with the boom in
the fully extended position, at true
vertical, would be more than 20 feet
below the plane of the power line or
more than the Table A of this section
minimum clearance distance below the
plane of the power line.
(iv) The employer demonstrates that
compliance with paragraph (d)(1) of this
section is infeasible and meets the
requirements of § 1926.1410.
(e) Power lines presumed energized.
The employer must assume that all
power lines are energized unless the
utility owner/operator confirms that the
power line has been and continues to be
deenergized and visibly grounded at the
worksite.
(f) When working near transmitter/
communication towers where the
equipment is close enough for an
electrical charge to be induced in the
equipment or materials being handled,
the transmitter must be deenergized or
the following precautions must be
taken:
(1) The equipment must be provided
with an electrical ground.
(2) If tag lines are used, they must be
non-conductive.
(g) Training.
(1) The employer must train each
operator and crew member assigned to
work with the equipment on all of the
following:
(i) The procedures to be followed in
the event of electrical contact with a
power line. Such training must 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
(step potential).
(E) The need for crew in the area to
avoid approaching or touching the
equipment and the load.
(F) Safe clearance distance from
power lines.
(ii) Power lines are presumed to be
energized unless the utility owner/

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48144

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Training under this section must
be administered in accordance with
§ 1926.1430(g).
(h) Devices originally designed by the
manufacturer for use as: A safety device
(see § 1926.1415), operational aid, or a
means to prevent power line contact or
electrocution, when used to comply
with this section, must meet the
manufacturer’s procedures for use and
conditions of use.

(iv) The limitations of an insulating
link/device, proximity alarm, and range
control (and similar) device, if used.
(v) The procedures to be followed to
properly ground equipment and the
limitations of grounding.
(2) Employees working as dedicated
spotters must be trained to enable them
to effectively perform their task,
including training on the applicable
requirements of this section.

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.

TABLE A—MINIMUM CLEARANCE DISTANCES
Voltage
(nominal, kV, alternating current)

Minimum clearance distance
(feet)

up to 50 ....................................................................................................
over 50 to 200 ..........................................................................................
over 200 to 350 ........................................................................................
over 350 to 500 ........................................................................................
over 500 to 750 ........................................................................................
over 750 to 1,000 .....................................................................................
over 1,000 .................................................................................................

10
15
20
25
35
45
(as established by the utility owner/operator or registered professional
engineer who is a qualified person with respect to electrical power
transmission and distribution).

Note: The value that follows ‘‘to’’ is up to and includes that value. For example, over 50 to 200 means up to and including 200kV.
§ 1926.1409
kV).

Power line safety (over 350

The requirements of § 1926.1407 and
§ 1926.1408 apply to power lines over
350 kV except:
(a) For power lines at or below 1000
kV, wherever the distance ‘‘20 feet’’ is
specified, the distance ‘‘50 feet’’ must be
substituted; and
(b) For power lines over 1000 kV, the
minimum clearance distance must be
established by the utility owner/
operator or registered professional
engineer who is a qualified person with
respect to electrical power transmission
and distribution.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1410 Power line safety (all
voltages)—equipment operations closer
than the Table A zone.

Equipment operations in which any
part of the equipment, load line, or load
(including rigging and lifting
accessories) is closer than the minimum
approach distance under Table A of
§ 1926.1408 to an energized power line
is prohibited, except where the
employer demonstrates that all of the
following requirements are met:
(a) The employer determines that it is
infeasible to do the work without
breaching the minimum approach
distance under Table A of § 1926.1408.
(b) The employer determines that,
after consultation with the utility
owner/operator, it is infeasible to
deenergize and ground the power line or
relocate the power line.
(c) Minimum clearance distance.
(1) The power line owner/operator or
registered professional engineer who is

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

a qualified person with respect to
electrical power transmission and
distribution determines the minimum
clearance distance that must be
maintained to prevent electrical contact
in light of the on-site conditions. The
factors that must be considered in
making this determination include, but
are not limited to: Conditions affecting
atmospheric conductivity; time
necessary to bring the equipment, load
line, and load (including rigging and
lifting accessories) to a complete stop;
wind conditions; degree of sway in the
power line; lighting conditions, and
other conditions affecting the ability to
prevent electrical contact.
(2) Paragraph (c)(1) of this section
does not apply to work covered by
subpart V of this part; instead, for such
work, the minimum clearance distances
specified in § 1926.950 Table V–1 apply.
Employers engaged in subpart V work
are permitted to work closer than the
distances in § 1926.950 Table V–1
where both the requirements of this
section and § 1926.952(c)(3)(i) or (ii) are
met.
(d) A planning meeting with the
employer and utility owner/operator (or
registered professional engineer who is
a qualified person with respect to
electrical power transmission and
distribution) is held to determine the
procedures that will be followed to
prevent electrical contact and
electrocution. At a minimum these
procedures must include:
(1) If the power line is equipped with
a device that automatically reenergizes
the circuit in the event of a power line

PO 00000

Frm 00240

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

contact, before the work begins, the
automatic reclosing feature of the circuit
interrupting device must be made
inoperative if the design of the device
permits.
(2) A dedicated spotter who is in
continuous contact with the operator.
The dedicated spotter must:
(i) Be equipped with a visual aid to
assist in identifying the minimum
clearance distance. Examples of a visual
aid include, but are not limited to: A
line painted on the ground; a clearly
visible line of stanchions; a set of clearly
visible line-of-sight landmarks (such as
a fence post behind the dedicated
spotter and a building corner ahead of
the dedicated spotter).
(ii) Be positioned to effectively gauge
the clearance distance.
(iii) Where necessary, use equipment
that enables the dedicated spotter to
communicate directly with the operator.
(iv) Give timely information to the
operator so that the required clearance
distance can be maintained.
(3) An elevated warning line, or
barricade (not attached to the crane), in
view of the operator (either directly or
through video equipment), equipped
with flags or similar high-visibility
markings, to prevent electrical contact.
However, this provision does not apply
to work covered by subpart V of this
part.
(4) Insulating link/device.
(i) An insulating link/device installed
at a point between the end of the load
line (or below) and the load.
(ii) For work covered by subpart V of
this part, the requirement in paragraph

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(d)(4)(i) of this section applies only
when working inside the § 1926.950
Table V–1 clearance distances.
(iii) For work covered by subpart V of
this part involving operations where use
of an insulating link/device is
infeasible, the requirements of
§ 1910.269(p)(4)(iii)(B) or (C) may be
substituted for the requirement in
(d)(4)(i) of this section.
(iv) Until November 8, 2011, the
following procedure may be substituted
for the requirement in paragraph
(d)(4)(i) of this section: All employees,
excluding equipment operators located
on the equipment, who may come in
contact with the equipment, the load
line, or the load must be insulated or
guarded from the equipment, the load
line, and the load. Insulating gloves
rated for the voltage involved are
adequate insulation for the purposes of
this paragraph.
(v) Until November 8, 2013, the
following procedure may be substituted
for the requirement in (d)(4)(i) of this
section:
(A) The employer must use a link/
device manufactured on or before
November 8, 2011, that meets the
definition of an insulating link/device,
except that it has not been approved by
a Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory, and that is maintained and
used in accordance with manufacturer
requirements and recommendations,
and is installed at a point between the
end of the load line (or below) and the
load; and
(B) All employees, excluding
equipment operators located on the
equipment, who may come in contact
with the equipment, the load line, or the
load must be insulated or guarded from
the equipment, the load line, and the
load through an additional means other
than the device described in paragraph
(d)(4)(v)(A) of this section. Insulating
gloves rated for the voltage involved are
adequate additional means of protection
for the purposes of this paragraph.
(5) Nonconductive rigging if the
rigging may be within the Table A of
§ 1926.1408 distance during the
operation.
(6) If the equipment is equipped with
a device that automatically limits range
of movement, it must be used and set to
prevent any part of the equipment, load
line, or load (including rigging and
lifting accessories) from breaching the
minimum approach distance established
under paragraph (c) of this section.
(7) If a tag line is used, it must be of
the nonconductive type.
(8) Barricades forming a perimeter at
least 10 feet away from the equipment

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

to prevent unauthorized personnel from
entering the work area. In areas where
obstacles prevent the barricade from
being at least 10 feet away, the barricade
must be as far from the equipment as
feasible.
(9) Workers other than the operator
must be prohibited from touching the
load line above the insulating link/
device and crane. Operators remotely
operating the equipment from the
ground must use either wireless controls
that isolate the operator from the
equipment or insulating mats that
insulate the operator from the ground.
(10) Only personnel essential to the
operation are permitted to be in the area
of the crane and load.
(11) The equipment must be properly
grounded.
(12) Insulating line hose or cover-up
must be installed by the utility owner/
operator except where such devices are
unavailable for the line voltages
involved.
(e) The procedures developed to
comply with paragraph (d) of this
section are documented and
immediately available on-site.
(f) The equipment user and utility
owner/operator (or registered
professional engineer) meet with the
equipment operator and the other
workers who will be in the area of the
equipment or load to review the
procedures that will be implemented to
prevent breaching the minimum
approach distance established in
paragraph (c) of this section and prevent
electrocution.
(g) The procedures developed to
comply with paragraph (d) of this
section are implemented.
(h) The utility owner/operator (or
registered professional engineer) and all
employers of employees involved in the
work must identify one person who will
direct the implementation of the
procedures. The person identified in
accordance with this paragraph must
direct the implementation of the
procedures and must have the authority
to stop work at any time to ensure
safety.
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) If a problem occurs implementing
the procedures being used to comply
with paragraph (d) of this section, or
indicating that those procedures are
inadequate to prevent electrocution, the
employer must safely stop operations
and either develop new procedures to
comply with paragraph (d) of this
section or have the utility owner/
operator deenergize and visibly ground
or relocate the power line before
resuming work.

PO 00000

Frm 00241

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48145

(k) Devices originally designed by the
manufacturer for use as a safety device
(see § 1926.1415), operational aid, or a
means to prevent power line contact or
electrocution, when used to comply
with this section, must comply with the
manufacturer’s procedures for use and
conditions of use.
(l) [Reserved.]
(m) The employer must train each
operator and crew member assigned to
work with the equipment in accordance
with § 1926.1408(g).
§ 1926.1411 Power line safety—while
traveling under or near power lines with no
load.

(a) This section establishes
procedures and criteria that must be met
for equipment traveling under or near a
power line on a construction site with
no load. Equipment traveling on a
construction site with a load is governed
by §§ 1926.1408, 1926.1409 or
1926.1410, whichever is appropriate,
and § 1926.1417(u).
(b) The employer must ensure that:
(1) The boom/mast and boom/mast
support system are lowered sufficiently
to meet the requirements of this
paragraph.
(2) The clearances specified in Table
T of this section are maintained.
(3) The effects of speed and terrain on
equipment movement (including
movement of the boom/mast) are
considered so that those effects do not
cause the minimum clearance distances
specified in Table T of this section to be
breached.
(4) Dedicated spotter. If any part of
the equipment while traveling will get
closer than 20 feet to the power line, the
employer must ensure that a dedicated
spotter who is in continuous contact
with the driver/operator is used. The
dedicated spotter must:
(i) Be positioned to effectively gauge
the clearance distance.
(ii) Where necessary, use equipment
that enables the dedicated spotter to
communicate directly with the operator.
(iii) Give timely information to the
operator so that the required clearance
distance can be maintained.
(5) Additional precautions for
traveling in poor visibility. When
traveling at night, or in conditions of
poor visibility, in addition to the
measures specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section, the employer
must ensure that:
(i) The power lines are illuminated or
another means of identifying the
location of the lines is used.
(ii) A safe path of travel is identified
and used.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48146

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE T—MINIMUM CLEARANCE DISTANCES WHILE TRAVELING WITH NO LOAD
Voltage
(nominal, kV, alternating current)

While traveling—minimum clearance distance
(feet)

up to 0.75 .................................................................................................
over .75 to 50 ...........................................................................................
over 50 to 345 ..........................................................................................
over 345 to 750 ........................................................................................
Over 750 to 1,000 ....................................................................................
Over 1,000 ................................................................................................

4
6
10
16
20
(as established by the utility owner/operator or registered professional
engineer who is a qualified person with respect to electrical power
transmission and distribution).

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1412

Inspections.

(a) Modified equipment.
(1) Equipment that has had
modifications or additions which affect
the safe operation of the equipment
(such as modifications or additions
involving a safety device or operational
aid, critical part of a control system,
power plant, braking system, loadsustaining structural components, load
hook, or in-use operating mechanism) or
capacity must be inspected by a
qualified person after such
modifications/additions have been
completed, prior to initial use. The
inspection must meet all of the
following requirements:
(i) The inspection must assure that the
modifications or additions have been
done in accordance with the approval
obtained pursuant to § 1926.1434
(Equipment modifications).
(ii) The inspection must include
functional testing of the equipment.
(2) Equipment must not be used until
an inspection under this paragraph
demonstrates that the requirements of
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section have
been met.
(b) Repaired/adjusted equipment.
(1) Equipment that has had a repair or
adjustment that relates to safe operation
(such as: A repair or adjustment to a
safety device or operator aid, or to a
critical part of a control system, power
plant, braking system, load-sustaining
structural components, load hook, or inuse operating mechanism), must be
inspected by a qualified person after
such a repair or adjustment has been
completed, prior to initial use. The
inspection must meet all of the
following requirements:
(i) The qualified person must
determine if the repair/adjustment
meets manufacturer equipment criteria
(where applicable and available).
(ii) Where manufacturer equipment
criteria are unavailable or inapplicable,
the qualified person must:
(A) Determine if a registered
professional engineer (RPE) is needed to
develop criteria for the repair/
adjustment. If an RPE is not needed, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

employer must ensure that the criteria
are developed by the qualified person.
If an RPE is needed, the employer must
ensure that they are developed by an
RPE.
(B) Determine if the repair/adjustment
meets the criteria developed in
accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)
of this section.
(iii) The inspection must include
functional testing of the repaired/
adjusted parts and other components
that may be affected by the repair/
adjustment.
(4) Equipment must not be used until
an inspection under this paragraph
demonstrates that the repair/adjustment
meets the requirements of paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section (or, where
applicable, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section).
(c) Post-assembly.
(1) Upon completion of assembly, the
equipment must be inspected by a
qualified person to assure that it is
configured in accordance with
manufacturer equipment criteria.
(2) Where manufacturer equipment
criteria are unavailable, a qualified
person must:
(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 must ensure
that the criteria are developed by the
qualified person. If an RPE is needed,
the employer must ensure that they are
developed by an RPE.
(ii) Determine if the equipment meets
the criteria developed in accordance
with paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section.
(3) Equipment must not be used until
an inspection under this paragraph
demonstrates that the equipment is
configured in accordance with the
applicable criteria.
(d) Each shift.
(1) A competent person must begin a
visual inspection prior to each shift the
equipment will be used, which must be
completed before or during that shift.
The inspection must consist of
observation for apparent deficiencies.

PO 00000

Frm 00242

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Taking apart equipment components
and booming down is not required as
part of this inspection unless the results
of the visual inspection or trial
operation indicate that further
investigation necessitating taking apart
equipment components or booming
down is needed. Determinations made
in conducting the inspection must be
reassessed in light of observations made
during operation. At a minimum the
inspection must include all of the
following:
(i) Control mechanisms for
maladjustments interfering with proper
operation.
(ii) Control and drive mechanisms for
apparent excessive wear of components
and contamination by lubricants, water
or other foreign matter.
(iii) Air, hydraulic, and other
pressurized lines for deterioration or
leakage, particularly those which flex in
normal operation.
(iv) Hydraulic system for proper fluid
level.
(v) Hooks and latches for deformation,
cracks, excessive wear, or damage such
as from chemicals or heat.
(vi) Wire rope reeving for compliance
with the manufacturer’s specifications.
(vii) Wire rope, in accordance with
§ 1926.1413(a).
(viii) Electrical apparatus for
malfunctioning, signs of apparent
excessive deterioration, dirt or moisture
accumulation.
(ix) Tires (when in use) for proper
inflation and condition.
(x) Ground conditions around the
equipment for proper support, including
ground settling under and around
outriggers/stabilizers and supporting
foundations, ground water
accumulation, or similar conditions.
This paragraph does not apply to the
inspection of ground conditions for
railroad tracks and their underlying
support when the railroad tracks are
part of the general railroad system of
transportation that is regulated pursuant
to the Federal Railroad Administration
under 49 CFR part 213.
(xi) The equipment for level position
within the tolerances specified by the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
equipment manufacturer’s
recommendations, both before each shift
and after each move and setup.
(xii) Operator cab windows for
significant cracks, breaks, or other
deficiencies that would hamper the
operator’s view.
(xiii) Rails, rail stops, rail clamps and
supporting surfaces when the
equipment has rail traveling. This
paragraph does not apply to the
inspection of rails, rail stops, rail
clamps and supporting surfaces when
the railroad tracks are part of the general
railroad system of transportation that is
regulated pursuant to the Federal
Railroad Administration under 49 CFR
part 213.
(xiv) Safety devices and operational
aids for proper operation.
(2) If any deficiency in paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) through (xiii) of this section (or
in additional inspection items required
to be checked for specific types of
equipment in accordance with other
sections of this standard) is identified,
an immediate determination must be
made by the competent person as to
whether the deficiency constitutes a
safety hazard. If the deficiency is
determined to constitute a safety hazard,
the equipment must be taken out of
service until it has been corrected. See
§ 1926.1417.
(3) If any deficiency in paragraph
(d)(1)(xiv) of this section (safety
devices/operational aids) is identified,
the action specified in § 1926.1415 and
§ 1926.1416 must be taken prior to using
the equipment.
(e) Monthly.
(1) Each month the equipment is in
service it must be inspected in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section (each shift).
(2) Equipment must not be used until
an inspection under this paragraph
demonstrates that no corrective action
under paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this
section is required.
(3) Documentation.
(i) The following information must be
documented and maintained 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 must be retained
for a minimum of three months.
(f) Annual/comprehensive.
(1) At least every 12 months the
equipment must be inspected by a
qualified person in accordance with
paragraph (d) of this section (each shift)
except that the corrective action set
forth in paragraphs (f)(4), (f)(5), and
(f)(6) of this section must apply in place

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

of the corrective action required by
paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this
section.
(2) In addition, at least every 12
months, the equipment must be
inspected by a qualified person.
Disassembly is required, as necessary, to
complete the inspection. The equipment
must be inspected for all of the
following:
(i) Equipment structure (including the
boom and, if equipped, the jib):
(A) Structural members: Deformed,
cracked, or significantly corroded.
(B) Bolts, rivets and other fasteners:
loose, failed or significantly corroded.
(C) Welds for cracks.
(ii) Sheaves and drums for cracks or
significant wear.
(iii) Parts such as pins, bearings,
shafts, gears, rollers and locking devices
for distortion, cracks or significant wear.
(iv) Brake and clutch system parts,
linings, pawls and ratchets for excessive
wear.
(v) Safety devices and operational
aids for proper operation (including
significant inaccuracies).
(vi) Gasoline, diesel, electric, or other
power plants for safety-related problems
(such as leaking exhaust and emergency
shut-down feature) and conditions, and
proper operation.
(vii) Chains and chain drive sprockets
for excessive wear of sprockets and
excessive chain stretch.
(viii) Travel steering, brakes, and
locking devices, for proper operation.
(ix) Tires for damage or excessive
wear.
(x) Hydraulic, pneumatic and other
pressurized hoses, fittings and tubing, as
follows:
(A) Flexible hose or its junction with
the fittings for indications of leaks.
(B) Threaded or clamped joints for
leaks.
(C) Outer covering of the hose for
blistering, abnormal deformation or
other signs of failure/impending failure.
(D) Outer surface of a hose, rigid tube,
or fitting for indications of excessive
abrasion or scrubbing.
(xi) Hydraulic and pneumatic pumps
and motors, as follows:
(A) Performance indicators: Unusual
noises or vibration, low operating speed,
excessive heating of the fluid, low
pressure.
(B) Loose bolts or fasteners.
(C) Shaft seals and joints between
pump sections for leaks.
(xii) Hydraulic and pneumatic valves,
as follows:
(A) Spools: Sticking, improper return
to neutral, and leaks.
(B) Leaks.
(C) Valve housing cracks.
(D) Relief valves: Failure to reach
correct pressure (if there is a

PO 00000

Frm 00243

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48147

manufacturer procedure for checking
pressure, it must be followed).
(xiii) Hydraulic and pneumatic
cylinders, as follows:
(A) Drifting caused by fluid leaking
across the piston.
(B) Rod seals and welded joints for
leaks.
(C) Cylinder rods for scores, nicks, or
dents.
(D) Case (barrel) for significant dents.
(E) Rod eyes and connecting joints:
Loose or deformed.
(xiv) Outrigger or stabilizer pads/
floats for excessive wear or cracks.
(xv) Slider pads for excessive wear or
cracks.
(xvi) Electrical components and
wiring for cracked or split insulation
and loose or corroded terminations.
(xvii) Warning labels and decals
originally supplied with the equipment
by the manufacturer or otherwise
required under this standard: Missing or
unreadable.
(xviii) Originally equipped operator
seat (or equivalent): Missing.
(xix) Operator seat: Unserviceable.
(xx) Originally equipped steps,
ladders, handrails, guards: Missing.
(xxi) Steps, ladders, handrails, guards:
In unusable/unsafe condition.
(3) This inspection must include
functional testing to determine that the
equipment as configured in the
inspection is functioning properly.
(4) If any deficiency is identified, an
immediate determination must be made
by the qualified person as to whether
the deficiency constitutes a safety
hazard or, though not yet a safety
hazard, needs to be monitored in the
monthly inspections.
(5) If the qualified person determines
that a deficiency is a safety hazard, the
equipment must be taken out of service
until it has been corrected, except when
temporary alternative measures are
implemented as specified in
§ 1926.1416(d) or § 1926.1435(e). See
§ 1926.1417.
(6) If the qualified person determines
that, though not presently a safety
hazard, the deficiency needs to be
monitored, the employer must ensure
that the deficiency is checked in the
monthly inspections.
(7) Documentation of annual/
comprehensive inspection. The
following information must be
documented, maintained, and retained
for a minimum of 12 months, 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.
(g) Severe service. Where the severity
of use/conditions is such that there is a

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48148

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

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
must stop using the equipment and a
qualified person must:
(1) Inspect the equipment for
structural damage to determine if the
equipment can continue to be used
safely.
(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 must inspect those
items/conditions.
(3) If a deficiency is found, the
employer must follow the requirements
in paragraphs (f)(4) through (6) of this
section.
(h) Equipment not in regular use.
Equipment that has been idle for 3
months or more must be inspected by a
qualified person in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (e) (Monthly)
of this section before initial use.
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) Any part of a manufacturer’s
procedures regarding inspections that
relate to safe operation (such as to a
safety device or operational aid, critical
part of a control system, power plant,
braking system, load-sustaining
structural components, load hook, or inuse operating mechanism) that is more
comprehensive or has a more frequent
schedule of inspection than the
requirements of this section must be
followed.
(k) All documents produced under
this section must be available, during
the applicable document retention
period, to all persons who conduct
inspections under this section.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1413

Wire rope—inspection.

(a) Shift inspection.
(1) A competent person must begin a
visual inspection prior to each shift the
equipment is used, which must be
completed before or during that shift.
The inspection must consist of
observation of wire ropes (running and
standing) that are likely to be in use
during the shift for apparent
deficiencies, including those listed in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
Untwisting (opening) of wire rope or
booming down is not required as part of
this inspection.
(2) Apparent deficiencies.
(i) Category I. Apparent deficiencies
in this category include the following:
(A) Significant distortion of the wire
rope structure such as kinking,
crushing, unstranding, birdcaging, signs

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

of core failure or steel core protrusion
between the outer strands.
(B) Significant corrosion.
(C) Electric arc damage (from a source
other than power lines) or heat damage.
(D) Improperly applied end
connections.
(E) Significantly corroded, cracked,
bent, or worn end connections (such as
from severe service).
(ii) Category II. Apparent deficiencies
in this category are:
(A) Visible broken wires, as follows:
(1) In running wire ropes: Six
randomly distributed broken wires in
one rope lay or three broken wires in
one strand in one rope lay, where a rope
lay is the length along the rope in which
one strand makes a complete revolution
around the rope.
(2) In rotation resistant ropes: Two
randomly distributed broken wires in
six rope diameters or four randomly
distributed broken wires in 30 rope
diameters.
(3) In pendants or standing wire
ropes: More than two broken wires in
one rope lay located in rope beyond end
connections and/or more than one
broken wire in a rope lay located at an
end connection.
(B) A diameter reduction of more than
5% from nominal diameter.
(iii) Category III. Apparent
deficiencies in this category include the
following:
(A) In rotation resistant wire rope,
core protrusion or other distortion
indicating core failure.
(B) Prior electrical contact with a
power line.
(C) A broken strand.
(3) Critical review items. The
competent person must give particular
attention to all of the following:
(i) Rotation resistant wire rope in use.
(ii) Wire rope being used for boom
hoists and luffing hoists, particularly at
reverse bends.
(iii) Wire rope at flange points,
crossover points and repetitive pickup
points on drums.
(iv) Wire rope at or near terminal
ends.
(v) Wire rope in contact with saddles,
equalizer sheaves or other sheaves
where rope travel is limited.
(4) Removal from service.
(i) If a deficiency in Category I (see
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section) is
identified, an immediate determination
must be made by the competent person
as to whether the deficiency constitutes
a safety hazard. If the deficiency is
determined to constitute a safety hazard,
operations involving use of the wire
rope in question must be prohibited
until:
(A) The wire rope is replaced (see
§ 1926.1417), or

PO 00000

Frm 00244

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(B) If the deficiency is localized, the
problem is corrected by severing the
wire rope in two; the undamaged
portion may continue to be used.
Joining lengths of wire rope by splicing
is prohibited. If a rope is shortened
under this paragraph, the employer
must ensure that the drum will still
have two wraps of wire when the load
and/or boom is in its lowest position.
(ii) If a deficiency in Category II (see
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section) is
identified, operations involving use of
the wire rope in question must be
prohibited until:
(A) The employer complies with the
wire rope manufacturer’s established
criterion for removal from service or a
different criterion that the wire rope
manufacturer has approved in writing
for that specific wire rope (see
§ 1926.1417),
(B) The wire rope is replaced (see
§ 1926.1417), or
(C) If the deficiency is localized, the
problem is corrected by severing the
wire rope in two; the undamaged
portion may continue to be used.
Joining lengths of wire rope by splicing
is prohibited. If a rope is shortened
under this paragraph, the employer
must ensure that the drum will still
have two wraps of wire when the load
and/or boom is in its lowest position.
(iii) If a deficiency in Category III is
identified, operations involving use of
the wire rope in question must be
prohibited until:
(A) The wire rope is replaced (see
§ 1926.1417), or
(B) If the deficiency (other than power
line contact) is localized, the problem is
corrected by severing the wire rope in
two; the undamaged portion may
continue to be used. Joining lengths of
wire rope by splicing is prohibited.
Repair of wire rope that contacted an
energized power line is also prohibited.
If a rope is shortened under this
paragraph, the employer must ensure
that the drum will still have two wraps
of wire when the load and/or boom is
in its lowest position.
(iv) 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
must be tagged-out, in accordance with
§ 1926.1417(f)(1), until the wire rope is
repaired or replaced.
(b) Monthly inspection.
(1) Each month an inspection must be
conducted in accordance with
paragraph (a) (shift inspection) of this
section.
(2) The inspection must include any
deficiencies that the qualified person
who conducts the annual inspection

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
determines under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of
this section must be monitored.
(3) Wire ropes on equipment must not
be used until an inspection under this
paragraph demonstrates that no
corrective action under paragraph (a)(4)
of this section is required.
(4) The inspection must be
documented according to
§ 1926.1412(e)(3) (monthly inspection
documentation).
(c) Annual/comprehensive.
(1) At least every 12 months, wire
ropes in use on equipment must be
inspected by a qualified person in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section (shift inspection).
(2) In addition, at least every 12
months, the wire ropes in use on
equipment must be inspected by a
qualified person, as follows:
(i) The inspection must be for
deficiencies of the types listed in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(ii) The inspection must be complete
and thorough, covering the surface of
the entire length of the wire ropes, with
particular attention given to all of the
following:
(A) Critical review items listed in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(B) Those sections that are normally
hidden during shift and monthly
inspections.
(C) Wire rope subject to reverse bends.
(D) Wire rope passing over sheaves.
(iii) Exception: In the event an
inspection under paragraph (c)(2) of this
section is not feasible due to existing
set-up and configuration of the
equipment (such as where an assist
crane is needed) or due to site
conditions (such as a dense urban
setting), such inspections must be
conducted as soon as it becomes
feasible, but no longer than an
additional 6 months for running ropes
and, for standing ropes, at the time of
disassembly.
(3) If a deficiency is identified, an
immediate determination must be made
by the qualified person as to whether
the deficiency constitutes a safety
hazard.
(i) If the deficiency is determined to
constitute a safety hazard, operations
involving use of the wire rope in
question must be prohibited until:
(A) The wire rope is replaced (see
§ 1926.1417), or
(B) If the deficiency is localized, the
problem is corrected by severing the
wire rope in two; the undamaged
portion may continue to be used.
Joining lengths of wire rope by splicing
is prohibited. If a rope is shortened
under this paragraph, the employer
must ensure that the drum will still
have two wraps of wire when the load
and/or boom is in its lowest position.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(ii) If the qualified person determines
that, though not presently a safety
hazard, the deficiency needs to be
monitored, the employer must ensure
that the deficiency is checked in the
monthly inspections.
(4) The inspection must be
documented according to
§ 1926.1412(f)(7) (annual/
comprehensive inspection
documentation).
(d) Rope lubricants that are of the type
that hinder inspection must not be used.
(e) All documents produced under
this section must be available, during
the applicable document retention
period, to all persons who conduct
inspections under this section.
§ 1926.1414 Wire rope—selection and
installation criteria.

(a) Original equipment wire rope and
replacement wire rope must be selected
and installed in accordance with the
requirements of this section. Selection
of replacement wire rope must be in
accordance with the recommendations
of the wire rope manufacturer, the
equipment manufacturer, or a qualified
person.
(b) Wire rope design criteria: Wire
rope (other than rotation resistant rope)
must comply with either Option (1) or
Option (2) of this section, as follows:
(1) Option (1). Wire rope must comply
with section 5–1.7.1 of ASME B30.5–
2004 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 1926.6) except that section’s paragraph
(c) must not apply.
(2) Option (2). Wire rope must be
designed to have, in relation to the
equipment’s rated capacity, a sufficient
minimum breaking force and design
factor so that compliance with the
applicable inspection provisions in
§ 1926.1413 will be an effective means
of preventing sudden rope failure.
(c) Wire rope must be compatible with
the safe functioning of the equipment.
(d) Boom hoist reeving.
(1) Fiber core ropes must not be used
for boom hoist reeving, except for
derricks.
(2) Rotation resistant ropes must be
used for boom hoist reeving only where
the requirements of paragraph (e)(4)(ii)
of this section are met.
(e) Rotation resistant ropes.
(1) Definitions.
(i) Type I rotation resistant wire rope
(‘‘Type I’’). Type I rotation resistant rope
is stranded rope constructed to have
little or no tendency to rotate or, if
guided, transmits little or no torque. It
has at least 15 outer strands and
comprises an assembly of at least three
layers of strands laid helically over a
center in two operations. The direction
of lay of the outer strands is opposite to
that of the underlying layer.

PO 00000

Frm 00245

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48149

(ii) Type II rotation resistant wire rope
(‘‘Type II’’). Type II rotation resistant
rope is stranded rope constructed to
have significant resistance to rotation. It
has at least 10 outer strands and
comprises an assembly of two or more
layers of strands laid helically over a
center in two or three operations. The
direction of lay of the outer strands is
opposite to that of the underlying layer.
(iii) Type III rotation resistant wire
rope (‘‘Type III’’). Type III rotation
resistant rope is stranded rope
constructed to have limited resistance to
rotation. It has no more than nine outer
strands, and comprises an assembly of
two layers of strands laid helically over
a center in two operations. The
direction of lay of the outer strands is
opposite to that of the underlying layer.
(2) Requirements.
(i) Types II and III with an operating
design factor of less than 5 must not be
used for duty cycle or repetitive lifts.
(ii) Rotation resistant ropes (including
Types I, II and III) must have an
operating design factor of no less than
3.5.
(iii) Type I must have an operating
design factor of no less than 5, except
where the wire rope manufacturer and
the equipment manufacturer approves
the design factor, in writing.
(iv) Types II and III must have an
operating design factor of no less than
5, except where the requirements of
paragraph (e)(3) of this section are met.
(3) When Types II and III with an
operating design factor of less than 5 are
used (for non-duty cycle, non-repetitive
lifts), the following requirements must
be met for each lifting operation:
(i) A qualified person must inspect
the rope in accordance with
§ 1926.1413(a). The rope must 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 must be
considered a hazard.
(ii) Operations must be conducted in
such a manner and at such speeds as to
minimize dynamic effects.
(iii) Each lift made under
§ 1926.1414(e)(3) must be recorded in
the monthly and annual inspection
documents. Such prior uses must be
considered by the qualified person in
determining whether to use the rope
again.
(4) Additional requirements for
rotation resistant ropes for boom hoist
reeving.
(i) Rotation resistant ropes must not
be used for boom hoist reeving, except
where the requirements of paragraph
(e)(4)(ii) of this section are met.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48150

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) Rotation resistant ropes may be
used as boom hoist reeving when load
hoists are used as boom hoists for
attachments such as luffing attachments
or boom and mast attachment systems.
Under these conditions, all of the
following requirements must be met:
(A) The drum must provide a first
layer rope pitch diameter of not less
than 18 times the nominal diameter of
the rope used.
(B) The requirements in
§ 1926.1426(a) (irrespective of the date
of manufacture of the equipment), and
§ 1926.1426(b).
(C) The requirements in ASME B30.5–
2004 sections 5–1.3.2(a), (a)(2) through
(a)(4), (b) and (d) (incorporated by
reference, see § 1926.6) except that the
minimum pitch diameter for sheaves
used in multiple rope reeving is 18
times the nominal diameter of the rope
used (instead of the value of 16
specified in section 5–1.3.2(d)).
(D) All sheaves used in the boom
hoist reeving system must have a rope
pitch diameter of not less than 18 times
the nominal diameter of the rope used.
(E) The operating design factor for the
boom hoist reeving system must be not
less than five.
(F) The operating design factor for
these ropes must be the total minimum
breaking force of all parts of rope in the
system divided by the load imposed on
the rope system when supporting the
static weights of the structure and the
load within the equipment’s rated
capacity.
(G) When provided, a powercontrolled lowering system must be
capable of handling rated capacities and
speeds as specified by the manufacturer.
(f) Wire rope clips used in
conjunction with wedge sockets must be
attached to the unloaded dead end of
the rope only, except that the use of
devices specifically designed for deadending rope in a wedge socket is
permitted.
(g) Socketing must be done in the
manner specified by the manufacturer of
the wire rope or fitting.
(h) Prior to cutting a wire rope,
seizings must be placed on each side of
the point to be cut. The length and
number of seizings must be in
accordance with the wire rope
manufacturer’s instructions.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1415

Safety devices.

(a) Safety devices. The following
safety devices are required on all
equipment covered by this subpart,
unless otherwise specified:
(1) Crane level indicator.
(i) The equipment must have a crane
level indicator that is either built into
the equipment or is available on the
equipment.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(ii) If a built-in crane level indicator
is not working properly, it must be
tagged-out or removed. If a removable
crane level indicator is not working
properly, it must be removed.
(iii) This requirement does not apply
to portal cranes, derricks, floating
cranes/derricks and land cranes/
derricks on barges, pontoons, vessels or
other means of flotation.
(2) Boom stops, except for derricks
and hydraulic booms.
(3) Jib stops (if a jib is attached),
except for derricks.
(4) Equipment with foot pedal brakes
must have locks.
(5) Hydraulic outrigger jacks and
hydraulic stabilizer jacks must have an
integral holding device/check valve.
(6) Equipment on rails must have rail
clamps and rail stops, except for portal
cranes.
(7) Horn
(i) The equipment must have a horn
that is either built into the equipment or
is on the equipment and immediately
available to the operator.
(ii) If a built-in horn is not working
properly, it must be tagged-out or
removed. If a removable horn is not
working properly, it must be removed.
(b) Proper operation required.
Operations must not begin unless all of
the devices listed in this section are in
proper working order. If a device stops
working properly during operations, the
operator must safely stop operations. If
any of the devices listed in this section
are not in proper working order, the
equipment must be taken out of service
and operations must not resume until
the device is again working properly.
See § 1926.1417 (Operation). Alternative
measures are not permitted to be used.
§ 1926.1416

Operational aids.

(a) The devices listed in this section
(‘‘listed operational aids’’) are required
on all equipment covered by this
subpart, unless otherwise specified.
(1) The requirements in paragraphs
(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) of this section do
not apply to articulating cranes.
(2) The requirements in paragraphs
(d)(3), (e)(1), and (e)(4) of this section
apply only to those digger derricks
manufactured after November 8, 2011.
(b) Operations must not begin unless
the listed operational aids are in proper
working order, except where an
operational aid is being repaired the
employer uses the specified temporary
alternative measures. The time periods
permitted for repairing defective
operational aids are specified in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
More protective alternative measures
specified by the crane/derrick
manufacturer, if any, must be followed.

PO 00000

Frm 00246

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(c) If a listed operational aid stops
working properly during operations, the
operator must safely stop operations
until the temporary alternative measures
are implemented or the device is again
working properly. If a replacement part
is no longer available, the use of a
substitute device that performs the same
type of function is permitted and is not
considered a modification under
§ 1926.1434.
(d) Category I operational aids and
alternative measures. Operational aids
listed in this paragraph that are not
working properly must be repaired no
later than 7 calendar days after the
deficiency occurs. Exception: If the
employer documents that it has ordered
the necessary parts within 7 calendar
days of the occurrence of the deficiency,
the repair must be completed within 7
calendar days of receipt of the parts. See
§ 1926.1417(j) for additional
requirements.
(1) Boom hoist limiting device.
(i) For equipment manufactured after
December 16, 1969, a boom hoist
limiting device is required. Temporary
alternative measures (use at least one).
One or more of the following methods
must be used:
(A) Use a boom angle indicator.
(B) Clearly mark the boom hoist cable
(so that it can easily be seen by the
operator) at a point that will give the
operator sufficient time to stop the hoist
to keep the boom within the minimum
allowable radius. In addition, install
mirrors or remote video cameras and
displays if necessary for the operator to
see the mark.
(C) Clearly mark the boom hoist cable
(so that it can easily be seen by a
spotter) at a point that will give the
spotter sufficient time to signal the
operator and have the operator stop the
hoist to keep the boom within the
minimum allowable radius.
(ii) If the equipment was
manufactured on or before December 16,
1969, and is not equipped with a boom
hoist limiting device, at least one of the
measures in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A)
through (C) of this section must be used.
(2) Luffing jib limiting device.
Equipment with a luffing jib must have
a luffing jib limiting device. Temporary
alternative measures are the same as in
paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, except
to limit the movement of the luffing jib
rather than the boom hoist.
(3) Anti two-blocking device.
(i) Telescopic boom cranes
manufactured after February 28, 1992,
must be equipped with a device which
automatically prevents damage from
contact between the load block,
overhaul ball, or similar component,
and the boom tip (or fixed upper block

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
or similar component). The device(s)
must prevent such damage at all points
where two-blocking could occur.
Temporary alternative measures:
Clearly mark the cable (so that it can
easily be seen by the operator) at a point
that will give the operator sufficient
time to stop the hoist to prevent twoblocking, and use a spotter when
extending the boom.
(ii) Lattice boom cranes.
(A) Lattice boom cranes manufactured
after Feb 28, 1992, must be equipped
with a device that either automatically
prevents damage and load failure from
contact between the load block,
overhaul ball, or similar component,
and the boom tip (or fixed upper block
or similar component), or warns the
operator in time for the operator to
prevent two-blocking. The device must
prevent such damage/failure or provide
adequate warning for all points where
two-blocking could occur.
(B) Lattice boom cranes and derricks
manufactured after November 8, 2011
must be equipped with a device which
automatically prevents damage and load
failure from contact between the load
block, overhaul ball, or similar
component, and the boom tip (or fixed
upper block or similar component). The
device(s) must prevent such damage/
failure at all points where two-blocking
could occur.
(C) Exception. The requirements in
paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this
section do not apply to such lattice
boom equipment when used for
dragline, clamshell (grapple), magnet,
drop ball, container handling, concrete
bucket, marine operations that do not
involve hoisting personnel, and pile
driving work.
(D) Temporary alternative measures.
Clearly mark the cable (so that it can
easily be seen by the operator) at a point
that will give the operator sufficient
time to stop the hoist to prevent twoblocking, or use a spotter.
(iii) Articulating cranes manufactured
after December 31, 1999, that are
equipped with a load hoist must be
equipped with a device that
automatically prevents damage from
contact between the load block,
overhaul ball, or similar component,
and the boom tip (or fixed upper block
or similar component). The device must
prevent such damage at all points where
two-blocking could occur. Temporary
alternative measures: When twoblocking could only occur with
movement of the load hoist, clearly
mark the cable (so that it can easily be
seen by the operator) at a point that will
give the operator sufficient time to stop
the hoist to prevent two-blocking, or use
a spotter. When two-blocking could

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

occur without movement of the load
hoist, clearly mark the cable (so that it
can easily be seen by the operator) at a
point that will give the operator
sufficient time to stop the hoist to
prevent two-blocking, and use a spotter
when extending the boom.
(e) Category II operational aids and
alternative measures. Operational aids
listed in this paragraph that are not
working properly must be repaired no
later than 30 calendar days after the
deficiency occurs. Exception: If the
employer documents that it has ordered
the necessary parts within 7 calendar
days of the occurrence of the deficiency,
and the part is not received in time to
complete the repair in 30 calendar days,
the repair must be completed within 7
calendar days of receipt of the parts. See
§ 1926.1417(j) for additional
requirements.
(1) Boom angle or radius indicator.
The equipment must have a boom angle
or radius indicator readable from the
operator’s station. Temporary
alternative measures: Radii or boom
angle must be determined by measuring
the radii or boom angle with a
measuring device.
(2) Jib angle indicator if the
equipment has a luffing jib. Temporary
alternative measures: Radii or jib angle
must be determined by ascertaining the
main boom angle and then measuring
the radii or jib angle with a measuring
device.
(3) Boom length indicator if the
equipment has a telescopic boom,
except where the rated capacity is
independent of the boom length.
Temporary alternative measures. One or
more of the following methods must be
used:
(i) Mark the boom with measured
marks to calculate boom length,
(ii) Calculate boom length from boom
angle and radius measurements,
(iii) Measure the boom with a
measuring device.
(4) Load weighing and similar devices.
(i) Equipment (other than derricks and
articulating cranes) manufactured after
March 29, 2003 with a rated capacity
over 6,000 pounds must 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 must
be determined from a source recognized
by the industry (such as the load’s
manufacturer) or by a calculation
method recognized by the industry
(such as calculating a steel beam from
measured dimensions and a known per
foot weight). This information must be
provided to the operator prior to the lift.

PO 00000

Frm 00247

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48151

(ii) Articulating cranes manufactured
after November 8, 2011 must have at
least one of the following: automatic
overload prevention device, load
weighing device, load moment (or rated
capacity) indicator, or load moment
(rated capacity) limiter. Temporary
alternative measures: The weight of the
load must be determined from a source
recognized by the industry (such as the
load’s manufacturer) or by a calculation
method recognized by the industry
(such as calculating a steel beam from
measured dimensions and a known per
foot weight). This information must be
provided to the operator prior to the lift.
(5) The following devices are required
on equipment manufactured after
November 8, 2011:
(i) Outrigger/stabilizer position
(horizontal beam extension) sensor/
monitor if the equipment has outriggers
or stabilizers. Temporary alternative
measures: The operator must verify that
the position of the outriggers or
stabilizers is correct (in accordance with
manufacturer procedures) before
beginning operations requiring outrigger
or stabilizer deployment.
(ii) Hoist drum rotation indicator if
the equipment has a hoist drum not
visible from the operator’s station.
Temporary alternative measures: Mark
the drum to indicate the rotation of the
drum. In addition, install mirrors or
remote video cameras and displays if
necessary for the operator to see the
mark.
§ 1926.1417

Operation.

(a) The employer must comply with
all manufacturer procedures applicable
to the operational functions of
equipment, including its use with
attachments.
(b) Unavailable operation procedures.
(1) Where the manufacturer
procedures are unavailable, the
employer must develop and ensure
compliance with all procedures
necessary for the safe operation of the
equipment and attachments.
(2) Procedures for the operational
controls must be developed by a
qualified person.
(3) Procedures related to the capacity
of the equipment must be developed
and signed by a registered professional
engineer familiar with the equipment.
(c) Accessibility of procedures.
(1) The procedures applicable to the
operation of the equipment, including
rated capacities (load charts),
recommended operating speeds, special
hazard warnings, instructions, and
operator’s manual, must be readily
available in the cab at all times for use
by the operator.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48152

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Where rated capacities are
available in the cab only in electronic
form: In the event of a failure which
makes the rated capacities inaccessible,
the operator must immediately cease
operations or follow safe shut-down
procedures until the rated capacities (in
electronic or other form) are available.
(d) The operator must not engage in
any practice or activity that diverts his/
her attention while actually engaged in
operating the equipment, such as the
use of cellular phones (other than when
used for signal communications).
(e) Leaving the equipment
unattended.
(1) The operator must not leave the
controls while the load is suspended,
except where all of the following are
met:
(i) The operator remains adjacent to
the equipment and is not engaged in any
other duties.
(ii) The load is to be held suspended
for a period of time exceeding normal
lifting operations.
(iii) The competent person determines
that it is safe to do so and implements
measures necessary to restrain the boom
hoist and telescoping, load, swing, and
outrigger or stabilizer functions.
(iv) Barricades or caution lines, and
notices, are erected to prevent all
employees from entering the fall zone.
No employees, including those listed in
§§ 1926.1425(b)(1) through (3),
§ 1926.1425(d) or § 1926.1425(e), are
permitted in the fall zone.
(2) The provisions in
§ 1926.1417(e)(1) do not apply to
working gear (such as slings, spreader
bars, ladders, and welding machines)
where the weight of the working gear is
negligible relative to the lifting capacity
of the equipment as positioned, and the
working gear is suspended over an area
other than an entrance or exit.
(f) Tag-out.
(1) Tagging out of service equipment/
functions. Where the employer has
taken the equipment out of service, a tag
must 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
must be placed in a conspicuous
position stating that the function is out
of service and is not to be used.
(2) Response to ‘‘do not operate’’/tagout signs.
(i) If there is a warning (tag-out or
maintenance/do not operate) sign on the
equipment or starting control, the
operator must not activate the switch or
start the equipment until the sign has
been removed by a person authorized to
remove it, or until the operator has
verified that:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(A) No one is servicing, working on,
or otherwise in a dangerous position on
the machine.
(B) The equipment has been repaired
and is working properly.
(ii) If there is a warning (tag-out or
maintenance/do not operate) sign on
any other switch or control, the operator
must not activate that switch or control
until the sign has been removed by a
person authorized to remove it, or until
the operator has verified that the
requirements in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A)
and (B) of this section have been met.
(g) Before starting the engine, the
operator must verify that all controls are
in the proper starting position and that
all personnel are in the clear.
(h) Storm warning. When a local
storm warning has been issued, the
competent person must determine
whether it is necessary to implement
manufacturer recommendations for
securing the equipment.
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) If equipment adjustments or repairs
are necessary:
(1) The operator must, in writing,
promptly inform the person designated
by the employer to receive such
information and, where there are
successive shifts, to the next operator;
and
(2) The employer must notify all
affected employees, at the beginning of
each shift, of the necessary adjustments
or repairs and all alternative measures.
(k) Safety devices and operational
aids must not be used as a substitute for
the exercise of professional judgment by
the operator.
(l) [Reserved.]
(m) If the competent person
determines that there is a slack rope
condition requiring re-spooling of the
rope, it must be verified (before starting
to lift) that the rope is seated on the
drum and in the sheaves as the slack is
removed.
(n) The competent person must adjust
the equipment and/or operations to
address the effect of wind, ice, and
snow on equipment stability and rated
capacity.
(o) Compliance with rated capacity.
(1) The equipment must not be
operated in excess of its rated capacity.
(2) The operator must not be required
to operate the equipment in a manner
that would violate paragraph (o)(1) of
this section.
(3) Load weight. The operator must
verify that the load is within the rated
capacity of the equipment by at least
one of the following methods:
(i) The weight of the load must be
determined from a source recognized by
the industry (such as the load’s
manufacturer), or by a calculation

PO 00000

Frm 00248

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

method recognized by the industry
(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 must be
provided to the operator prior to the lift;
or
(ii) The operator must begin hoisting
the load to determine, using a load
weighing device, load moment
indicator, rated capacity indicator, or
rated capacity limiter, if it exceeds 75
percent of the maximum rated capacity
at the longest radius that will be used
during the lift operation. If it does, the
operator must not proceed with the lift
until he/she verifies the weight of the
load in accordance with paragraph
(o)(3)(i) of this section.
(p) The boom or other parts of the
equipment must not contact any
obstruction.
(q) The equipment must not be used
to drag or pull loads sideways.
(r) On wheel-mounted equipment, no
loads must be lifted over the front area,
except as permitted by the
manufacturer.
(s) The operator must test the brakes
each time a load that is 90% or more of
the maximum line pull is handled by
lifting the load a few inches and
applying the brakes. In duty cycle and
repetitive lifts where each lift is 90% or
more of the maximum line pull, this
requirement applies to the first lift but
not to successive lifts.
(t) Neither the load nor the boom must
be lowered below the point where less
than two full wraps of rope remain on
their respective drums.
(u) Traveling with a load.
(1) Traveling with a load is prohibited
if the practice is prohibited by the
manufacturer.
(2) Where traveling with a load, the
employer must ensure that:
(i) A competent person supervises the
operation, determines if it is necessary
to reduce rated capacity, and makes
determinations regarding load position,
boom location, ground support, travel
route, overhead obstructions, and speed
of movement necessary to ensure safety.
(ii) The determinations of the
competent person required in paragraph
(u)(2)(i) of this section are implemented.
(iii) For equipment with tires, tire
pressure specified by the manufacturer
is maintained.
(v) Rotational speed of the equipment
must be such that the load does not
swing out beyond the radius at which it
can be controlled.
(w) A tag or restraint line must be
used if necessary to prevent rotation of
the load that would be hazardous.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(x) The brakes must be adjusted in
accordance with manufacturer
procedures to prevent unintended
movement.
(y) The operator must obey a stop (or
emergency stop) signal, irrespective of
who gives it.
(z) Swinging locomotive cranes. A
locomotive crane must not be swung
into a position where railway cars on an
adjacent track could strike it, until it is
determined that cars are not being
moved on the adjacent track and that
proper flag protection has been
established.
(aa) Counterweight/ballast.
(1) The following applies to
equipment other than tower cranes:
(i) Equipment must not be operated
without the counterweight or ballast in
place as specified by the manufacturer.
(ii) The maximum counterweight or
ballast specified by the manufacturer for
the equipment must not be exceeded.
(2) Counterweight/ballast
requirements for tower cranes are
specified in § 1926.1435(b)(8).
§ 1926.1418

Authority to stop operation.

Whenever there is a concern as to
safety, the operator must have the
authority to stop and refuse to handle
loads until a qualified person has
determined that safety has been assured.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1419 Signals—general
requirements.

(a) A signal person must be provided
in each of the following situations:
(1) The point of operation, meaning
the load travel or the area near or at load
placement, is not in full view of the
operator.
(2) When the equipment is traveling,
the view in the direction of travel is
obstructed.
(3) Due to site specific safety
concerns, either the operator or the
person handling the load determines
that it is necessary.
(b) Types of signals. Signals to
operators must be by hand, voice,
audible, or new signals.
(c) Hand signals.
(1) When using hand signals, the
Standard Method must be used (see
Appendix A of this subpart). Exception:
Where use of the Standard Method for
hand signals is infeasible, or where an
operation or use of an attachment is not
covered in the Standard Method, nonstandard hand signals may be used in
accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(2) Non-standard hand signals. When
using non-standard hand signals, the
signal person, operator, and lift director
(where there is one) must contact each
other prior to the operation and agree on

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

the non-standard hand signals that will
be used.
(d) New signals. Signals other than
hand, voice, or audible signals may be
used where the employer demonstrates
that:
(1) The new signals provide at least
equally effective communication as
voice, audible, or Standard Method
hand signals, or
(2) The new signals comply with a
national consensus standard that
provides at least equally effective
communication as voice, audible, or
Standard Method hand signals.
(e) Suitability. The signals used (hand,
voice, audible, or new), and means of
transmitting the signals to the operator
(such as direct line of sight, video,
radio, etc.), must be appropriate for the
site conditions.
(f) During operations requiring
signals, the ability to transmit signals
between the operator and signal person
must be maintained. If that ability is
interrupted at any time, the operator
must safely stop operations requiring
signals until it is reestablished and a
proper signal is given and understood.
(g) If the operator becomes aware of a
safety problem and needs to
communicate with the signal person,
the operator must safely stop operations.
Operations must not resume until the
operator and signal person agree that the
problem has been resolved.
(h) Only one person may give signals
to a crane/derrick at a time, except in
circumstances covered by paragraph (j)
of this section.
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) Anyone who becomes aware of a
safety problem must alert the operator
or signal person by giving the stop or
emergency stop signal. (Note:
§ 1926.1417(y) requires the operator to
obey a stop or emergency stop signal).
(k) All directions given to the operator
by the signal person must be given from
the operator’s direction perspective.
(l) [Reserved.]
(m) Communication with multiple
cranes/derricks. Where a signal
person(s) is in communication with
more than one crane/derrick, a system
must be used for identifying the crane/
derrick each signal is for, as follows:
(1) for each signal, prior to giving the
function/direction, the signal person
must identify the crane/derrick the
signal is for, or
(2) must use an equally effective
method of identifying which crane/
derrick the signal is for.
§ 1926.1420 Signals—radio, telephone or
other electronic transmission of signals.

(a) The device(s) used to transmit
signals must be tested on site before

PO 00000

Frm 00249

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48153

beginning operations to ensure that the
signal transmission is effective, clear,
and reliable.
(b) Signal transmission must be
through a dedicated channel, except:
(1) Multiple cranes/derricks and one
or more signal persons may share a
dedicated channel for the purpose of
coordinating operations.
(2) Where a crane is being operated on
or adjacent to railroad tracks, and the
actions of the crane operator need to be
coordinated with the movement of other
equipment or trains on the same or
adjacent tracks.
(c) The operator’s reception of signals
must be by a hands-free system.
§ 1926.1421 Signals—voice signals—
additional requirements.

(a) Prior to beginning operations, the
operator, signal person and lift director
(if there is one), must 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 added or
substituted, there is confusion about the
voice signals, or a voice signal is to be
changed.
(b) Each voice signal must contain the
following three elements, given in the
following order: function (such as hoist,
boom, etc.), direction; distance and/or
speed; function, stop command.
(c) The operator, signal person and lift
director (if there is one), must be able to
effectively communicate in the language
used.
§ 1926.1422

Signals—hand signal chart.

Hand signal charts must be either
posted on the equipment or
conspicuously posted in the vicinity of
the hoisting operations.
§ 1926.1423

Fall protection.

(a) Application.
(1) Paragraphs (b), (c)(3), (e) and (f) of
this section apply to all equipment
covered by this subpart except tower
cranes.
(2) Paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (d), (g), (j)
and (k) of this section apply to all
equipment covered by this subpart.
(3) Paragraphs (c)(4) and (h) of this
section apply only to tower cranes.
(b) Boom walkways.
(1) Equipment manufactured after
November 8, 2011 with lattice booms
must be equipped with walkways on the
boom(s) if the vertical profile of the
boom (from cord centerline to cord
centerline) is 6 or more feet.
(2) Boom walkway criteria.
(i) The walkways must be at least 12
inches wide.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48154

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) Guardrails, railings and other
permanent fall protection attachments
along walkways are:
(A) Not required.
(B) Prohibited on booms supported by
pendant ropes or bars if the guardrails/
railings/attachments could be snagged
by the ropes or bars.
(C) Prohibited if of the removable type
(designed to be installed and removed
each time the boom is assembled/
disassembled).
(D) Where not prohibited, guardrails
or railings may be of any height up to,
but not more than, 45 inches.
(c) Steps, handholds, ladders,
grabrails, guardrails and railings.
(1) Section 1926.502(b) does not apply
to equipment covered by this subpart.
(2) The employer must maintain in
good condition originally-equipped
steps, handholds, ladders and
guardrails/railings/grabrails.
(3) Equipment manufactured after
November 8, 2011 must be equipped so
as to provide safe access and egress
between the ground and the operator
work station(s), including the forward
and rear positions, by the provision of
devices such as steps, handholds,
ladders, and guardrails/railings/
grabrails. These devices must meet the
following criteria:
(i) Steps, handholds, ladders and
guardrails/railings/grabrails must meet
the criteria of SAE J185 (May 2003)
(incorporated by reference, see § 1926.6)
or ISO 11660–2:1994(E) (incorporated
by reference, see § 1926.6) except where
infeasible.
(ii) Walking/stepping surfaces, except
for crawler treads, must have slipresistant features/properties (such as
diamond plate metal, strategically
placed grip tape, expanded metal, or
slip-resistant paint).
(4) Tower cranes manufactured after
November 8, 2011 must be equipped so
as to provide safe access and egress
between the ground and the cab,
machinery platforms, and tower (mast),
by the provision of devices such as
steps, handholds, ladders, and
guardrails/railings/grabrails. These
devices must meet the following
criteria:
(i) Steps, handholds, ladders, and
guardrails/railings/grabrails must meet
the criteria of ISO 11660–1:2008(E)
(incorporated by reference, see § 1926.6)
and ISO 11660–3:2008(E) (incorporated
by reference, see § 1926.6) or SAE J185
(May 2003) (incorporated by reference,
see § 1926.6) except where infeasible.
(ii) Walking/stepping surfaces must
have slip-resistant features/properties
(such as diamond plate metal,
strategically placed grip tape, expanded
metal, or slip-resistant paint).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(d) Personal fall arrest and fall
restraint systems. Personal fall arrest
system components must be used in
personal fall arrest and fall restraint
systems and must conform to the
criteria in § 1926.502(d) except that
§ 1926.502(d)(15) does not apply to
components used in personal fall arrest
and fall restraint systems. Either body
belts or body harnesses must be used in
personal fall arrest and fall restraint
systems.
(e) For non-assembly/disassembly
work, the employer must provide and
ensure the use of fall protection
equipment for employees who are on a
walking/working surface with an
unprotected side or edge more than 6
feet above a lower level as follows:
(1) When moving point-to-point:
(i) On non-lattice booms (whether
horizontal or not horizontal).
(ii) On lattice booms that are not
horizontal.
(iii) On horizontal lattice booms
where the fall distance is 15 feet or
more.
(2) While at a work station on any part
of the equipment (including the boom,
of any type), except when the employee
is at or near draw-works (when the
equipment is running), in the cab, or on
the deck.
(f) For assembly/disassembly work,
the employer must provide and ensure
the use of fall protection equipment for
employees who are on a walking/
working surface with an unprotected
side or edge more than 15 feet above a
lower level, except when the employee
is at or near draw-works (when the
equipment is running), in the cab, or on
the deck.
(g) Anchorage criteria.
(1) Sections 1926.502(d)(15) and
1926.502(e)(2) apply to equipment
covered by this subpart only to the
extent delineated in paragraph (g)(2) of
this section.
(2) Anchorages for personal fall arrest
and positioning device systems.
(i) Personal fall arrest systems must be
anchored to any apparently substantial
part of the equipment unless a
competent person, from a visual
inspection, without an engineering
analysis, would conclude that the
criteria in § 1926.502(d)(15) would not
be met.
(ii) Positioning device systems must
be anchored to any apparently
substantial part of the equipment unless
a competent person, from a visual
inspection, without an engineering
analysis, would conclude that the
criteria in § 1926.502(e)(2) would not be
met.
(iii) Attachable anchor devices
(portable anchor devices that are

PO 00000

Frm 00250

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

attached to the equipment) must meet
the anchorage criteria in
§ 1926.502(d)(15) for personal fall arrest
systems and § 1926.502(e)(2) for
positioning device systems.
(3) Anchorages for fall restraint
systems. Fall restraint systems must be
anchored to any part of the equipment
that is capable of withstanding twice the
maximum load that an employee may
impose on it during reasonably
anticipated conditions of use.
(h) Tower cranes.
(1) For work other than erecting,
climbing, and dismantling, the
employer must provide and ensure the
use of fall protection equipment for
employees who are on a walking/
working surface with an unprotected
side or edge more than 6 feet above a
lower level, except when the employee
is at or near draw-works (when the
equipment is running), in the cab, or on
the deck.
(2) For erecting, climbing, and
dismantling work, the employer must
provide and ensure the use of fall
protection equipment for employees
who are on a walking/working surface
with an unprotected side or edge more
than 15 feet above a lower level.
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) Anchoring to the load line. A
personal fall arrest system is permitted
to be anchored to the crane/derrick’s
hook (or other part of the load line)
where all of the following requirements
are met:
(1) A qualified person has determined
that the set-up and rated capacity of the
crane/derrick (including the hook, load
line and rigging) meets or exceeds the
requirements in § 1926.502(d)(15).
(2) The equipment operator must be at
the work site and informed that the
equipment is being used for this
purpose.
(3) No load is suspended from the
load line when the personal fall arrest
system is anchored to the crane/
derrick’s hook (or other part of the load
line).
(k) Training. The employer must train
each employee who may be exposed to
fall hazards while on, or hoisted by,
equipment covered by this subpart on
all of the following:
(1) the requirements in this subpart
that address fall protection.
(2) the applicable requirements in
§§ 1926.500 and 1926.502.
§ 1926.1424

Work area control.

(a) Swing radius hazards.
(1) The requirements in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section apply where there
are accessible areas in which the
equipment’s rotating superstructure
(whether permanently or temporarily

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mounted) poses a reasonably foreseeable
risk of:
(i) Striking and injuring an employee;
or
(ii) Pinching/crushing an employee
against another part of the equipment or
another object.
(2) To prevent employees from
entering these hazard areas, the
employer must:
(i) Train each employee assigned to
work on or near the equipment
(‘‘authorized personnel’’) in how to
recognize struck-by and pinch/crush
hazard areas posed by the rotating
superstructure.
(ii) Erect and maintain control lines,
warning lines, railings or similar
barriers to mark the boundaries of the
hazard areas. Exception: When the
employer can demonstrate that it is
neither feasible to erect such barriers on
the ground nor on the equipment, the
hazard areas must be clearly marked by
a combination of warning signs (such as
‘‘Danger—Swing/Crush Zone’’) and high
visibility markings on the equipment
that identify the hazard areas. In
addition, the employer must train each
employee to understand what these
markings signify.
(3) Protecting employees in the hazard
area.
(i) Before an employee goes to a
location in the hazard area that is out of
view of the operator, the employee (or
someone instructed by the employee)
must ensure that the operator is
informed that he/she is going to that
location.
(ii) Where the operator knows that an
employee went to a location covered by
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the
operator must not rotate the
superstructure until the operator is
informed in accordance with a prearranged system of communication that
the employee is in a safe position.
(b) Where any part of a crane/derrick
is within the working radius of another
crane/derrick, the controlling entity
must institute a system to coordinate
operations. If there is no controlling
entity, the employer (if there is only one
employer operating the multiple pieces
of equipment), or employers, must
institute such a system.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1425

Keeping clear of the load.

(a) Where available, hoisting routes
that minimize the exposure of
employees to hoisted loads must be
used, to the extent consistent with
public safety.
(b) While the operator is not moving
a suspended load, no employee must be
within the fall zone, except for
employees:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(1) Engaged in hooking, unhooking or
guiding a load;
(2) Engaged in the initial attachment
of the load to a component or structure;
or
(3) Operating a concrete hopper or
concrete bucket.
(c) When employees are engaged in
hooking, unhooking, or guiding the
load, or in the initial connection of a
load to a component or structure and are
within the fall zone, all of the following
criteria must be met:
(1) The materials being hoisted must
be rigged to prevent unintentional
displacement.
(2) Hooks with self-closing latches or
their equivalent must be used.
Exception: ‘‘J’’ hooks are permitted to be
used for setting wooden trusses.
(3) The materials must be rigged by a
qualified rigger.
(d) Receiving a load. Only employees
needed to receive a load are permitted
to be within the fall zone when a load
is being landed.
(e) During a tilt-up or tilt-down
operation:
(1) No employee must be directly
under the load.
(2) Only employees essential to the
operation are permitted in the fall zone
(but not directly under the load). An
employee is essential to the operation if
the employee is conducting one of the
following operations and the employer
can demonstrate it is infeasible for the
employee to perform that operation
from outside the fall zone: (1) Physically
guide the load; (2) closely monitor and
give instructions regarding the load’s
movement; or (3) either detach it from
or initially attach it to another
component or structure (such as, but not
limited to, making an initial connection
or installing bracing).
Note: Boom free fall is prohibited when an
employee is in the fall zone of the boom or
load, and load line free fall is prohibited
when an employee is directly under the load;
see § 1926.1426.
§ 1926.1426
lowering.

Free fall and controlled load

(a) Boom free fall prohibitions.
(1) The use of equipment in which the
boom is designed to free fall (live boom)
is prohibited in each of the following
circumstances:
(i) An employee is in the fall zone of
the boom or load.
(ii) An employee is being hoisted.
(iii) The load or boom is directly over
a power line, or over any part of the area
extending the Table A of § 1926.1408
clearance distance to each side of the
power line; or any part of the area
extending the Table A clearance
distance to each side of the power line

PO 00000

Frm 00251

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48155

is within the radius of vertical travel of
the boom or the load.
(iv) The load is over a shaft, except
where there are no employees in the
shaft.
(v) The load is over a cofferdam,
except where there are no employees in
the fall zone of the boom or the load.
(vi) Lifting operations are taking place
in a refinery or tank farm.
(2) The use of equipment in which the
boom is designed to free fall (live boom)
is permitted only where none of the
circumstances listed in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section are present and:
(i) The equipment was manufactured
prior to October 31, 1984; or
(ii) The equipment is a floating crane/
derrick or a land crane/derrick on a
vessel/flotation device.
(b) Preventing boom free fall. Where
the use of equipment with a boom that
is designed to free fall (live boom) is
prohibited, the boom hoist must have a
secondary mechanism or device
designed to prevent the boom from
falling in the event the primary system
used to hold or regulate the boom hoist
fails, as follows:
(1) Friction drums must have:
(i) A friction clutch and, in addition,
a braking device, to allow for controlled
boom lowering.
(ii) A secondary braking or locking
device, which is manually or
automatically engaged, to back-up the
primary brake while the boom is held
(such as a secondary friction brake or a
ratchet and pawl device).
(2) Hydraulic drums must have an
integrally mounted holding device or
internal static brake to prevent boom
hoist movement in the event of
hydraulic failure.
(3) Neither clutches nor hydraulic
motors must be considered brake or
locking devices for purposes of this
subpart.
(4) Hydraulic boom cylinders must
have an integrally mounted holding
device.
(c) Preventing uncontrolled retraction.
Hydraulic telescoping booms must have
an integrally mounted holding device to
prevent the boom from retracting in the
event of hydraulic failure.
(d) Load line free fall. In each of the
following circumstances, controlled
load lowering is required and free fall of
the load line hoist is prohibited:
(1) An employee is directly under the
load.
(2) An employee is being hoisted.
(3) The load is directly over a power
line, or over any part of the area
extending the Table A of § 1926.1408
clearance distance to each side of the
power line; or any part of the area
extending the Table A of § 1926.1408

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48156

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

clearance distance to each side of the
power line is within the radius of
vertical travel of the load.
(4) The load is over a shaft.
(5) The load is over a cofferdam,
except where there are no employees in
the fall zone of the load.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1427 Operator qualification and
certification.

(a) The employer must ensure that,
prior to operating any equipment
covered under subpart CC, the person is
operating the equipment during a
training period in accordance with
paragraph (f) of this section, or the
operator is qualified or certified to
operate the equipment in accordance
with the following:
(1) When a non-military government
entity issues operator licenses for
equipment covered under subpart CC,
and that government licensing program
meets the requirements of paragraphs
(e)(2) and (j) of this section, the
equipment operator must either be:
(i) Licensed by that government entity
for operation of equipment within that
entity’s jurisdiction; or
(ii) qualified in compliance with
paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) Where paragraph (a)(1) of this
section is not applicable, the
certification or qualification must
comply with one of the options in
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section.
(3) Exceptions: Operator qualification
or certification under this section is not
required for operators of derricks (see
§ 1926.1436), sideboom cranes (see
§ 1926.1440), or equipment with a
maximum manufacturer-rated hoisting/
lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or less
(see § 1926.1441).
(4) Whenever operator qualification or
certification is required under
§ 1926.1427, the employer must provide
the qualification or certification at no
cost to operators who are employed by
the employer on November 8, 2010.
(b) Option (1): Certification by an
accredited crane operator testing
organization.
(1) For a testing organization to be
considered accredited to certify
operators under this subpart, it must:
(i) Be accredited by a nationally
recognized accrediting agency based on
that agency’s determination that
industry recognized criteria for written
testing materials, practical
examinations, test administration,
grading, facilities/equipment and
personnel have been met.
(ii) Administer written and practical
tests that:
(A) Assess the operator applicant
regarding, at a minimum, the knowledge

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

and skills listed in paragraphs (j)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(B) Provide different levels of
certification based on equipment
capacity and type.
(iii) Have procedures for operators to
re-apply and be re-tested in the event an
operator applicant fails a test or is
decertified.
(iv) Have testing procedures for recertification designed to ensure that the
operator continues to meet the technical
knowledge and skills requirements in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
(v) Have its accreditation reviewed by
the nationally recognized accrediting
agency at least every three years.
(2) An operator will be deemed
qualified to operate a particular piece of
equipment if the operator is certified
under paragraph (b) of this section for
that type and capacity of equipment or
for higher-capacity equipment of that
type. If no accredited testing agency
offers certification examinations for a
particular type and/or capacity of
equipment, an operator will be deemed
qualified to operate that equipment if
the operator has been certified for the
type/capacity that is most similar to that
equipment and for which a certification
examination is available. The operator’s
certificate must state the type/capacity
of equipment for which the operator is
certified.
(3) A certification issued under this
option is portable and meets the
requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(4) A certification issued under this
paragraph is valid for 5 years.
(c) Option (2): Qualification by an
audited employer program. The
employer’s qualification of its employee
must meet the following requirements:
(1) The written and practical tests
must be either:
(i) Developed by an accredited crane
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
operator testing organization (see
paragraph (b) of this section).
(B) The auditor is not an employee of
the employer.
(C) The approval must 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00252

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(D) The audit must be conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized
auditing standards.
(2) Administration of tests.
(i) The written and practical tests
must be administered under
circumstances approved by the auditor
as meeting nationally recognized test
administration standards.
(ii) The auditor must be certified to
evaluate the administration of the
written and practical tests by an
accredited crane operator testing
organization (see paragraph (b) of this
section).
(iii) The auditor must not be an
employee of the employer.
(iv) The audit must be conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized
auditing standards.
(3) The employer program must be
audited within 3 months of the
beginning of the program and at least
every 3 years thereafter.
(4) The employer program must have
testing procedures for re-qualification
designed to ensure that the operator
continues to meet the technical
knowledge and skills requirements in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
The re-qualification procedures must be
audited in accordance with paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(5) Deficiencies. If the auditor
determines that there is a significant
deficiency (‘‘deficiency’’) in the program,
the employer must ensure that:
(i) No operator is qualified until the
auditor confirms that the deficiency has
been corrected.
(ii) The program is audited again
within 180 days of the confirmation that
the deficiency was corrected.
(iii) The auditor files a documented
report of the deficiency to the
appropriate Regional Office of the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration within 15 days of the
auditor’s determination that there is a
deficiency.
(iv) Records of the audits of the
employer’s program are maintained by
the auditor for three years and are made
available by the auditor to the Secretary
of Labor or the Secretary’s designated
representative upon request.
(6) A qualification under this
paragraph is:
(i) Not portable. Such a qualification
meets the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section only where the operator
is employed by (and operating the
equipment for) the employer that issued
the qualification.
(ii) Valid for 5 years.
(d) Option (3): Qualification by the
U.S. military.
(1) For purposes of this section, an
operator who is an employee of the U.S.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
military is considered qualified if he/
she has a current operator qualification
issued by the U.S. military for operation
of the equipment. An employee of the
U.S. military is a Federal employee of
the Department of Defense or Armed
Forces and does not include employees
of private contractors.
(2) A qualification under this
paragraph is:
(i) Not portable. Such a qualification
meets the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section only where the operator
is employed by (and operating the
equipment for) the employer that issued
the qualification.
(ii) Valid for the period of time
stipulated by the issuing entity.
(e) Option (4): Licensing by a
government entity.
(1) For purposes of this section, a
government licensing department/office
that issues operator licenses for
operating equipment covered by this
standard is considered a government
accredited crane operator testing
organization if the criteria in paragraph
(e)(2) of this section are met.
(2) Licensing criteria.
(i) The requirements for obtaining the
license include an assessment, by
written and practical tests, of the
operator applicant regarding, at a
minimum, the knowledge and skills
listed in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(ii) The testing meets industry
recognized criteria for written testing
materials, practical examinations, test
administration, grading, facilities/
equipment and personnel.
(iii) The government authority that
oversees the licensing department/
office, has determined that the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this section have been met.
(iv) The licensing department/office
has testing procedures for re-licensing
designed to ensure that the operator
continues to meet the technical
knowledge and skills requirements in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
(3) A license issued by a government
accredited crane operator testing
organization that meets the
requirements of this option:
(i) Meets the operator qualification
requirements of this section for
operation of equipment only within the
jurisdiction of the government entity.
(ii) Is valid for the period of time
stipulated by the licensing department/
office, but no longer than 5 years.
(f) Pre-qualification/certification
training period. An employee who is not
qualified or certified under this section
is permitted to operate equipment only
as an operator-in-training and only

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

where the requirements of this
paragraph are met.
(1) The employer must provide each
operator-in-training with sufficient
training prior to operating the
equipment to enable the operator-intraining to operate the equipment safely
under limitations established by this
section (including continuous
monitoring) and any additional
limitations established by the employer.
(2) The tasks performed by the
operator-in-training while operating the
equipment must be within the operatorin-training’s ability.
(3) Trainer. While operating the
equipment, the operator-in-training
must be continuously monitored by an
individual (‘‘operator’s trainer’’) who
meets all of the following requirements:
(i) The operator’s trainer is an
employee or agent of the operator-intraining’s employer.
(ii) The operator’s trainer is either a
certified operator under this section, or
has passed the written portion of a
certification test under one of the
options in paragraphs (b) through (e) of
this section, and is familiar with the
proper use of the equipment’s controls.
(iii) While monitoring the operator-intraining, the operator’s trainer performs
no tasks that detract from the trainer’s
ability to monitor the operator-intraining.
(iv) For equipment other than tower
cranes: The operator’s trainer and the
operator-in-training must be in direct
line of sight of each other. In addition,
they must communicate verbally or by
hand signals. For tower cranes: The
operator’s trainer and the operator-intraining must be in direct
communication with each other.
(4) Continuous monitoring. The
operator-in-training must be monitored
by the operator’s trainer at all times,
except for short breaks where all of the
following are met:
(i) The break lasts no longer than 15
minutes and there is no more than one
break per hour.
(ii) Immediately prior to the break the
operator’s trainer informs the operatorin-training of the specific tasks that the
operator-in-training is to perform and
limitations to which he/she must adhere
during the operator trainer’s break.
(iii) The specific tasks that the
operator-in-training will perform during
the operator trainer’s break are within
the operator-in-training’s abilities.
(5) The operator-in-training must not
operate the equipment in any of the
following circumstances unless the
exception stated in paragraph (f)(5)(v) of
this section is applicable:
(i) If any part of the equipment, load
line or load (including rigging and

PO 00000

Frm 00253

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48157

lifting accessories), if operated up to the
equipment’s maximum working radius
in the work zone (see § 1926.1408(a)(1)),
could get within 20 feet of a power line
that is up to 350 kV, or within 50 feet
of a power line that is over 350 kV.
(ii) If the equipment is used to hoist
personnel.
(iii) In multiple-equipment lifts.
(iv) If the equipment is used over a
shaft, cofferdam, or in a tank farm.
(v) In multiple-lift rigging operations,
except where the operator’s trainer
determines that the operator-in-training
skills are sufficient for this high-skill
work.
(g) Under this section, a testing entity
is permitted to provide training as well
as testing services as long as the criteria
of the applicable accrediting agency (in
the option selected) for an organization
providing both services are met.
(h) Language and Literacy
Requirements.
(1) Tests under this section may be
administered verbally, with answers
given verbally, where the operator
candidate:
(i) Passes a written demonstration of
literacy relevant to the work.
(ii) Demonstrates the ability to use the
type of written manufacturer procedures
applicable to the class/type of
equipment for which the candidate is
seeking certification.
(2) Tests under this section may be
administered in any language the
operator candidate understands, and the
operator’s certificate must note the
language in which the test was given.
The operator is qualified under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section to
operate equipment that is furnished
with materials required by this subpart
that are written in the language of the
certification. The operator may only
operate equipment furnished with such
materials.
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) Certification criteria. Qualifications
and certifications must be based, at a
minimum, on the following:
(1) A determination through a written
test that:
(i) The individual knows the
information necessary for safe operation
of the specific type of equipment the
individual will operate, including all of
the following:
(A) The controls and operational/
performance characteristics.
(B) Use of, and the ability to calculate
(manually or with a calculator), load/
capacity information on a variety of
configurations of the equipment.
(C) Procedures for preventing and
responding to power line contact.
(D) Technical knowledge similar to
the subject matter criteria listed in

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48158

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix C of this subpart applicable to
the specific type of equipment the
individual will operate. Use of the
Appendix C criteria meets the
requirements of this provision.
(E) Technical knowledge applicable
to:
(1) The suitability of the supporting
ground and surface to handle expected
loads.
(2) Site hazards.
(3) Site access.
(F) This subpart, including applicable
incorporated materials.
(ii) The individual is able to read and
locate relevant information in the
equipment manual and other materials
containing information referred to in
paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) A determination through a
practical test that the individual has the
skills necessary for safe operation of the
equipment, including the following:
(i) Ability to recognize, from visual
and auditory observation, the items
listed in § 1926.1412(d) (shift
inspection).
(ii) Operational and maneuvering
skills.
(iii) Application of load chart
information.
(iv) Application of safe shut-down
and securing procedures.
(k) Phase-in.
(1) The provisions of this section are
applicable November 8, 2010, except for
paragraphs (a)(2) and (f) which are
applicable November 10, 2014.
(2) When § 1926.1427(a)(1) is not
applicable, all of the requirements in
paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section apply until November 10, 2014:
(i) The employer must ensure that
operators of equipment covered by this
standard are competent to operate the
equipment safely.
(ii) Where an employee assigned to
operate machinery does not have the
required knowledge or ability to operate
the equipment safely, the employer
must train that employee prior to
operating the equipment. The employer
must ensure that each operator is
evaluated to confirm that he/she
understands the information provided
in the training.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1428

Signal person qualifications.

(a) The employer of the signal person
must ensure that each signal person
meets the Qualification Requirements
(paragraph (c) of this section) prior to
giving any signals. This requirement
must be met by using either Option (1)
or Option (2) of this section.
(1) Option (1)—Third party qualified
evaluator. The signal person has
documentation from a third party
qualified evaluator (see Qualified

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Evaluator (third party), § 1926.1401 for
definition) showing that the signal
person meets the Qualification
Requirements (see paragraph (c) of this
section).
(2) Option (2)—Employer’s qualified
evaluator. The employer’s qualified (see
Qualified Evaluator (not a third party),
§ 1926.1401 for definition) evaluator
assesses the individual and determines
that the individual meets the
Qualification Requirements (see
paragraph (c) of this section) and
provides documentation of that
determination. An assessment by an
employer’s qualified evaluator under
this option is not portable—other
employers are not permitted to use it to
meet the requirements of this section.
(3) The employer must make the
documentation for whichever option is
used available at the site while the
signal person is employed by the
employer. The documentation must
specify each type of signaling (e.g. hand
signals, radio signals, etc.) for which the
signal person meets the requirements of
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) If subsequent actions by the signal
person indicate that the individual does
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 reassessment is made in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section that
confirms that the individual meets the
Qualification Requirements.
(c) Qualification Requirements. Each
signal person must:
(1) Know and understand the type of
signals used. If hand signals are used,
the signal person must know and
understand the Standard Method for
hand signals.
(2) Be competent in the application of
the type of signals used.
(3) Have a basic understanding of
equipment operation and limitations,
including the crane dynamics involved
in swinging and stopping loads and
boom deflection from hoisting loads.
(4) Know and understand the relevant
requirements of § 1926.1419 through
§ 1926.1422 and § 1926.1428.
(5) Demonstrate that he/she meets the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (4) of this section through an
oral or written test, and through a
practical test.
§ 1926.1429 Qualifications of maintenance
& repair employees.

(a) Maintenance, inspection and
repair personnel are permitted to
operate the equipment only where all of
the following requirements are met:

PO 00000

Frm 00254

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(1) The operation is limited to those
functions necessary to perform
maintenance, inspect the equipment, or
verify its performance.
(2) The personnel either:
(i) Operate the equipment under the
direct supervision of an operator who
meets the requirements of § 1926.1427
(Operator qualification and
certification); or
(ii) Are familiar with the operation,
limitations, characteristics and hazards
associated with the type of equipment.
(b) Maintenance and repair personnel
must meet the definition of a qualified
person with respect to the equipment
and maintenance/repair tasks
performed.
§ 1926.1430

Training.

The employer must provide training
as follows:
(a) Overhead powerlines. The
employer must train each employee
specified in § 1926.1408(g) and
§ 1926.1410(m) in the topics listed in
§ 1926.1408(g).
(b) Signal persons. The employer
must train each employee who will be
assigned to work as a signal persons
who does not meet the requirements of
§ 1926.1428(c) in the areas addressed in
that paragraph.
(c) Operators.
(1) Operators-in-Training for
equipment where certification or
qualification is required by this subpart.
The employer must train each operatorin-training in the areas addressed in
§ 1926.1427(j). The employer must
provide re-training if the operator-intraining does not pass a qualification or
certification test.
(2) Transitional Period. During the
four-year phase-in period for operator
certification or qualification, as
provided in § 1926.1427(k), employers
must train each operator who has not
yet been certified or qualified in the
areas addressed in § 1926.1427(j).
(3) Operators excepted from the
requirements of § 1926.1427. The
employer must train each operator
excepted under § 1926.1427(a) from the
requirements of § 1926.1427 on the safe
operation of the equipment the operator
will be using.
(4) The employer must train each
operator of the equipment covered by
this subpart in the following practices:
(i) On friction equipment, whenever
moving a boom off a support, first raise
the boom a short distance (sufficient to
take the load of the boom) to determine
if the boom hoist brake needs to be
adjusted. On other types of equipment
with a boom, the same practice is
applicable, except that typically there is
no means of adjusting the brake; if the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
brake does not hold, a repair is
necessary. See § 1926.1417(f) and (j) for
additional requirements.
(ii) Where available, the
manufacturer’s emergency procedures
for halting unintended equipment
movement.
(d) Competent persons and qualified
persons. The employer must train each
competent person and each qualified
person regarding the requirements of
this subpart applicable to their
respective roles.
(e) Crush/pinch points. The employer
must train each employee who works
with the equipment to keep clear of
holes, and crush/pinch points and the
hazards addressed in § 1926.1424 (Work
area control).
(f) Tag-out. The employer must train
each operator and each additional
employee authorized to start/energize
equipment or operate equipment
controls (such as maintenance and
repair employees), in the tag-out and
start-up procedures in §§ 1926.1417(f)
and (g).
(g) Training administration.
(1) The employer must evaluate each
employee required to be trained under
this subpart to confirm that the
employee understands the information
provided in the training.
(2) The employer must provide
refresher training in relevant topics for
each employee when, based on the
conduct of the employee or an
evaluation of the employee’s
knowledge, there is an indication that
retraining is necessary.
(3) Whenever training is required
under subpart CC, the employer must
provide the training at no cost to the
employee.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1431

Hoisting personnel.

The requirements of this section are
supplemental to the other requirements
in this subpart and apply when one or
more employees are hoisted.
(a) The use of equipment to hoist
employees is prohibited except where
the employer demonstrates that the
erection, use, and dismantling of
conventional means of reaching the
work area, such as a personnel hoist,
ladder, stairway, aerial lift, elevating
work platform, or scaffold, would be
more hazardous, or is not possible
because of the project’s structural design
or worksite conditions. This paragraph
does not apply to work covered by
subpart R (Steel Erection) of this part.
(b) Use of personnel platform.
(1) When using equipment to hoist
employees, the employees must be in a
personnel platform that meets the
requirements of paragraph (e) of this
section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(2) Exceptions: A personnel platform
is not required for hoisting employees:
(i) Into and out of drill shafts that are
up to and including 8 feet in diameter
(see paragraph (o) of this section for
requirements for hoisting these
employees).
(ii) In pile driving operations (see
paragraph (p) of this section for
requirements for hoisting these
employees).
(iii) Solely for transfer to or from a
marine worksite in a marine-hoisted
personnel transfer device (see paragraph
(r) of this section for requirements for
hoisting these employees).
(iv) In storage-tank (steel or concrete),
shaft and chimney operations (see
paragraph (s) of this section for
requirements for hoisting these
employees).
(c) Equipment set-up.
(1) The equipment must be uniformly
level, within one percent of level grade,
and located on footing that a qualified
person has determined to be sufficiently
firm and stable.
(2) Equipment with outriggers or
stabilizers must have them all extended
and locked. The amount of extension
must be the same for all outriggers and
stabilizers and in accordance with
manufacturer procedures and load
charts.
(d) Equipment criteria.
(1) Capacity: Use of suspended
personnel platforms. The total load
(with the platform loaded, including the
hook, load line and rigging) must not
exceed 50 percent of the rated capacity
for the radius and configuration of the
equipment, except during proof testing.
(2) Capacity: Use of boom-attached
personnel platforms. The total weight of
the loaded personnel platform must not
exceed 50 percent of the rated capacity
for the radius and configuration of the
equipment (except during proof testing).
(3) Capacity: Hoisting personnel
without a personnel platform. When
hoisting personnel without a personnel
platform pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, the total load (including the
hook, load line, rigging and any other
equipment that imposes a load) must
not exceed 50 percent of the rated
capacity for the radius and
configuration of the equipment, except
during proof testing.
(4) When the occupied personnel
platform is in a stationary working
position, the load and boom hoist
brakes, swing brakes, and operator
actuated secondary braking and locking
features (such as pawls or dogs) or
automatic secondary brakes must be
engaged.
(5) Devices.

PO 00000

Frm 00255

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48159

(i) Equipment (except for derricks and
articulating cranes) with a variable angle
boom must be equipped with all of the
following:
(A) A boom angle indicator, readily
visible to the operator, and
(B) A boom hoist limiting device.
(ii) Articulating cranes must be
equipped with a properly functioning
automatic overload protection device.
(iii) Equipment with a luffing jib must
be equipped with:
(A) A jib angle indicator, readily
visible to the operator, and.
(B) A jib hoist limiting device.
(iv) Equipment with telescoping
booms must be equipped with a device
to indicate the boom’s extended length
clearly to the operator, or must have
measuring marks on the boom.
(v) Anti two-block. A device which
automatically prevents damage and load
failure from contact between the load
block, overhaul ball, or similar
component, and the boom tip (or fixed
upper block or similar component) must
be used. The device(s) must prevent
such damage/failure at all points where
two-blocking could occur. Exception:
This device is not required when
hoisting personnel in pile driving
operations. Instead, paragraph (p)(2) of
this section specifies how to prevent
two-blocking during such operations.
(vi) Controlled load lowering. The
load line hoist drum must have a
system, other than the load line hoist
brake, which regulates the lowering rate
of speed of the hoist mechanism. This
system or device must be used when
hoisting personnel.
Note: Free fall of the load line hoist is
prohibited (see § 1926.1426(d); the use of
equipment in which the boom hoist
mechanism can free fall is also prohibited
(see § 1926.1426(a)(1).

(vii) Proper operation required.
Personnel hoisting operations must not
begin unless the devices listed in this
section are in proper working order. If
a device stops working properly during
such operations, the operator must
safely stop operations. Personnel
hoisting operations must not resume
until the device is again working
properly. Alternative measures are not
permitted. (See § 1926.1417 for tag-out
and related requirements.)
(6) Direct attachment of a personnel
platform to a luffing jib is prohibited.
(e) Personnel platform criteria.
(1) A qualified person familiar with
structural design must design the
personnel platform and attachment/
suspension system used for hoisting
personnel.
(2) The system used to connect the
personnel platform to the equipment

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48160

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

must allow the platform to remain
within 10 degrees of level, regardless of
boom angle.
(3) The suspension system must be
designed to minimize tipping of the
platform due to movement of employees
occupying the platform.
(4) The personnel platform itself
(excluding the guardrail system and
personal fall arrest system anchorages),
must be capable of supporting, without
failure, its own weight and at least five
times the maximum intended load.
(5) All welding of the personnel
platform and its components must be
performed by a certified welder familiar
with the weld grades, types and material
specified in the platform design.
(6) The personnel platform must be
equipped with a guardrail system which
meets the requirements of subpart M of
this part, and must be enclosed at least
from the toeboard to mid-rail with either
solid construction material or expanded
metal having openings no greater than
1⁄2 inch (1.27 cm). Points to which
personal fall arrest systems are attached
must meet the anchorage requirements
in subpart M of this part.
(7) A grab rail must be installed inside
the entire perimeter of the personnel
platform except for access gates/doors.
(8) Access gates/doors. If installed,
access gates/doors of all types
(including swinging, sliding, folding, or
other types) must:
(i) Not swing outward. If due to the
size of the personnel platform, such as
a 1-person platform, it is infeasible for
the door to swing inward and allow safe
entry for the platform occupant, then
the access gate/door may swing
outward.
(ii) Be equipped with a device that
prevents accidental opening.
(9) Headroom must be sufficient to
allow employees to stand upright in the
platform.
(10) In addition to the use of hard
hats, employees must be protected by
overhead protection on the personnel
platform when employees are exposed
to falling objects. The platform overhead
protection must not obscure the view of
the operator or platform occupants
(such as wire mesh that has up to 1⁄2
inch openings), unless full protection is
necessary.
(11) All edges exposed to employee
contact must be smooth enough to
prevent injury.
(12) The weight of the platform and
its rated capacity must be conspicuously
posted on the platform with a plate or
other permanent marking.
(f) Personnel platform loading.
(1) The personnel platform must not
be loaded in excess of its rated capacity.
(2) Use.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(i) Personnel platforms must be used
only for employees, their tools, and the
materials necessary to do their work.
Platforms must not be used to hoist
materials or tools when not hoisting
personnel.
(ii) Exception: Materials and tools to
be used during the lift, if secured and
distributed in accordance with
paragraph (f)(3) of this section may be
in the platform for trial lifts.
(3) Materials and tools must be:
(i) Secured to prevent displacement.
(ii) Evenly distributed within the
confines of the platform while it is
suspended.
(4) The number of employees
occupying the personnel platform must
not exceed the maximum number the
platform was designed to hold or the
number required to perform the work,
whichever is less.
(g) Attachment and rigging.
(1) Hooks and other detachable
devices.
(i) Hooks used in the connection
between the hoist line and the
personnel platform (including hooks on
overhaul ball assemblies, lower load
blocks, bridle legs, or other attachment
assemblies or components) must be:
(A) Of a type that can be closed and
locked, eliminating the throat opening.
(B) Closed and locked when attached.
(ii) Shackles used in place of hooks
must be of the alloy anchor type, with
either:
(A) A bolt, nut and retaining pin, in
place; or
(B) Of the screw type, with the screw
pin secured from accidental removal.
(iii) Where other detachable devices
are used, they must be of the type that
can be closed and locked to the same
extent as the devices addressed in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section. Such devices must be closed
and locked when attached.
(2) Rope bridle. When a rope bridle is
used to suspend the personnel platform,
each bridle leg must be connected to a
master link or shackle (see paragraph
(g)(1) of this section) in a manner that
ensures that the load is evenly divided
among the bridle legs.
(3) Rigging hardware (including wire
rope, shackles, rings, master links, and
other rigging hardware) and hooks must
be capable of supporting, without
failure, at least five times the maximum
intended load applied or transmitted to
that component. Where rotation
resistant rope is used, the slings must be
capable of supporting without failure at
least ten times the maximum intended
load.
(4) Eyes in wire rope slings must be
fabricated with thimbles.
(5) Bridles and associated rigging for
suspending the personnel platform must

PO 00000

Frm 00256

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

be used only for the platform and the
necessary employees, their tools and
materials necessary to do their work.
The bridles and associated rigging must
not have been used for any purpose
other than hoisting personnel.
(h) Trial lift and inspection.
(1) A trial lift with the unoccupied
personnel platform loaded at least to the
anticipated liftweight must be made
from ground level, or any other location
where employees will enter the
platform, to each location at which the
platform is to be hoisted and positioned.
Where there is more than one location
to be reached from a single set-up
position, either individual trial lifts for
each location, or a single trial lift, in
which the platform is moved
sequentially to each location, must be
performed; the method selected must be
the same as the method that will be
used to hoist the personnel.
(2) The trial lift must be performed
immediately prior to each shift in which
personnel will be hoisted. In addition,
the trial lift must be repeated prior to
hoisting employees in each of the
following circumstances:
(i) The equipment is moved and set
up in a new location or returned to a
previously used location.
(ii) The lift route is changed, unless
the competent person determines that
the new route presents no new factors
affecting safety.
(3) The competent person must
determine that:
(i) Safety devices and operational aids
required by this section are activated
and functioning properly. Other safety
devices and operational aids must meet
the requirements of § 1926.1415 and
§ 1926.1416.
(ii) Nothing interferes with the
equipment or the personnel platform in
the course of the trial lift.
(iii) The lift will not exceed 50
percent of the equipment’s rated
capacity at any time during the lift.
(iv) The load radius to be used during
the lift has been accurately determined.
(4) Immediately after the trial lift, the
competent person must:
(i) Conduct a visual inspection of the
equipment, base support or ground, and
personnel platform, to determine
whether the trial lift has exposed any
defect or problem or produced any
adverse effect.
(ii) Confirm that, upon the completion
of the trial lift process, the test weight
has been removed.
(5) Immediately prior to each lift:
(i) The platform must be hoisted a few
inches with the personnel and
materials/tools on board and inspected
by a competent person to ensure that it
is secure and properly balanced.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) The following conditions must be
determined by a competent person to
exist before the lift of personnel
proceeds:
(A) Hoist ropes must be free of
deficiencies in accordance with
§ 1926.1413(a).
(B) Multiple part lines must not be
twisted around each other.
(C) The primary attachment must be
centered over the platform.
(D) If the load rope is slack, the
hoisting system must be inspected to
ensure that all ropes are properly seated
on drums and in sheaves.
(6) Any condition found during the
trial lift and subsequent inspection(s)
that fails to meet a requirement of this
standard or otherwise creates a safety
hazard must be corrected before hoisting
personnel. (See § 1926.1417 for tag-out
and related requirements.)
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) Proof testing.
(1) At each jobsite, prior to hoisting
employees on the personnel platform,
and after any repair or modification, the
platform and rigging must be proof
tested to 125 percent of the platform’s
rated capacity. The proof test may be
done concurrently with the trial lift.
(2) The platform must be lowered by
controlled load lowering, braked, and
held in a suspended position for a
minimum of five minutes with the test
load evenly distributed on the platform.
(3) After proof testing, a competent
person must inspect the platform and
rigging to determine if the test has been
passed. If any deficiencies are found
that pose a safety hazard, the platform
and rigging must not be used to hoist
personnel unless the deficiencies are
corrected, the test is repeated, and a
competent person determines that the
test has been passed. (See § 1926.1417
for tag-out and related requirements.)
(4) Personnel hoisting must not be
conducted until the competent person
determines that the platform and rigging
have successfully passed the proof test.
(k) Work practices.
(1) Hoisting of the personnel platform
must be performed in a slow, controlled,
cautious manner, with no sudden
movements of the equipment or the
platform.
(2) Platform occupants must:
(i) Keep all parts of the body inside
the platform during raising, lowering,
and horizontal movement. This
provision does not apply to an occupant
of the platform when necessary to
position the platform or while
performing the duties of a signal person.
(ii) Not stand, sit on, or work from the
top or intermediate rail or toeboard, or
use any other means/device to raise
their working height.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(iii) Not pull the platform out of
plumb in relation to the hoisting
equipment.
(3) Before employees exit or enter a
hoisted personnel platform that is not
landed, the platform must be secured to
the structure where the work is to be
performed, unless the employer can
demonstrate that securing to the
structure would create a greater hazard.
(4) If the platform is tied to the
structure, the operator must not move
the platform until the operator receives
confirmation that it is freely suspended.
(5) Tag lines must be used when
necessary to control the platform.
(6) Platforms without controls. Where
the platform is not equipped with
controls, the equipment operator must
remain at the equipment controls, on
site, and in view of the equipment, at all
times while the platform is occupied.
(7) Platforms with controls. Where the
platform is equipped with controls, all
of the following must be met at all times
while the platform is occupied:
(i) The occupant using the controls in
the platform must be a qualified person
with respect to their use, including the
safe limitations of the equipment and
hazards associated with its operation.
(ii) The equipment operator must be
at a set of equipment controls that
include boom and swing functions of
the equipment, and must be on site and
in view of the equipment.
(iii) The platform operating manual
must be in the platform or on the
equipment.
(8) Environmental conditions.
(i) Wind. When wind speed (sustained
or gusts) exceeds 20 mph at the
personnel platform, a qualified person
must determine if, in light of the wind
conditions, it is not safe to lift
personnel. If it is not, the lifting
operation must not begin (or, if already
in progress, must be terminated).
(ii) Other weather and environmental
conditions. A qualified person must
determine if, in light of indications of
dangerous weather conditions, or other
impending or existing danger, it is not
safe to lift personnel. If it is not, the
lifting operation must not begin (or, if
already in progress, must be
terminated).
(9) Employees being hoisted must
remain in direct communication with
the signal person (where used), or the
operator.
(10) Fall protection.
(i) Except over water, employees
occupying the personnel platform must
be provided and use a personal fall
arrest system. The system must be
attached to a structural member within
the personnel platform. When working

PO 00000

Frm 00257

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48161

over or near water, the requirements of
§ 1926.106 apply.
(ii) The fall arrest system, including
the attachment point (anchorage) used
to comply with paragraph (i) of this
section, must meet the requirements in
§ 1926.502.
(11) Other load lines.
(i) No lifts must be made on any other
of the equipment’s load lines while
personnel are being hoisted, except in
pile driving operations.
(ii) Factory-produced boom-mounted
personnel platforms that incorporate a
winch as original equipment. Loads are
permitted to be hoisted by such a winch
while employees occupy the personnel
platform only where the load on the
winch line does not exceed 500 pounds
and does not exceed the rated capacity
of the winch and platform.
(12) Traveling—equipment other than
derricks.
(i) Hoisting of employees while the
equipment is traveling is prohibited,
except for:
(A) Equipment that travels on fixed
rails; or
(B) Where the employer demonstrates
that there is no less hazardous way to
perform the work.
(C) This exception does not apply to
rubber-tired equipment.
(ii) Where employees are hoisted
while the equipment is traveling, all of
the following criteria must be met:
(A) Equipment travel must be
restricted to a fixed track or runway.
(B) Where a runway is used, it must
be a firm, level surface designed,
prepared and designated as a path of
travel for the weight and configuration
of the equipment being used to lift and
travel with the personnel platform. An
existing surface may be used as long as
it meets these criteria.
(C) Equipment travel must be limited
to boom length.
(D) The boom must be parallel to the
direction of travel, except where it is
safer to do otherwise.
(E) A complete trial run must be
performed to test the route of travel
before employees are allowed to occupy
the platform. This trial run can be
performed at the same time as the trial
lift required by paragraph (h) of this
section which tests the lift route.
(13) Traveling—derricks. Derricks are
prohibited from traveling while
personnel are hoisted.
(l) [Reserved.]
(m) Pre-lift meeting. A pre-lift meeting
must be:
(1) Held to review the applicable
requirements of this section and the
procedures that will be followed.
(2) Attended by the equipment
operator, signal person (if used for the

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48162

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

lift), employees to be hoisted, and the
person responsible for the task to be
performed.
(3) Held prior to the trial lift at each
new work location, and must be
repeated for any employees newly
assigned to the operation.
(n) Hoisting personnel near power
lines. Hoisting personnel within 20 feet
of a power line that is up to 350 kV, and
hoisting personnel within 50 feet of a
power line that is over 350 kV, is
prohibited, except for work covered by
subpart V of this part (Power
Transmission and Distribution).
(o) Hoisting personnel in drill shafts.
When hoisting employees into and out
of drill shafts that are up to and
including 8 feet in diameter, all of the
following requirements must be met:
(1) The employee must be in either a
personnel platform or on a boatswain’s
chair.
(2) If using a personnel platform,
paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section
apply.
(3) If using a boatswain’s chair:
(i) The following paragraphs of this
section apply: (a), (c), (d)(1), (d)(3),
(d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (f)(1), (f)(2)(i),
(f)(3)(i), (g), (h), (k)(1), (k)(6), (k)(8),
(k)(9), (k)(11)(i), (m), (n). Where the
terms ‘‘personnel platform’’ or ‘‘platform’’
are used in these paragraphs, substitute
them with ‘‘boatswain’s chair.’’
(ii) A signal person must be stationed
at the shaft opening.
(iii) The employee must be hoisted in
a slow, controlled descent and ascent.
(iv) The employee must use personal
fall protection equipment, including a
full body harness, attached independent
of the crane/derrick.
(v) The fall protection equipment
must meet the applicable requirements
in § 1926.502.
(vi) The boatswain’s chair itself
(excluding the personal fall arrest
system anchorages), must be capable of
supporting, without failure, its own
weight and at least five times the
maximum intended load.
(vii) No more than one person must be
hoisted at a time.
(p) Hoisting personnel for pile driving
operations. When hoisting an employee
in pile driving operations, the following
requirements must be met:
(1) The employee must be in a
personnel platform or boatswain’s chair.
(2) For lattice boom cranes: Clearly
mark the cable (so that it can easily be
seen by the operator) at a point that will
give the operator sufficient time to stop
the hoist to prevent two-blocking, or use
a spotter who is in direct
communication with the operator to
inform the operator when this point is
reached. For telescopic boom cranes:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

Clearly mark the cable (so that it can be
easily seen by the operator) at a point
that will give the operator sufficient
time to stop the hoist to prevent twoblocking, and use a spotter who is in
direct communication with the operator
to inform the operator when this point
is reached.
(3) If using a personnel platform,
paragraphs (b) through (n) of this
section apply.
(4) If using a boatswain’s chair:
(i) The following paragraphs of this
section apply: (a), (c), (d)(1), (d)(3),
(d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (f)(1), (f)(2)(i),
(f)(3)(i), (g), (h), (j), (k)(1), (k)(6), (k)(8),
(k)(9), (k)(11)(i), (m), and (n). Where the
terms ‘‘personnel platform’’ or ‘‘platform’’
are used in these paragraphs, substitute
them with ‘‘boatswains chair.’’
(ii) The employee must be hoisted in
a slow, controlled descent and ascent.
(iii) The employee must 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
must meet the applicable requirements
in § 1926.502.
(v) The boatswain’s chair itself
(excluding the personal fall arrest
system anchorages), must be capable of
supporting, without failure, its own
weight and at least five times the
maximum intended load.
(vi) No more than one person must be
hoisted at a time.
(q) [Reserved.]
(r) Hoisting personnel for marine
transfer. When hoisting employees
solely for transfer to or from a marine
worksite, the following requirements
must be met:
(1) The employee must 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 must be used
only for transferring workers.
(iii) The number of workers
occupying the transfer device must not
exceed the maximum number it was
designed to hold.
(iv) Each employee must wear a U.S.
Coast Guard personal flotation device
approved for industrial use.

PO 00000

Frm 00258

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(s) Hoisting personnel for storage-tank
(steel or concrete), shaft and chimney
operations. When hoisting an employee
in storage tank (steel or concrete), shaft
and chimney operations, the following
requirements must be met:
(1) The employee must be in a
personnel platform except when the
employer can demonstrate that use of a
personnel platform is infeasible; in such
a case, a boatswain’s chair must 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 must be hoisted in
a slow, controlled descent and ascent.
(iii) The employee must use personal
fall protection equipment, including a
full body harness, attached independent
of the crane/derrick. When there is no
adequate structure for attachment of
personal fall arrest equipment as
required in § 1926.502(d)(15), the
attachment must be to the lower load
block or overhaul ball.
(iv) The fall protection equipment
must meet the applicable requirements
in § 1926.502.
(v) The boatswain’s chair itself
(excluding the personal fall arrest
system anchorages), must be capable of
supporting, without failure, its own
weight and at least five times the
maximum intended load.
(vi) No more than one person must be
hoisted at a time.
§ 1926.1432 Multiple-crane/derrick lifts—
supplemental requirements.

(a) Plan development. Before
beginning a crane/derrick operation in
which more than one crane/derrick will
be supporting the load, the operation
must be planned. The planning must
meet the following requirements:
(1) The plan must be developed by a
qualified person.
(2) The plan must be designed to
ensure that the requirements of this
subpart are met.
(3) Where the qualified person
determines that engineering expertise is
needed for the planning, the employer
must ensure that it is provided.
(b) Plan implementation.
(1) The multiple-crane/derrick lift
must be directed by a person who meets
the criteria for both a competent person
and a qualified person, or by a
competent person who is assisted by

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
one or more qualified persons (lift
director).
(2) The lift director must review the
plan in a meeting with all workers who
will be involved with the operation.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1433
testing.

Design, construction and

The following requirements apply to
equipment that has a manufacturerrated hoisting/lifting capacity of more
than 2,000 pounds.
(a) Crawler, truck and locomotive
cranes manufactured prior to November
8, 2010 must meet the applicable
requirements for design, construction,
and testing as prescribed in ANSI
B30.5–1968 (incorporated by reference,
see § 1926.6), PCSA Std. No. 2 (1968)
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 1926.6), the requirements in paragraph
(b) of this section, or the applicable DIN
standards that were in effect at the time
of manufacture.
(b) Mobile (including crawler and
truck) and locomotive cranes
manufactured on or after November 8,
2010 must meet the following portions
of ASME B30.5–2004 (incorporated by
reference, see § 1926.6) as applicable:
(1) In section 5–1.1.1 (‘‘Load Ratings—
Where Stability Governs Lifting
Performance’’), paragraphs (a)—(d)
(including subparagraphs).
(2) In section 5–1.1.2 (‘‘Load Ratings—
Where Structural Competence Governs
Lifting Performance’’), paragraph (b).
(3) Section 5–1.2 (‘‘Stability
(Backward and Forward)’’).
(4) In section 5–1.3.1 (‘‘Boom Hoist
Mechanism’’), paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and
(b)(2), except that when using rotation
resistant rope, § 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(A)
applies.
(5) In section 5–1.3.2 (‘‘Load Hoist
Mechanism’’), paragraphs (a)(2) through
(a)(4) (including subparagraphs), (b)
(including subparagraphs), (c) (first
sentence only) and (d).
(6) Section 5–1.3.3 (‘‘Telescoping
Boom’’).
(7) Section 5–1.4 (‘‘Swing
Mechanism’’).
(8) In section 5–1.5 (‘‘Crane Travel’’),
all provisions except 5–1.5.3(d).
(9) In section 5–1.6 (‘‘Controls’’), all
provisions except 5–1.6.1 (c).
(10) Section 5–1.7.4 (‘‘Sheaves’’).
(11) Section 5–1.7.5 (‘‘Sheave sizes’’).
(12) In section 5–1.9.1 (‘‘Booms’’),
paragraph (f).
(13) Section 5–1.9.3 (‘‘Outriggers’’).
(14) Section 5–1.9.4 (‘‘Locomotive
Crane Equipment’’).
(15) Section 5–1.9.7 (‘‘Clutch and
Brake Protection’’).
(16) In section 5–1.9.11
(‘‘Miscellaneous equipment’’),
paragraphs (a), (c), (e), and (f).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(c) Prototype testing: mobile
(including crawler and truck) and
locomotive cranes manufactured on or
after November 8, 2010 must meet the
prototype testing requirements in Test
Option A or Test Option B of this
section. Tower cranes manufactured on
or after November 8, 2010 must meet the
prototype testing requirements in BS EN
14439:2006 (incorporated by reference,
see § 1926.6).
Note: Prototype testing of crawler,
locomotive and truck cranes manufactured
prior to November 8, 2010 must conform to
paragraph (a) of this section.

(1) Test Option A.
(i) The following applies to
equipment with cantilevered booms
(such as hydraulic boom cranes): All the
tests listed in SAE J1063 (Nov. 1993)
Table 1 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 1926.6) must be performed to load all
critical structural elements to their
respective limits. All the strength
margins listed in SAE J1063 (Nov. 1993)
Table 2 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 1926.6) must be met.
(ii) The following applies to
equipment with pendant supported
lattice booms: All the tests listed in SAE
J987 (Jun. 2003) Table 1 (incorporated
by reference, see § 1926.6) must be
performed to load all critical structural
elements to their respective limits. All
the strength margins listed in SAE J987
(Jun. 2003) Table 2 (incorporated by
reference, see § 1926.6) must be met.
(2) Test Option B. The testing and
verification requirements of BS EN
13000:2004 (incorporated by reference,
see § 1926.6) must be met. In applying
BS EN 13000:2004, the following
additional requirements must be met:
(i) The following applies to
equipment with cantilevered booms
(such as hydraulic boom cranes): The
analysis methodology (computer
modeling) must demonstrate that all
load cases listed in SAE J1063 (Nov.
1993) (incorporated by reference, see
§ 1926.6) meet the strength margins
listed in SAE J1063 (Nov. 1993) Table 2.
(ii) The following applies to
equipment with pendant supported
lattice booms: The analysis
methodology (computer modeling) must
demonstrate that all load cases listed in
SAE J987 (Jun. 2003) (incorporated by
reference, see § 1926.6) meet the
strength margins listed in SAE J987
(Jun. 2003) Table 2.
(iii) Analysis verification. The
physical testing requirements under
SAE J1063 (Nov. 1993) (incorporated by
reference, see § 1926.6) and SAE J987
(Jun. 2003) (incorporated by reference,
see § 1926.6) must be met unless the
reliability of the analysis methodology

PO 00000

Frm 00259

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48163

(computer modeling) has been
demonstrated by a documented history
of verification through strain gauge
measuring or strain gauge measuring in
combination with other physical testing.
(d) All equipment covered by this
subpart must 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
must include, at a minimum, the
following information:
(i) A complete range of the
manufacturer’s equipment rated
capacities, as follows:
(A) At all manufacturer approved
operating radii, boom angles, work
areas, boom lengths and configurations,
jib lengths and angles (or offset).
(B) Alternate ratings for use and
nonuse of option equipment which
affects rated capacities, such as
outriggers, stabilizers, and extra
counterweights.
(ii) A work area chart for which
capacities are listed in the load chart.
(Note: An example of this type of chart
is in ASME B30.5–2004, section 5–1.1.3,
Figure 11).
(iii) The work area figure and load
chart must clearly indicate the areas
where no load is to be handled.
(iv) Recommended reeving for the
hoist lines must be shown.
(v) Recommended parts of hoist
reeving, size, and type of wire rope for
various equipment loads.
(vi) Recommended boom hoist
reeving diagram, where applicable; size,
type and length of wire rope.
(vii) Tire pressure (where applicable).
(viii) Caution or warnings relative to
limitations on equipment and operating
procedures, including an indication of
the least stable direction.
(ix) Position of the gantry and
requirements for intermediate boom
suspension (where applicable).
(x) Instructions for boom erection and
conditions under which the boom, or
boom and jib combinations, may be
raised or lowered.
(xi) Whether the hoist holding
mechanism is automatically or
manually controlled, whether free fall is
available, or any combination of these.
(xii) The maximum telescopic travel
length of each boom telescopic section.
(xiii) Whether sections are telescoped
manually or with power.
(xiv) The sequence and procedure for
extending and retracting the telescopic
boom section.
(xv) Maximum loads permitted during
the boom extending operation, and any
limiting conditions or cautions.
(xvi) Hydraulic relief valve settings
specified by the manufacturer.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48164

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Load hooks (including latched and
unlatched types), ball assemblies and
load blocks must be of sufficient weight
to overhaul the line from the highest
hook position for boom or boom and jib
lengths and the number of parts of the
line in use.
(3) Hook and ball assemblies and load
blocks must be marked with their rated
capacity and weight.
(4) Latching hooks.
(i) Hooks must be equipped with
latches, except where the requirements
of paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section are
met.
(ii) Hooks without latches, or with
latches removed or disabled, must not
be used unless:
(A) A qualified person has determined
that it is safer to hoist and place the load
without latches (or with the latches
removed/tied-back).
(B) Routes for the loads are preplanned to ensure that no employee is
required to work in the fall zone except
for employees necessary for the hooking
or unhooking of the load.
(iii) The latch must close the throat
opening and be designed to retain slings
or other lifting devices/accessories in
the hook when the rigging apparatus is
slack.
(5) Posted warnings. Posted warnings
required by this subpart as well as those
originally supplied with the equipment
by the manufacturer must be maintained
in legible condition.
(6) An accessible fire extinguisher
must be on the equipment.
(7) Cabs. Equipment with cabs must
meet the following requirements:
(i) Cabs must be designed with a form
of adjustable ventilation and method for
clearing the windshield for maintaining
visibility and air circulation. Examples
of means for adjustable ventilation
include air conditioner or window that
can be opened (for ventilation and air
circulation); examples of means for
maintaining visibility include heater
(for preventing windshield icing),
defroster, fan, windshield wiper.
(ii) Cab doors (swinging, sliding) must
be designed to prevent inadvertent
opening or closing while traveling or
operating the machine. Swinging doors
adjacent to the operator must open
outward. Sliding operator doors must
open rearward.
(iii) Windows.
(A) The cab must have windows in
front and on both sides of the operator.
Forward vertical visibility must be
sufficient to give the operator a view of
the boom point at all times.
(B) Windows may have sections
designed to be opened or readily
removed. Windows with sections
designed to be opened must be designed

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

so that they can be secured to prevent
inadvertent closure.
(C) Windows must be of safety glass
or material with similar optical and
safety properties, that introduce no
visible distortion or otherwise obscure
visibility that interferes with the safe
operation of the equipment.
(iv) A clear passageway must be
provided from the operator’s station to
an exit door on the operator’s side.
(v) Areas of the cab roof that serve as
a workstation for rigging, maintenance
or other equipment-related tasks must
be capable of supporting 250 pounds
without permanent distortion.
(8) Belts, gears, shafts, pulleys,
sprockets, spindles, drums, fly wheels,
chains, and other parts or components
that reciprocate, rotate or otherwise
move must be guarded where contact by
employees (except for maintenance and
repair employees) is possible in the
performance of normal duties.
(9) All exhaust pipes, turbochargers,
and charge air coolers must be insulated
or guarded where contact by employees
(except for maintenance and repair
employees) is possible in the
performance of normal duties.
(10) Hydraulic and pneumatic lines
must be protected from damage to the
extent feasible.
(11) The equipment must be designed
so that exhaust fumes are not discharged
in the cab and are discharged in a
direction away from the operator.
(12) Friction mechanisms. Where
friction mechanisms (such as brakes and
clutches) are used to control the boom
hoist or load line hoist, they must be:
(i) Of a size and thermal capacity
sufficient to control all rated loads with
the minimum recommended reeving.
(ii) Adjustable to permit
compensation for lining wear to
maintain proper operation.
(13) Hydraulic load hoists. Hydraulic
drums must have an integrally mounted
holding device or internal static brake to
prevent load hoist movement in the
event of hydraulic failure.
(e) The employer’s obligations under
paragraphs (a) through (c) and (d)(7)
through (13) of this section are met
where the equipment has not changed
(except in accordance with § 1926.1434
(Equipment modifications)) and it can
refer to documentation from the
manufacturer showing that the
equipment has been designed,
constructed and tested in accordance
with those paragraphs.
§ 1926.1434

Equipment modifications.

(a) Modifications or additions which
affect the capacity or safe operation of
the equipment are prohibited except
where the requirements of paragraphs

PO 00000

Frm 00260

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(5) of this
section are met.
(1) Manufacturer review and
approval.
(i) The manufacturer approves the
modifications/additions in writing.
(ii) The load charts, procedures,
instruction manuals and instruction
plates/tags/decals are modified as
necessary to accord with the
modification/addition.
(iii) The original safety factor of the
equipment is not reduced.
(2) Manufacturer refusal to review
request. The manufacturer is provided a
detailed description of the proposed
modification/addition, is asked to
approve the modification/addition, but
it declines to review the technical
merits of the proposal or fails, within 30
days, to acknowledge the request or
initiate the review, and all of the
following are met:
(i) A registered professional engineer
who is a qualified person with respect
to the equipment involved:
(A) Approves the modification/
addition and specifies the equipment
configurations to which that approval
applies, and
(B) Modifies load charts, procedures,
instruction manuals and instruction
plates/tags/decals as necessary to accord
with the modification/addition.
(ii) The original safety factor of the
equipment is not reduced.
(3) Unavailable manufacturer. The
manufacturer is unavailable and the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this section are met.
(4) Manufacturer does not complete
the review within 120 days of the
request. The manufacturer is provided a
detailed description of the proposed
modification/addition, is asked to
approve the modification/addition,
agrees to review the technical merits of
the proposal, but fails to complete the
review of the proposal within 120 days
of the date it was provided the detailed
description of the proposed
modification/addition, and the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this section are met.
(5) Multiple manufacturers of
equipment designed for use on marine
work sites. The equipment is designed
for marine work sites, contains major
structural components from more than
one manufacturer, and the requirements
of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section are met.
(b) Modifications or additions which
affect the capacity or safe operation of
the equipment are prohibited where the
manufacturer, after a review of the
technical safety merits of the proposed
modification/addition, rejects the
proposal and explains the reasons for

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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.
(c) The provisions in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section do not apply to
modifications made or approved by the
U.S. military.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1435

Tower cranes.

(a) This section contains
supplemental requirements for tower
cranes; all sections of this subpart apply
to tower cranes unless specified
otherwise.
(b) Erecting, climbing and
dismantling.
(1) Section 1926.1403 (Assembly/
Disassembly—selection of manufacturer
or employer procedures), § 1926.1404
(Assembly/Disassembly—general
requirements (applies to all assembly
and disassembly operations)),
§ 1926.1405 (Disassembly—additional
requirements for dismantling of booms
and jibs (applies to both the use of
manufacturer procedures and employer
procedures)), and § 1926.1406
(Assembly/Disassembly—employer
procedures—general requirements),
apply to tower cranes (except as
otherwise specified), except that the
term ‘‘assembly/disassembly’’ is
replaced by ‘‘erecting, climbing and
dismantling,’’ and the term
‘‘disassembly’’ is replaced by
‘‘dismantling.’’
(2) Dangerous areas (self-erecting
tower cranes). In addition to the
requirements in § 1926.1404(e), for selferecting tower cranes, the following
applies: Employees must not be in or
under the tower, jib, or rotating portion
of the crane during erecting, climbing
and dismantling operations until the
crane is secured in a locked position
and the competent person in charge
indicates it is safe to enter this area,
unless the manufacturer’s instructions
direct otherwise and only the necessary
personnel are permitted in this area.
(3) Foundations and structural
supports. Tower crane foundations and
structural supports (including both the
portions of the structure used for
support and the means of attachment)
must be designed by the manufacturer
or a registered professional engineer.
(4) Addressing specific hazards. The
requirements in § 1926.1404(h)(1)
through (9) apply. In addition, the A/D
director must address the following:
(i) Foundations and structural
supports. The A/D director must
determine that tower crane foundations

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

and structural supports are installed in
accordance with their design.
(ii) Loss of backward stability.
Backward stability before swinging self
erecting cranes or cranes on traveling or
static undercarriages.
(iii) Wind speed. Wind must not
exceed the speed recommended by the
manufacturer or, where manufacturer
does not specify this information, the
speed determined by a qualified person.
(5) Plumb tolerance. Towers must be
erected plumb to the manufacturer’s
tolerance and verified by a qualified
person. Where the manufacturer does
not specify plumb tolerance, the crane
tower must be plumb to a tolerance of
at least 1:500 (approximately 1 inch in
40 feet).
(6) Multiple tower crane jobsites. On
jobsites where more than one fixed jib
(hammerhead) tower crane is installed,
the cranes must be located such that no
crane can come in contact with the
structure of another crane. Cranes are
permitted to pass over one another.
(7) Climbing procedures. Prior to, and
during, all climbing procedures
(including inside climbing and top
climbing), the employer must:
(i) Comply with all manufacturer
prohibitions.
(ii) Have a registered professional
engineer verify that the host structure is
strong enough to sustain the forces
imposed through the braces, brace
anchorages and supporting floors.
(8) Counterweight/ballast.
(i) Equipment must not be erected,
dismantled or operated without the
amount and position of counterweight
and/or ballast in place as specified by
the manufacturer or a registered
professional engineer familiar with the
equipment.
(ii) The maximum counterweight and/
or ballast specified by the manufacturer
or registered professional engineer
familiar with the equipment must not be
exceeded.
(c) Signs. The size and location of
signs installed on tower cranes must be
in accordance with manufacturer
specifications. Where these are
unavailable, a registered professional
engineer familiar with the type of
equipment involved must approve in
writing the size and location of any
signs.
(d) Safety devices.
(1) Section 1926.1415 does not apply
to tower cranes.
(2) The following safety devices are
required on all tower cranes unless
otherwise specified:
(i) Boom stops on luffing boom type
tower cranes.
(ii) Jib stops on luffing boom type
tower cranes if equipped with a jib
attachment.

PO 00000

Frm 00261

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48165

(iii) Travel rail end stops at both ends
of travel rail.
(iv) Travel rail clamps on all travel
bogies.
(v) Integrally mounted check valves
on all load supporting hydraulic
cylinders.
(vi) Hydraulic system pressure
limiting device.
(vii) The following brakes, which
must automatically set in the event of
pressure loss or power failure, are
required:
(A) A hoist brake on all hoists.
(B) Swing brake.
(C) Trolley brake.
(D) Rail travel brake.
(viii) Deadman control or forced
neutral return control (hand) levers.
(ix) Emergency stop switch at the
operator’s station.
(x) Trolley end stops must be
provided at both ends of travel of the
trolley.
(3) Proper operation required.
Operations must not begin unless the
devices listed in this section are in
proper working order. If a device stops
working properly during operations, the
operator must safely stop operations.
The equipment must be taken out of
service, and operations must not resume
until the device is again working
properly. See § 1926.1417(f). Alternative
measures are not permitted to be used.
(e) Operational aids.
(1) Section 1926.1416 does not apply
to tower cranes.
(2) The devices listed in this section
(‘‘operational aids’’) are required on all
tower cranes covered by this subpart,
unless otherwise specified.
(3) Operations must not begin unless
the operational aids are in proper
working order, except where the
employer meets the specified temporary
alternative measures. More protective
alternative measures specified by the
tower crane manufacturer, if any, must
be followed. See § 1926.1417(j) for
additional requirements.
(4) If an operational aid stops working
properly during operations, the operator
must safely stop operations until the
temporary alternative measures are
implemented or the device is again
working properly. If a replacement part
is no longer available, the use of a
substitute device that performs the same
type of function is permitted and is not
considered a modification under
§ 1926.1434.
(5) Category I operational aids and
alternative measures. Operational aids
listed in this paragraph that are not
working properly must be repaired no
later than 7 calendar days after the
deficiency occurs. Exception: If the
employer documents that it has ordered

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48166

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

the necessary parts within 7 calendar
days of the occurrence of the deficiency,
the repair must be completed within 7
calendar days of receipt of the parts.
(i) Trolley travel limiting device. The
travel of the trolley must be restricted at
both ends of the jib by a trolley travel
limiting device to prevent the trolley
from running into the trolley end stops.
Temporary alternative measures:
(A) Option A. The trolley rope must
be marked (so it can be seen by the
operator) at a point that will give the
operator sufficient time to stop the
trolley prior to the end stops.
(B) Option B. A spotter who is in
direct communication with the operator
must be used when operations are
conducted within 10 feet of the outer or
inner trolley end stops.
(ii) Boom hoist limiting device. The
range of the boom must be limited at the
minimum and maximum radius.
Temporary alternative measures:
Clearly mark the cable (so it can be seen
by the operator) at a point that will give
the operator sufficient time to stop the
boom hoist within the minimum and
maximum boom radius, or use a spotter
who is in direct communication with
the operator to inform the operator
when this point is reached.
(iii) Anti two-blocking device. The
tower crane must be equipped with a
device which automatically prevents
damage from contact between the load
block, overhaul ball, or similar
component, and the boom tip (or fixed
upper block or similar component). The
device(s) must prevent such damage at
all points where two-blocking could
occur. Temporary alternative measures:
Clearly mark the cable (so it can be seen
by the operator) at a point that will give
the operator sufficient time to stop the
hoist to prevent two-blocking, or use a
spotter who is in direct communication
with the operator to inform the operator
when this point is reached.
(iv) Hoist drum lower limiting device.
Tower cranes manufactured after
November 8, 2011 must be equipped
with a device that prevents the last 2
wraps of hoist cable from being spooled
off the drum. Temporary alternative
measures: Mark the cable (so it can be
seen by the operator) at a point that will
give the operator sufficient time to stop
the hoist prior to last 2 wraps of hoist
cable being spooled off the drum, or use
a spotter who is in direct
communication with the operator to
inform the operator when this point is
reached
(v) Load moment limiting device. The
tower crane must have a device that
prevents moment overloading.
Temporary alternative measures: A
radius indicating device must be used

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(if the tower crane is not equipped with
a radius indicating device, the radius
must be measured to ensure the load is
within the rated capacity of the crane).
In addition, the weight of the load must
be determined from a source recognized
by the industry (such as the load’s
manufacturer), or by a calculation
method recognized by the industry
(such as calculating a steel beam from
measured dimensions and a known per
foot weight), or by other equally reliable
means. This information must be
provided to the operator prior to the lift.
(vi) Hoist line pull limiting device.
The capacity of the hoist must be
limited to prevent overloading,
including each individual gear ratio if
equipped with a multiple speed hoist
transmission. Temporary alternative
measures: The operator must ensure
that the weight of the load does not
exceed the capacity of the hoist
(including for each individual gear ratio
if equipped with a multiple speed hoist
transmission).
(vii) Rail travel limiting device. The
travel distance in each direction must be
limited to prevent the travel bogies from
running into the end stops or buffers.
Temporary alternative measures: A
spotter who is in direct communication
with the operator must be used when
operations are conducted within 10 feet
of either end of the travel rail end stops;
the spotter must inform the operator of
the distance of the travel bogies from the
end stops or buffers.
(viii) Boom hoist drum positive
locking device and control. The boom
hoist drum must be equipped with a
control that will enable the operator to
positively lock the boom hoist drum
from the cab. Temporary alternative
measures: The device must be manually
set when required if an electric,
hydraulic or automatic control is not
functioning.
(6) Category II operational aids and
alternative measures. Operational aids
listed in this paragraph that are not
working properly must be repaired no
later than 30 calendar days after the
deficiency occurs. Exception: If the
employer documents that it has ordered
the necessary parts within 7 calendar
days of the occurrence of the deficiency,
and the part is not received in time to
complete the repair in 30 calendar days,
the repair must be completed within 7
calendar days of receipt of the parts.
(i) Boom angle or hook radius
indicator.
(A) Luffing boom tower cranes must
have a boom angle indicator readable
from the operator’s station.
(B) Hammerhead tower cranes
manufactured after November 8, 2011

PO 00000

Frm 00262

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

must have a hook radius indicator
readable from the operator’s station.
(C) Temporary alternative measures:
Hook radii or boom angle must be
determined by measuring the hook radii
or boom angle with a measuring device.
(ii) Trolley travel deceleration device.
The trolley speed must be automatically
reduced prior to the trolley reaching the
end limit in both directions. Temporary
alternative measure: The employer must
post a notice in the cab of the crane
notifying the operator that the trolley
travel deceleration device is
malfunctioning and instructing the
operator to take special care to reduce
the trolley speed when approaching the
trolley end limits.
(iii) Boom hoist deceleration device.
The boom speed must be automatically
reduced prior to the boom reaching the
minimum or maximum radius limit.
Temporary alternative measure: The
employer must post a notice in the cab
of the crane notifying the operator that
the boom hoist deceleration device is
malfunctioning and instructing the
operator to take special care to reduce
the boom speed when approaching the
minimum or maximum radius limits.
(iv) Load hoist deceleration device.
The load speed must be automatically
reduced prior to the hoist reaching the
upper limit. Temporary alternative
measure: The employer must post a
notice in the cab of the crane notifying
the operator that the load hoist
deceleration device is malfunctioning
and instructing the operator to take
special care to reduce the load speed
when approaching the upper limits.
(v) Wind speed indicator. A device
must be provided to display the wind
speed and must be mounted above the
upper rotating structure on tower
cranes. On self erecting cranes, it must
be mounted at or above the jib level.
Temporary alternative measures: Use of
wind speed information from a properly
functioning indicating device on
another tower crane on the same site, or
a qualified person estimates the wind
speed.
(vi) Load indicating device. Cranes
manufactured after November 8, 2011
must 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 must be determined
from a source recognized by the
industry (such as the load’s
manufacturer), or by a calculation
method recognized by the industry
(such as calculating a steel beam from
measured dimensions and a known per
foot weight), or by other equally reliable

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
means. This information must be
provided to the operator prior to the lift.
(f) Inspections.
(1) Section 1926.1412 (Inspections)
applies to tower cranes, except that the
term ‘‘assembly’’ is replaced by
‘‘erection.’’ Section 1926.1413 (Wire
rope—inspection) applies to tower
cranes.
(2) Pre-erection inspection. Before
each crane component is erected, it
must be inspected by a qualified person
for damage or excessive wear.
(i) The qualified person must pay
particular attention to components that
will be difficult to inspect thoroughly
during shift inspections.
(ii) If the qualified person determines
that a component is damaged or worn to
the extent that it would create a safety
hazard if used on the crane, that
component must not be erected on the
crane unless it is repaired and, upon
reinspection by the qualified person,
found to no longer create a safety
hazard.
(iii) If the qualified person determines
that, though not presently a safety
hazard, the component needs to be
monitored, the employer must ensure
that the component is checked in the
monthly inspections. Any such
determination must be documented, and
the documentation must be available to
any individual who conducts a monthly
inspection.
(3) Post-erection inspection. In
addition to the requirements in
§ 1926.1412(c), the following
requirements must be met:
(i) A load test using certified weights,
or scaled weights using a certified scale
with a current certificate of calibration,
must be conducted after each erection.
(ii) The load test must be conducted
in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions when available. Where
these instructions are unavailable, the
test must be conducted in accordance
with written load test procedures
developed by a registered professional
engineer familiar with the type of
equipment involved.
(4) Monthly. The following additional
items must be included:
(i) Tower (mast) bolts and other
structural bolts (for loose or dislodged
condition) from the base of the tower
crane up or, if the crane is tied to or
braced by the structure, those above the
upper-most brace support.
(ii) The upper-most tie-in, braces,
floor supports and floor wedges where
the tower crane is supported by the
structure, for loose or dislodged
components.
(5) Annual. In addition to the items
that must be inspected under
§ 1926.1412(f), all turntable and tower

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

bolts must be inspected for proper
condition and torque.
§ 1926.1436

Derricks.

(a) This section contains
supplemental requirements for derricks,
whether temporarily or permanently
mounted; all sections of this subpart
apply to derricks unless specified
otherwise. A derrick is powered
equipment consisting of a mast or
equivalent member that is held at or
near the end by guys or braces, with or
without a boom, and its hoisting
mechanism. The mast/equivalent
member and/or the load is moved by the
hoisting mechanism (typically basemounted) and operating ropes. Derricks
include: A-frame, basket, breast,
Chicago boom, gin pole (except gin
poles used for erection of
communication towers), guy, shearleg,
stiffleg, and variations of such
equipment.
(b) Operation—procedures.
(1) Section 1926.1417 (Operation)
applies except for § 1926.1417(c)
(Accessibility of procedures).
(2) Load chart contents. Load charts
must contain at least the following
information:
(i) Rated capacity at corresponding
ranges of boom angle or operating radii.
(ii) Specific lengths of components to
which the rated capacities apply.
(iii) Required parts for hoist reeving.
(iv) Size and construction of rope
must be included on the load chart or
in the operating manual.
(3) Load chart location.
(i) Permanent installations. For
permanently installed derricks with
fixed lengths of boom, guy, and mast, a
load chart must 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 must be readily
available at the job site to personnel
responsible for the operation of the
equipment.
(c) Construction.
(1) General requirements.
(i) Derricks must be constructed to
meet all stresses imposed on members
and components when installed and
operated in accordance with the
manufacturer’s/builder’s procedures
and within its rated capacity.
(ii) Welding of load sustaining
members must conform to
recommended practices in ANSI/AWS
D14.3–94 (incorporated by reference,
see § 1926.6) or AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2002
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 1926.6).
(2) Guy derricks.
(i) The minimum number of guys
must be 6, with equal spacing, except

PO 00000

Frm 00263

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48167

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 must not be used
unless the employer has the following
guy information from the manufacturer
or a qualified person, when not
available from the manufacturer:
(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
must have the following guy
information from the manufacturer or a
qualified person, when not available
from the manufacturer:
(A) The amount of initial sag or
tension.
(B) The amount of tension in guy line
rope at anchor.
(iv) The mast base must permit the
mast to rotate freely with allowance for
slight tilting of the mast caused by guy
slack.
(v) The mast cap must:
(A) Permit the mast to rotate freely.
(B) Withstand tilting and cramping
caused by the guy loads.
(C) Be secured to the mast to prevent
disengagement during erection.
(D) Be provided with means for
attaching guy ropes.
(3) Stiffleg derricks.
(i) The mast must be supported in the
vertical position by at least two stifflegs;
one end of each must be connected to
the top of the mast and the other end
securely anchored.
(ii) The stifflegs must be capable of
withstanding the loads imposed at any
point of operation within the load chart
range.
(iii) The mast base must:
(A) Permit the mast to rotate freely
(when necessary).
(B) Permit deflection of the mast
without binding.
(iv) The mast must be prevented from
lifting out of its socket when the mast
is in tension.
(v) The stiffleg connecting member at
the top of the mast must:
(A) Permit the mast to rotate freely
(when necessary).
(B) Withstand the loads imposed by
the action of the stifflegs.
(C) Be secured so as to oppose
separating forces.
(4) Gin pole derricks.
(i) Guy lines must be sized and spaced
so as to make the gin pole stable in both
boomed and vertical positions.
Exception: Where the size and/or

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48168

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

spacing of guy lines do not result in the
gin pole being stable in both boomed
and vertical positions, the employer
must ensure that the derrick is not used
in an unstable position.
(ii) The base of the gin pole must
permit movement of the pole (when
necessary).
(iii) The gin pole must be anchored at
the base against horizontal forces (when
such forces are present).
(5) Chicago boom derricks. The
fittings for stepping the boom and for
attaching the topping lift must be
arranged to:
(i) Permit the derrick to swing at all
permitted operating radii and mounting
heights between fittings.
(ii) Accommodate attachment to the
upright member of the host structure.
(iii) Withstand the forces applied
when configured and operated in
accordance with the manufacturer’s/
builder’s procedures and within its
rated capacity.
(iv) Prevent the boom or topping lift
from lifting out under tensile forces.
(d) Anchoring and guying.
(1) Load anchoring data developed by
the manufacturer or a qualified person
must be used.
(2) Guy derricks.
(i) The mast base must be anchored.
(ii) The guys must be secured to the
ground or other firm anchorage.
(iii) The anchorage and guying must
be designed to withstand maximum
horizontal and vertical forces
encountered when operating within
rated capacity with the particular guy
slope and spacing specified for the
application.
(3) Stiffleg derricks.
(i) The mast base and stifflegs must be
anchored.
(ii) The mast base and stifflegs must
be designed to withstand maximum
horizontal and vertical forces
encountered when operating within
rated capacity with the particular
stiffleg spacing and slope specified for
the application.
(e) Swingers and hoists.
(1) The boom, swinger mechanisms
and hoists must be suitable for the
derrick work intended and must be
anchored to prevent displacement from
the imposed loads.
(2) Hoists.
(i) Base mounted drum hoists must
meet the requirements in the following
sections of ASME B30.7–2001
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 1926.6):
(A) Sections 7–1.1 (‘‘Load ratings and
markings’’).
(B) Section 7–1.2 (‘‘Construction’’),
except: 7–1.2.13 (‘‘Operator’s cab’’); 7–
1.2.15 (‘‘Fire extinguishers’’).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(C) Section 7–1.3 (‘‘Installation’’).
(D) Applicable terms in section 7–0.2
(‘‘Definitions’’).
(ii) Load tests for new hoists. The
employer must ensure that new hoists
are load tested to a minimum of 110%
of rated capacity, but not more than
125% of rated capacity, unless
otherwise recommended by the
manufacturer. This requirement is met
where the manufacturer has conducted
this testing.
(iii) Repaired or modified hoists.
Hoists that have had repairs,
modifications or additions affecting
their capacity or safe operation must be
evaluated by a qualified person to
determine if a load test is necessary. If
it is, load testing must be conducted in
accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)
and (iv) of this section.
(iv) Load test procedure. Load tests
required by paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) or
(e)(2)(iii) of this section must be
conducted as follows:
(A) The test load must be hoisted a
vertical distance to assure that the load
is supported by the hoist and held by
the hoist brake(s).
(B) The test load must be lowered,
stopped and held with the brake(s).
(C) The hoist must not be used unless
a competent person determines that the
test has been passed.
(f) Operational aids.
(1) Section 1926.1416 (Operational
aids) applies, except for
§ 1926.1416(d)(1) (Boom hoist limiting
device), § 1926.1416(e)(1) (Boom angle
or radius indicator), and
§ 1926.1416(e)(4) (Load weighing and
similar devices).
(2) Boom angle aid. A boom angle
indicator is not required but if the
derrick is not equipped with a
functioning one, the employer must
ensure that either:
(i) The boom hoist cable must be
marked with caution and stop marks.
The stop marks must correspond to
maximum and minimum allowable
boom angles. The caution and stop
marks must be in view of the operator,
or a spotter who is in direct
communication with the operator; or
(ii) An electronic or other device that
signals the operator in time to prevent
the boom from moving past its
maximum and minimum angles, or
automatically prevents such movement,
is used.
(3) Load weight/capacity devices.
(i) Derricks manufactured more than
one year after November 8, 2010 with a
maximum rated capacity over 6,000
pounds must have at least one of the
following: load weighing device, load
moment indicator, rated capacity
indicator, or rated capacity limiter.

PO 00000

Frm 00264

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Temporary alternative measures: The
weight of the load must be determined
from a source recognized by the
industry (such as the load’s
manufacturer), or by a calculation
method recognized by the industry
(such as calculating a steel beam from
measured dimensions and a known per
foot weight), or by other equally reliable
means. This information must be
provided to the operator prior to the lift.
See § 1926.1417(j) for additional
requirements.
(ii) A load weight/capacity device that
is not working properly must 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 must be
completed within 7 days of receipt of
the parts.
(g) Post-assembly approval and
testing—new or reinstalled derricks.
(1) Anchorages.
(i) Anchorages, including the
structure to which the derrick is
attached (if applicable), must be
approved by a qualified person.
(ii) If using a rock or hairpin
anchorage, the qualified person must
determine if any special testing of the
anchorage is needed. If so, it must be
tested accordingly.
(2) Functional test. Prior to initial use,
new or reinstalled derricks must be
tested by a competent person with no
hook load to verify proper operation.
This test must include:
(i) Lifting and lowering the hook(s)
through the full range of hook travel.
(ii) Raising and lowering the boom
through the full range of boom travel.
(iii) Swinging in each direction
through the full range of swing.
(iv) Actuating the anti two-block and
boom hoist limit devices (if provided).
(v) Actuating locking, limiting and
indicating devices (if provided).
(3) Load test. Prior to initial use, new
or reinstalled derricks must be load
tested by a competent person. The test
load must meet the following
requirements:
(i) Test loads must 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 must
the test load be less than the maximum
anticipated load.
(ii) The test must 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

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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 must not be used
unless the competent person determines
that the test has been passed.
(4) Documentation. Tests conducted
under this paragraph must be
documented. The document must
contain the date, test results and the
name of the tester. The document must
be retained until the derrick is re-tested
or dismantled, whichever occurs first.
All such documents must be available,
during the applicable document
retention period, to all persons who
conduct inspections in accordance with
§ 1926.1412.
(h) Load testing repaired or modified
derricks. Derricks that have had repairs,
modifications or additions affecting the
derrick’s capacity or safe operation must
be evaluated by a qualified person to
determine if a load test is necessary. If
it is, load testing must be conducted and
documented in accordance with
paragraph (g) of this section.
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) Power failure procedures. If power
fails during operations, the derrick
operator must safely stop operations.
This must include:
(1) Setting all brakes or locking
devices.
(2) Moving all clutch and other power
controls to the off position.
(k) Use of winch heads.
(1) Ropes must not be handled on a
winch head without the knowledge of
the operator.
(2) While a winch head is being used,
the operator must be within reach of the
power unit control lever.
(l) [Reserved.]
(m) Securing the boom.
(1) When the boom is being held in a
fixed position, dogs, pawls, or other
positive holding mechanisms on the
boom hoist must be engaged.
(2) When taken out of service for 30
days or more, the boom must be secured
by one of the following methods:
(i) Laid down.
(ii) Secured to a stationary member, as
nearly under the head as possible, by
attachment of a sling to the load block.
(iii) For guy derricks, lifted to a
vertical position and secured to the
mast.
(iv) For stiffleg derricks, secured
against the stiffleg.
(n) The process of jumping the derrick
must be supervised by the A/D director.
(o) Derrick operations must be
supervised by a competent person.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(p) Inspections. In addition to the
requirements in § 1926.1412, the
following additional items must be
included in the inspections:
(1) Daily: Guys for proper tension.
(2) Annual.
(i) Gudgeon pin for cracks, wear, and
distortion.
(ii) Foundation supports for
continued ability to sustain the imposed
loads.
(q) Qualification and Training. The
employer must train each operator of a
derrick on the safe operation of
equipment the individual will operate.
Section 1926.1427 of this subpart
(Operator qualification and certification)
does not apply.
§ 1926.1437 Floating cranes/derricks and
land cranes/derricks on barges.

(a) This section contains
supplemental requirements for floating
cranes/derricks and land cranes/
derricks on barges, pontoons, vessels or
other means of flotation (i.e., vessel/
flotation device). The sections of this
subpart apply to floating cranes/derricks
and land cranes/derricks on barges,
pontoons, vessels or other means of
flotation, unless specified otherwise.
The requirements of this section do not
apply when using jacked barges when
the jacks are deployed to the river, lake,
or sea bed and the barge is fully
supported by the jacks.
(b) General requirements. The
requirements in paragraphs (c) through
(k) of this section apply to both floating
cranes/derricks and land cranes/
derricks on barges, pontoons, vessels or
other means of flotation.
(c) Work area control.
(1) The requirements of § 1926.1424
(Work area control) apply, except for
§ 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii).
(2) The employer must either:
(i) Erect and maintain control lines,
warning lines, railings or similar
barriers to mark the boundaries of the
hazard areas; or
(ii) Clearly mark the hazard areas by
a combination of warning signs (such as,
‘‘Danger—Swing/Crush Zone’’) and high
visibility markings on the equipment
that identify the hazard areas. In
addition, the employer must train each
employee to understand what these
markings signify.
(d) Keeping clear of the load. Section
1926.1425 does not apply.
(e) Additional safety devices. In
addition to the safety devices listed in
§ 1926.1415, the following safety
devices are required:
(1) Barge, pontoon, vessel or other
means of flotation list and trim device.
The safety device must be located in the
cab or, when there is no cab, at the
operator’s station.

PO 00000

Frm 00265

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48169

(2) Positive equipment house lock.
(3) Wind speed and direction
indicator. A competent person must
determine if wind is a factor that needs
to be considered; if wind needs to be
considered, a wind speed and direction
indicator must be used.
(f) Operational aids.
(1) An anti two-block device is
required only when hoisting personnel
or hoisting over an occupied cofferdam
or shaft.
(2) Section 1926.1416(e)(4) (Load
weighing and similar devices) does not
apply to dragline, clamshell (grapple),
magnet, drop ball, container handling,
concrete bucket, and pile driving work
performed under this section.
(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,
the employer must ensure that:
(1) Rated capacities (load charts) are
posted at the operator’s station. If the
operator’s station is moveable (such as
with pendant-controlled equipment),
the load charts are 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, must
be readily available on board the vessel/
flotation device.
(h) Inspections. In addition to meeting
the requirements of § 1926.1412 for
inspecting the crane/derrick, the
employer must inspect the barge,
pontoons, vessel or other means of
flotation used to support a floating
crane/derrick or land crane/derrick, and
ensure that:
(1) Shift. For each shift inspection, the
means used to secure/attach the
equipment to the vessel/flotation device
is in proper condition, including wear,
corrosion, loose or missing fasteners,
defective welds, and (when applicable)
insufficient tension.
(2) Monthly. For each monthly
inspection:
(i) The means used to secure/attach
the equipment to the vessel/flotation
device is in proper condition, including
inspection for wear, corrosion, and,
when applicable, insufficient tension.
(ii) The vessel/flotation device is not
taking on water.
(iii) The deckload is properly secured.
(iv) The vessel/flotation device is
watertight based on the condition of the
chain lockers, storage, fuel
compartments, and hatches.
(v) The firefighting and lifesaving
equipment is in place and functional.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

48170

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

(3) The shift and monthly inspections
are conducted by a competent person,
and:
(i) If any deficiency is identified, an
immediate determination is made by a
qualified person whether the deficiency
constitutes a hazard.
(ii) If the deficiency is determined to
constitute a hazard, the vessel/flotation
device is removed from service until the
deficiency has been corrected.
(4) Annual: external vessel/flotation
device inspection. For each annual
inspection:
(i) The external portion of the barge,
pontoons, vessel or other means of
flotation used is inspected annually by
a qualified person who has expertise
with respect to vessels/flotation devices
and that the inspection includes the
following items:
(A) The items identified in paragraphs
(h)(1) (Shift) and (h)(2) (Monthly) of this
section.
(B) Cleats, bitts, chocks, fenders,
capstans, ladders, and stanchions, for
significant corrosion, wear,
deterioration, or deformation that could
impair the function of these items.
(C) External evidence of leaks and
structural damage; evidence of leaks and
damage below the waterline may be
determined through internal inspection
of the vessel/flotation device.
(D) Four-corner draft readings.
(E) Firefighting equipment for
serviceability.
(ii) Rescue skiffs, lifelines, work vests,
life preservers and ring buoys are
inspected for proper condition.
(iii) If any deficiency is identified, an
immediate determination is made by the
qualified person whether the deficiency
constitutes a hazard or, though not yet
a hazard, needs to be monitored in the
monthly inspections.
(A) If the qualified person determines
that the deficiency constitutes a hazard,
the vessel/flotation device is removed
from service until it has been corrected.
See requirements in § 1926.1417(f).
(B) If the qualified person determines
that, though not presently a hazard, the
deficiency needs to be monitored, the
deficiency is checked in the monthly
inspections.
(5) Four-year: internal vessel/flotation
device inspection. For each four-year
inspection:
(i) A marine engineer, marine
architect, licensed surveyor, or other
qualified person who has expertise with
respect to vessels/flotation devices
surveys the internal portion of the barge,
pontoons, vessel, or other means of
flotation.
(ii) If the surveyor identifies a
deficiency, an immediate determination
is made by the surveyor as to whether

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

the deficiency constitutes a hazard or,
though not yet a hazard, needs to be
monitored in the monthly or annual
inspections, as appropriate.
(A) If the surveyor determines that the
deficiency constitutes a hazard, the
vessel/flotation device is removed from
service until it has been corrected.
(B) If the surveyor determines that,
though not presently a hazard, the
deficiency needs to be monitored, the
deficiency is checked in the monthly or
annual inspections, as appropriate.
(6) Documentation. The monthly and
annual inspections required in
paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(4) of this
section are documented in accordance
with §§ 1926.1412 (e)(3) and
1926.1412(f)(7), respectively, and that
the four-year inspection required in
paragraph (h)(5) of this section is
documented in accordance with
§ 1926.1412(f)(7), except that the
documentation for that inspection must
be retained for a minimum of 4 years.
All such documents must be made
available, during the applicable
document retention period, to all
persons who conduct inspections in
accordance with § 1926.1412.
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) Working with a diver. The
employer must meet the following
additional requirements when working
with a diver in the water:
(1) If a crane/derrick is used to get a
diver into and out of the water, it must
not be used for any other purpose until
the diver is back on board. When used
for more than one diver, it must not be
used for any other purpose until all
divers are back on board.
(2) The operator must remain at the
controls of the crane/derrick at all times.
(3) In addition to the requirements in
§§ 1926.1419 through 1926.1422
(Signals), either:
(i) A clear line of sight must be
maintained between the operator and
tender; or
(ii) The signals between the operator
and tender must be transmitted
electronically.
(4) The means used to secure the
crane/derrick to the vessel/flotation
device (see paragraph (n)(5) of this
section) must not allow any amount of
shifting in any direction.
(k) Manufacturer’s specifications and
limitations.
(1) The employer must ensure that the
barge, pontoons, vessel, or other means
of flotation must be capable of
withstanding imposed environmental,
operational and in-transit loads when
used in accordance with the
manufacturer’s specifications and
limitations.

PO 00000

Frm 00266

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(2) The employer must ensure that the
manufacturer’s specifications and
limitations with respect to
environmental, operational, and intransit loads for a barge, pontoon,
vessel, or other means of flotation are
not exceeded or violated.
(3) When the manufacturer’s
specifications and limitations are
unavailable, the employer must ensure
that the specifications and limitations
established by a qualified person with
respect to environmental, operational
and in-transit loads for the barge,
pontoons, vessel, or other means of
flotation are not exceeded or violated.
(l) [Reserved.]
(m) Floating cranes/derricks. For
equipment designed by the
manufacturer (or employer) for marine
use by permanent attachment to barges,
pontoons, vessels or other means of
flotation:
(1) Load charts.
(i) The employer must not exceed the
manufacturer load charts applicable to
operations on water. When using these
charts, the employer must comply with
all parameters and limitations (such as
dynamic and environmental parameters)
applicable to the use of the charts.
(ii) The employer must ensure that
load charts take into consideration a
minimum wind speed of 40 miles per
hour.
(2) The employer must ensure that the
requirements for maximum allowable
list and maximum allowable trim as
specified in Table M1 of this section are
met.

TABLE M1
Rated capacity

Equipment designed
for marine use by
permanent attachment (other than
derricks):
25 tons or less ..........
Over 25 tons .............
Derricks designed for
marine use by permanent attachment:
Any rated capacity ....

Maximum
allowable
list
(degrees)

Maximum
allowable
trim
(degrees)

5
7

5
7

10

10

(3) The employer must ensure that the
equipment is stable under the
conditions specified in Tables M2 and
M3 of this section. (Note: Freeboard is
the vertical distance between the water
line and the main deck of the vessel.)

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
section is performed by the equipment
manufacturer, or a qualified person who
Wind
Minimum has expertise with respect to both land
Operated at
speed
freeboard crane/derrick capacity and the stability
(mph)
(ft)
of vessels/flotation devices.
(3) For list and trim.
Rated capacity ..........
60
2
(i) The maximum allowable list and
Rated capacity plus
25% .......................
60
1 the maximum allowable trim for the
High boom, no load ..
60
2 barge, pontoon, vessel or other means of
flotation must not exceed the amount
necessary to ensure that the conditions
TABLE M3
in paragraph (n)(4) of this section are
met. In addition, the maximum
Wind
allowable list and the maximum
Operated at
speed
allowable trim does not exceed the least
of the following: 5 degrees, the amount
For backward stability of the boom:
High boom, no load, full back list 90 mph. specified by the crane/derrick
(least stable condition).
manufacturer, or, when, an amount is
not so specified, the amount specified
(4) If the equipment is employerby the qualified person.
made, it must not be used unless the
(ii) The maximum allowable list and
employer has documents demonstrating the maximum allowable trim for the
that the load charts and applicable
land crane/derrick does not exceed the
parameters for use meet the
amount specified by the crane/derrick
requirements of paragraphs (m)(1)
manufacturer, or, when, an amount is
through (3) of this section. Such
not so specified, the amount specified
documents must be signed by a
by the qualified person.
(4) For the following conditions:
registered professional engineer who is
(i) All deck surfaces of the barge,
a qualified person with respect to the
pontoons, vessel or other means of
design of this type of equipment
flotation used are above water.
(including the means of flotation).
(ii) The entire bottom area of the
(5) The employer must ensure that the
barge, pontoons, vessel or other means
barge, pontoons, vessel or other means
of flotation used is submerged.
of flotation used:
(5) Physical attachment, corralling,
(i) Are structurally sufficient to
rails system and centerline cable system
withstand the static and dynamic loads
meet the requirements in Option (1),
of the crane/derrick when operating at
Option (2), Option (3), or Option (4) of
the crane/derrick’s maximum rated
this section, and that whichever option
capacity with all planned and actual
deck loads and ballasted compartments. is used also meets the requirements of
paragraph (n)(5)(v) of this section.
(ii) Have a subdivided hull with one
(i) Option (1)—Physical attachment.
or more longitudinal watertight
The crane/derrick is physically attached
bulkheads for reducing the free-surface
to the barge, pontoons, vessel or other
effect.
means of flotation. Methods of physical
(iii) Have access to void
attachment include crossed-cable
compartments to allow for inspection
systems attached to the crane/derrick
and pumping.
(n) Land cranes/derricks. For land
and vessel/flotation device, bolting or
cranes/derricks used on barges,
welding the crane/derrick to the vessel/
pontoons, vessels or other means of
flotation device, strapping the crane/
flotation, the employer must ensure
derrick to the vessel/flotation device
that:
with chains, or other methods of
(1) The rated capacity of the
physical attachment.
(ii) Option (2)—Corralling. The crane/
equipment (including but not limited to
derrick is prevented from shifting by
modification of load charts) applicable
installing barricade restraints (i.e., a
for use on land is reduced to:
(i) Account for increased loading from corralling system). Employers must
list, trim, wave action, and wind.
ensure that corralling systems do not
(ii) Be applicable to a specified
allow the equipment to shift by any
location(s) on the specific barge,
amount of shifting in any direction.
pontoons, vessel or other means of
(iii) Option (3)—Rails. The crane/
flotation that will be used, under the
derrick must be prevented from shifting
environmental conditions expected and by being mounted on a rail system.
encountered.
Employers must ensure that rail clamps
(iii) The conditions required in
and rail stops are used unless the
paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this
system is designed to prevent movement
section are met.
during operation by other means.
(2) The rated capacity modification
(iv) Option (4)—Centerline cable
required in paragraph (n)(1) of this
system. The crane/derrick is prevented

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

TABLE M2

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00267

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48171

from shifting by being mounted to a
wire rope system. The employer must
ensure that the wire rope system meets
the following requirements:
(A) The wire rope and attachments are
of sufficient size and strength to support
the side load of crane/derrick.
(B) The wire rope is attached
physically to the vessel/flotation device.
(C) The wire rope is attached to the
crane/derrick by appropriate attachment
methods (such as shackles or sheaves)
on the undercarriage, and that the
method used 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 are installed to prevent the
crane/derrick from passing the forward
or aft end of the wire rope attachments.
(E) The crane/derrick is 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
are designed by a marine engineer,
registered professional engineer familiar
with floating crane/derrick design, or
qualified person familiar with floating
crane/derrick design.
(6) Exception. For mobile auxiliary
cranes used on the deck of a floating
crane/derrick, the requirement specified
by paragraph (n)(5) of this section to use
Option (1), Option (2), Option (3), or
Option (4) does not apply when the
employer demonstrates implementation
of a plan and procedures that meet the
following requirements:
(i) 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.
(ii) The plan is designed so that the
applicable requirements of this section
are met despite the position, travel,
operation, and lack of physical
attachment (or corralling, use of rails or
cable system) of the mobile auxiliary
crane.
(iii) The plan specifies the areas of the
deck where the mobile auxiliary crane
is permitted to be positioned, travel, and
operate, and the parameters and
limitations of such movements and
operation.
(iv) The deck is marked to identify the
permitted areas for positioning, travel,
and operation.
(v) The plan specifies the dynamic
and environmental conditions that must
be present for use of the plan.
(vi) If the dynamic and environmental
conditions in paragraph (n)(6)(v) of this
section are exceeded, the mobile
auxiliary crane is attached physically or
corralled in accordance with Option (1),

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48172

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Option (2) or Option (4) of paragraph
(n)(5) of this section.
(7) The barge, pontoons, vessel or
other means of flotation used:
(i) Are structurally sufficient to
withstand the static and dynamic loads
of the crane/derrick when operating at
the crane/derrick’s maximum rated
capacity with all anticipated deck loads
and ballasted compartments.
(ii) Have a subdivided hull with one
or more longitudinal watertight
bulkheads for reducing the free surface
effect.
(iii) Have access to void
compartments to allow for inspection
and pumping.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

§ 1926.1438

Overhead & gantry cranes.

(a) Permanently installed overhead
and gantry cranes. The requirements of
§ 1910.179, except for § 1910.179(b)(1),
and not the requirements of this subpart
CC, apply to the following equipment
when used in construction and
permanently installed in a facility:
overhead and gantry cranes, including
semigantry, cantilever gantry, wall
cranes, storage bridge cranes, and others
having the same fundamental
characteristics.
(b) Overhead and gantry cranes that
are not permanently installed in a
facility.
(1) This paragraph applies to the
following equipment when used in
construction and not permanently
installed in a facility: Overhead and
gantry cranes, overhead/bridge cranes,
semigantry, cantilever gantry, wall
cranes, storage bridge cranes, launching
gantry cranes, and similar equipment
having the same fundamental
characteristics, irrespective of whether
it travels on tracks, wheels, or other
means.
(2) The following requirements apply
to equipment identified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section:
(i) Sections 1926.1400 through
1926.1414; §§ 1926.1417 through
1926.1425; § 1926.1426(d), §§ 1926.1427
through 1926.1434; § 1926.1437,
§ 1926.1439, and § 1926.1441.
(ii) The following portions of
§ 1910.179:
(A) Paragraphs (b)(5),(6),(7);
(e)(1),(3),(5),(6); (f)(1),(4); (g); (h)(1),(3);
(k); and (n) of § 1910.179.
(B) The definitions in § 1910.179(a)
except for ‘‘hoist’’ and ‘‘load.’’ For those
words, the definitions in § 1926.1401
apply.
(C) Section 1910.179(b)(2), but only
where the equipment identified in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section
(§ 1926.1438) was manufactured before
September 19, 2001.
(iii) For equipment manufactured on
or after September 19, 2001, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

following sections of ASME B30.2–2005
(incorporated by reference, see § 1926.6)
apply: 2–1.3.1; 2–1.3.2; 2–1.4.1; 2–1.6;
2–1.7.2; 2–1.8.2; 2–1.9.1; 2–1.9.2; 2–
1.11; 2–1.12.2; 2–1.13.7; 2–1.14.2; 2–
1.14.3; 2–1.14.5; 2–1.15.; 2–2.2.2; 2–
3.2.1.1. In addition, 2–3.5 applies,
except in 2–3.5.1(b), ‘‘29 CFR 1910.147’’
is substituted for ‘‘ANSI Z244.1.’’
§ 1926.1439

Dedicated pile drivers.

(a) The provisions of subpart CC
apply to dedicated pile drivers, except
as specified in this section.
(b) Section 1926.1416(d)(3) (Anti twoblocking device) does not apply.
(c) Section 1926.1416(e)(4) (Load
weighing and similar devices) applies
only to dedicated pile drivers
manufactured after November 8, 2011.
(d) In § 1926.1433, only
§§ 1926.1433(d) and (e) apply to
dedicated pile drivers.
§ 1926.1440

Sideboom cranes.

(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).
(b) Section 1926.1426 (Free fall and
controlled load lowering) applies,
except § 1926.1426(a)(2)(i). Sideboom
cranes in which the boom is designed to
free fall (live boom) are permitted only
if manufactured prior to November 8,
2010.
(c) Sideboom cranes mounted on
wheel or crawler tractors must meet all
of the following requirements of ASME
B30.14–2004 (incorporated by reference,
see § 1926.6):
(1) Section 14–1.1 (‘‘Load Ratings’’).
(2) Section 14–1.3 (‘‘Side Boom
Tractor Travel’’).
(3) Section 14–1.5 (‘‘Ropes and
Reeving Accessories’’).
(4) Section 14–1.7.1 (‘‘Booms’’).
(5) Section 14–1.7.2 (‘‘General
Requirements—Exhaust Gases’’).
(6) Section 14–1.7.3 (‘‘General
Requirements—Stabilizers (Wheel-Type
Side Boom Tractors)’’).
(7) Section 14–1.7.4 (‘‘General
Requirements—Welded Construction’’).
(8) Section 14–1.7.6 (‘‘General
Requirements—Clutch and Brake
Protection’’).
(9) Section 14–2.2.2 (‘‘Testing—Rated
Load Test’’), except that it applies only
to equipment that has been altered or
modified.
(10) In section 14–3.1.2 (‘‘Operator
Qualifications’’), paragraph (a), except
the phrase ‘‘When required by law.’’
(11) In section 14–3.1.3 (‘‘Operating
Practices’’), paragraphs (e), (f)(1)—(f)(4),
(f)(6), (f)(7), (h), and (i).

PO 00000

Frm 00268

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(12) In section 14–3.2.3 (‘‘Moving the
Load’’), paragraphs (j), (l), and (m).
§ 1926.1441 Equipment with a rated
hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or
less.

The following paragraphs of this
section specify requirements for
employers using equipment with a
maximum rated hoisting/lifting capacity
of 2,000 pounds or less.
(a) The employer using this
equipment must comply with the
following provisions of this subpart:
§ 1926.1400 (Scope); § 1926.1401
(Definitions); § 1926.1402 (Ground
conditions); § 1926.1403 (Assembly/
disassembly—selection of manufacturer
or employer procedures); § 1926.1406
(Assembly/disassembly—employer
procedures); §§ 1926.1407 through
1926.1411 (Power line safety);
§ 1926.1412(c) (Post-assembly);
§§ 1926.1413 through 1926.1414 (Wire
rope); § 1926.1418 (Authority to stop
operation); §§ 1926.1419 through
1926.1422 (Signals); § 1926.1423 (Fall
protection); § 1926.1425 (Keeping clear
of the load) (except for § 1926.1425(c)(3)
(qualified rigger)); § 1926.1426 (Free fall
and controlled load lowering);
§ 1926.1432 (Multiple crane/derrick
lifts—supplemental requirements);
§ 1926.1434 (Equipment modifications);
§ 1926.1435 (Tower cranes); § 1926.1436
(Derricks); § 1926.1437 (Floating cranes/
derricks and land cranes/derricks on
barges); § 1926.1438 (Overhead & gantry
cranes).
(b) Assembly/disassembly.
(1) In addition to compliance with
§§ 1926.1403 (Assembly/disassembly—
selection of manufacturer or employer
procedures) and 1926.1406 (Assembly/
disassembly—employer procedures), the
employer must also comply with
§ 1926.1441(b)(2)–(3).
(2) Components and configuration.
The employer must ensure that:
(i) The selection of components, and
the configuration of the equipment, that
affect the capacity or safe operation of
the equipment complies with either the:
(A) Manufacturer instructions,
recommendations, limitations, and
specifications. When these documents
and information are unavailable, a
registered professional engineer familiar
with the type of equipment involved
must approve, in writing, the selection
and configuration of components; or
(B) Approved modifications that meet
the requirements of § 1926.1434
(Equipment modifications).
(ii) Post-assembly inspection. Upon
completion of assembly, the equipment
is inspected to ensure that it is in
compliance with paragraph (b)(2)(i) of

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

this section (see § 1926.1412(c) for postassembly inspection requirements).
(3) Manufacturer prohibitions. The
employer must comply with applicable
manufacturer prohibitions.
(c) Operation—procedures.
(1) The employer must comply with
all manufacturer procedures applicable
to the operational functions of the
equipment, including its use with
attachments.
(2) Unavailable operation procedures.
The employer must:
(i) When the manufacturer’s
procedures are unavailable, develop,
and ensure compliance with, all
procedures necessary for the safe
operation of the equipment and
attachments.
(ii) Ensure that procedures for the
operational controls are developed by a
qualified person.
(iii) Ensure that procedures related to
the capacity of the equipment are
developed and signed by a registered
professional engineer familiar with the
equipment.
(3) Accessibility. The employer must
ensure that:
(i) The load chart is available to the
operator at the control station;
(ii) Procedures applicable to the
operation of the equipment,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

recommended operating speeds, special
hazard warnings, instructions, and
operator’s manual are readily available
for use by the operator.
(iii) When rated capacities are
available at the control station only in
electronic form and a failure occurs that
makes the rated capacities inaccessible,
the operator immediately ceases
operations or follows safe shut-down
procedures until the rated capacities (in
electronic or other form) are available.
(d) Safety devices and operational
aids.
(1) The employer must ensure that
safety devices and operational aids that
are part of the original equipment are
maintained in accordance with
manufacturer procedures.
(2) Anti two-blocking. The employer
must ensure that equipment covered by
this section manufactured more than
one year after November 8, 2010 have
either an anti two-block device that
meets the requirements of
§ 1926.1416(d)(3), or is designed so that,
in the event of a two-block situation, no
damage or load failure will occur (for
example, by using a power unit that
stalls in response to a two-block
situation).
(e) Operator qualifications. The
employer must train each operator, prior

PO 00000

Frm 00269

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48173

to operating the equipment, on the safe
operation of the type of equipment the
operator will be using.
(f) Signal person qualifications. The
employer must train each signal person
in the proper use of signals applicable
to the use of the equipment.
(g) [Reserved.]
(h) Inspections. The employer must
ensure that equipment is inspected in
accordance with manufacturer
procedures.
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) Hoisting personnel. The employer
must ensure that equipment covered by
this section is not used to hoist
personnel.
(k) Design. The employer must ensure
that the equipment is designed by a
qualified engineer.
§ 1926.1442

Severability.

Should a court of competent
jurisdiction hold any provision(s) of
subpart CC to be invalid, such action
shall not affect any other provision of
the subpart.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

Appendix A to Subpart CC of Part
1926—Standard Hand Signals

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48174

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00270

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

ER09AU10.003

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Appendix B to Subpart CC of Part
1926—Assembly/Disassembly: Sample
Procedures for Minimizing the Risk of
Unintended Dangerous Boom
Movement
1. Section 1926.1404(f)(1) provides that
when pins (or similar devices) are being
removed, employees must not be under the
boom, jib, or other components, except where
the requirements of § 1926.1404(f)(2) are met.
The exception in § 1926.1404(f)(2) applies
when the employer demonstrates that site
constraints require one or more employees to
be under the boom, jib, or other components
when pins (or similar devices) are being
removed. In such a situation, the A/D
director must implement procedures that
minimize the risk of unintended dangerous
movement and minimize the duration and
extent of exposure under the boom.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

The following scenario is an example of
how the exception applies: A boom cannot be
disassembled on the ground because of
aboveground piping (as might be found, for
example, in an oil refinery) that precludes
lowering the boom to the ground. The boom
must therefore be disassembled in the air,
and the employees who remove the pins
must perform that work from an aerial lift
whose base is positioned on one side (the
near side) of the boom. To gain access to the
pins on the far side, the aerial lift basket must
move under the boom, since, due to lack of
room, the aerial lift cannot be repositioned
on the far side. Due to lack of room, the aerial
lift cannot be repositioned on the far side, so
the aerial basket must move under the boom
to gain access to the pins on the far side.
To minimize the risk of unintended
dangerous movement while the pins are
removed, the A/D director uses an assist

PO 00000

Frm 00271

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48175

crane that is rigged to support the boom
section that is being detached, using
particular care to ensure that the section end
that is near the employee(s) removing the
pins is well supported. The duration and
extent of exposure is minimized by removing
the far side pins first, moving the aerial lift
basket as soon as possible to the near side so
that the employees are no longer under the
boom, and then removing the near side pins.
2. Section 1926.1404(h)(6)(i) provides that,
during assembly/disassembly, the center of
gravity of the load must be identified if that
is necessary for the method used for
maintaining stability. Section
1926.1404(h)(6)(ii) states that, where there is
insufficient information to accurately
identify the center of gravity, measures
designed to prevent unintended dangerous
movement resulting from an inaccurate

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

ER09AU10.004

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

48176

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

identification of the center of gravity must be
used.
An example of the application of
§ 1926.1404(h)(6)(ii) is as follows: The boom
is assembled by lowering boom sections
sequentially into place using an assist crane.
The A/D director’s plan is to keep the boom
sections stable while they are lowered into
place by attaching the assist crane hoist line
above the center of gravity of each section.
However, in assembling the non-symmetrical
top section of the boom, the A/D director is
not able to determine where to attach the
assist crane hoist line so that it is above the
center of gravity. In this situation, before
raising the section, all personnel are kept
clear of the section and the section is first
raised a few inches to determine whether it
tips when raised (if it did tip, it would
indicate it is not rigged over the center of
gravity). If this occurs, the hoist line is
repositioned and the procedure repeated
(with employees kept clear of the section
while it is raised) until the A/D director
determines that it is rigged over the center of
gravity and can be moved into place without
dangerous movement.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

Appendix C to Subpart CC of Part
1926—Operator Certification: Written
Examination: Technical Knowledge
Criteria
This appendix contains information for
employers, accredited testing organizations,
auditors and government entities developing
criteria for a written examination to test an
individual’s technical knowledge relating to
the operation of cranes.
(a) General technical information.
(1) The functions and limitations of the
crane and attachments.
(2) Wire rope:
(i) Background information necessary to
understand the inspection and removal from
service criteria in § 1926.1413 and
§ 1926.1414.
(ii) Capacity and when multi-part rope is
needed.
(iii) Relationship between line pull and
safe working load.
(iv) How to determine the manufacturer’s
recommended rope for the crane.
(3) Rigging devices and their use, such as:
(i) Slings.
(ii) Spreaders.
(iii) Lifting beams.
(iv) Wire rope fittings, such as clips,
shackles and wedge sockets.
(v) Saddles (softeners).
(vi) Clamps (beams).
(4) The technical limitations of protective
measures against electrical hazards:
(i) Grounding.
(ii) Proximity warning devices.
(iii) Insulated links.
(iv) Boom cages.
(v) Proximity to electric power lines, radii,
and microwave structures.
(5) The effects of load share and load
transfer in multi-crane lifts.
(6) Basic crane terms.
(7) The basics of machine power flow
systems.
(i) Mechanical.
(ii) Electrical.
(iii) Pneumatic.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

(iv) Hydraulic.
(v) Combination.
(8) The significance of the instruments and
gauge readings.
(9) The effects of thermal expansion and
contraction in hydraulic cylinders.
(10) Background information necessary to
understand the requirements of pre-operation
and inspection.
(11) How to use the safety devices and
operational aids required under § 1926.1415
and § 1926.1416.
(12) The difference between duty-cycle and
lifting operations.
(13) How to calculate net capacity for every
possible configuration of the equipment
using the manufacturer’s load chart.
(14) How to use manufacturer-approved
attachments and their effect on the
equipment.
(15) How to obtain dimensions, weight,
and center of gravity of the load.
(16) The effects of dynamic loading from:
(i) Wind.
(ii) Stopping and starting.
(iii) Impact loading.
(iv) Moving with the load.
(17) The effect of side loading.
(18) The principles of backward stability.
(b) Site information.
(1) How to identify the suitability of the
supporting ground/surface to support the
expected loads of the operation. Elements
include:
(i) Weaknesses below the surface (such as
voids, tanks, loose fill).
(ii) Weaknesses on the surface (such as
retaining walls, slopes, excavations,
depressions).
(2) Proper use of mats, blocking/cribbing,
outriggers, stabilizers, or crawlers.
(3) Identification of site hazards such as
power lines, piping, and traffic.
(4) How to review operation plans with
supervisors and other workers (such as the
signal person), including how to determine
working height, boom length, load radius,
and travel clearance.
(5) How to determine if there is adequate
room for extension of crawlers or outriggers/
stabilizers and counterweights.
(c) Operations.
(1) How to pick, carry, swing and place the
load smoothly and safely on rubber tires and
on outriggers/stabilizers or crawlers (where
applicable).
(2) How to communicate at the site with
supervisors, the crew and the signal person.
(3) Proper procedures and methods of
reeving wire ropes and methods of reeving
multiple-part lines and selecting the proper
load block and/or ball.
(4) How to react to changes in conditions
that affect the safe operation of the
equipment.
(5) How to shut down and secure the
equipment properly when leaving it
unattended.
(6) Know how to apply the manufacturer’s
specifications for operating in various
weather conditions, and understand how
environmental conditions affect the safe
operation of the equipment.
(7) How to properly level the equipment.
(8) How to verify the weight of the load
and rigging prior to initiating the lift.

PO 00000

Frm 00272

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(9) How to determine where the load is to
be picked up and placed and how to verify
the radii.
(10) Know basic rigging procedures.
(11) How to carry out the shift inspection
required in this subpart.
(12) Know that the following operations
require specific procedures and skill levels:
(i) Multi-crane lifts.
(ii) Hoisting personnel.
(iii) Clamshell/dragline operations.
(iv) Pile driving and extracting.
(v) Concrete operations, including pouredin-place and tilt-up.
(vi) Demolition operations.
(vii) Operations on water.
(viii) Magnet operations.
(ix) Multi-drum operations.
(13) Know the proper procedures for
operating safely under the following
conditions:
(i) Traveling with suspended loads.
(ii) Approaching a two-block condition.
(iii) Operating near power lines.
(iv) Hoisting personnel.
(v) Using other than full outrigger/crawler
or stabilizer extensions.
(vi) Lifting loads from beneath the surface
of the water.
(vii) Using various approved counterweight
configurations.
(viii) Handling loads out of the operator’s
vision (‘‘operating in the blind’’).
(ix) Using electronic communication
systems for signal communication.
(14) Know the proper procedures for load
control and the use of hand-held tag lines.
(15) Know the emergency response
procedure for:
(i) Fires.
(ii) Power line contact.
(iii) Loss of stability.
(iv) Control malfunction.
(v) Two-blocking.
(vi) Overload.
(vii) Carrier or travel malfunction.
(16) Know how to properly use outriggers
and stabilizers in accordance with
manufacturer specifications.
(d) Use of load charts.
(1) Know the terminology necessary to use
load charts.
(2) Know how to ensure that the load chart
is the appropriate chart for the equipment in
its particular configuration and application.
(3) Know how to use load charts. This
includes knowing:
(i) The operational limitations of load
charts and footnotes.
(ii) How to relate the chart to the
configuration of the crane, crawlers, or
outriggers/stabilizers extended or retracted,
jib erected or offset, and various
counterweight configurations.
(iii) The difference between structural
capacity and capacity limited by stability.
(iv) What is included in capacity ratings.
(v) The range diagram and its relationship
to the load chart.
(vi) The work area chart and its
relationship to the load chart.
(vii) Where to find and how to use the
‘‘parts-of-line’’ information.

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(4) Know how to use the load chart
together with the load indicators and/or load
moment devices.
[FR Doc. 2010–17818 Filed 7–28–10; 8:45 am]

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:33 Aug 06, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00273

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM

09AUR2

48177