Cranes and Derricks in Construction, 59714-59954 [E8-21993]
Download as PDF
59714
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1926
[Docket ID–OSHA–2007–0066]
RIN 1218–AC01
Cranes and Derricks in Construction
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing a rule to
protect employees from the hazards
associated with hoisting equipment
when used to perform construction
activities. Under this proposed rule,
employers would first determine
whether the ground is sufficient to
support the anticipated weight of
hoisting equipment and associated
loads. The employer then would be
required to assess hazards within the
work zone that would affect the safe
operation of hoisting equipment, such
as those of power lines and objects or
personnel that would be within the
work zone or swing radius of the
hoisting equipment. Finally, the
employer would be required to ensure
that the equipment is in safe operating
condition via required inspections and
employees in the work zone are trained
to recognize hazards associated with the
use of the equipment and any related
duties that they are assigned to perform.
DATES: Submit comments (including
comments to the information-collection
(paperwork) determination described
under the section titled ‘‘Supplementary
Information’’ of this document), hearing
requests, and other information by
December 8, 2008. All submissions must
bear a postmark or provide other
evidence of the submission date. (See
the following section titled ADDRESSES
for methods you can use in making
submissions.)
ADDRESSES: Comments and hearing
requests may be submitted as follows:
• Electronic. Comments may be
submitted electronically to https://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the
instructions online for submitting
comments.
• Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile
transmission of comments and hearing
requests that are 10 pages or fewer in
length (including attachments). Send
these documents to the OSHA Docket
Office at (202) 693–1648; hard copies of
these documents are not required.
Instead of transmitting facsimile copies
of attachments that supplement these
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
documents (e.g., studies, journal
articles), commenters may submit these
attachments, in triplicate hard copy, to
the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data
Center, Room N–2625, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210.
These attachments must clearly identify
the sender’s name, date, subject, and
Docket ID (i.e., OSHA–2007–0066) so
that the Agency can attach them to the
appropriate document.
• Regular mail, express delivery,
hand (courier) delivery, and messenger
service: Submit three copies of
comments and any additional material
(e.g., studies, journal articles) to the
OSHA Docket Office, Docket ID OSHA–
2007–0066 or RIN No. 1218–AC01,
Technical Data Center, Room N–2625,
OSHA, Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–2350.
(OSHA’s TTY number is (877) 889–
5627.) Please contact the OSHA Docket
Office for information about security
procedures concerning delivery of
materials by express delivery, hand
delivery, and messenger service. The
hours of operation for the OSHA Docket
Office are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
• Instructions. All submissions must
include the Agency name and the OSHA
Docket ID (i.e., OSHA–2007–0066).
Comments and other material, including
any personal information, are placed in
the public docket without revision, and
will be available online at https://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the
Agency cautions commenters about
submitting statements they do not want
made available to the public, or
submitting comments that contain
personal information (either about
themselves or others) such as social
security numbers, birth dates, and
medical data.
• Docket. To read or download
comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov
or to the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above. Documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index; however,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download through this Web site.
All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
assistance in locating docket
submissions.
200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693–1999 or fax (202) 693–1634.
• Technical inquiries. Contact Mr.
Garvin Branch, Directorate of
Construction, Room N–3468, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2020 or
fax (202) 693–1689.
• Copies of this Federal Register
notice. Available from the OSHA Office
of Publications, Room N–3101, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone (202) 693–1888.
• Electronic copies of this notice. Go
to OSHA’s Web site (https://
www.osha.gov), and select ‘‘Federal
Register,’’ ‘‘Date of Publication,’’ and
then ‘‘2008.’’
• Additional information for
submitting documents. See section V.I.
(‘‘Public Participation’’) of this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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,
II. Background
A. History
The Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590, 29 U.S.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
I. General
A. Table of Contents
The following Table of Contents
identifies the major preamble sections
in this notice and the order in which
they are presented:
I. General
A. Table of Contents
B. Hearing
II. Background
A. History
B. The Cranes and Derricks Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (C–
DAC)
C. Hazards Associated with Cranes and
Derricks in Construction Work
III. The SBREFA Process
IV. Summary and Explanation of the
Proposed Standard
V. Procedural Determinations
A. Legal Authority
B. Preliminary Economic Analysis and
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. OMB Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
D. Federalism
E. State-Plan States
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Applicability of Existing Consensus
Standards
H. Review of the Proposed Standard by the
Advisory Committee for Construction
Safety and Health (ACCSH)
I. Public Participation—Comments and
Hearings
B. Hearing
Requests for a hearing should be
submitted to the Agency as set forth
above under DATES and ADDRESSES.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
651–678) (the OSH Act) authorizes the
Secretary of Labor to adopt safety and
health standards to reduce injuries and
illnesses in American workplaces.
Pursuant to that authority, the Secretary
has adopted, among others, a set of
safety and health standards applicable
to the construction industry, 29 CFR
Part 1926. Initially, standards for the
construction industry were adopted
under the Construction Safety Act, 40
U.S.C. 333. Under the Construction
Safety Act, those standards were limited
to employers engaged in federallyfinanced or federally-assisted
construction projects. The Secretary
subsequently adopted them as OSHA
standards pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(a), which
authorized the Secretary to adopt
established federal standards as OSH
Act standards within the first two years
the OSH Act was effective (36 FR 25232,
Dec. 30, 1971). Subpart N of 29 CFR part
1926, entitled ‘‘Cranes, Derricks, Hoists,
Elevators, and Conveyors,’’ was
originally adopted through this process.
The section of subpart N of 29 CFR
part 1926 that applies to cranes and
derricks is § 1926.550. That section
relies heavily on national consensus
standards that were in effect in 1971, in
some cases incorporating the consensus
standards by reference. For example,
§ 1926.550(b)(2) requires crawler, truck,
and locomotive cranes to meet
applicable requirements for design,
inspection, construction, testing,
maintenance, and operation prescribed
in ANSI B30.5–1968, ‘‘Crawler,
Locomotive and Truck Cranes.’’
Similarly, § 1926.550(e) requires
derricks to meet applicable
requirements for design, construction,
installation, inspection, testing,
maintenance, and operation prescribed
in ANSI B30.6–1969, ‘‘Derricks.’’ Since
1971, § 1926.550 has been amended
substantively only twice. In 1988, a new
paragraph (g) was added to establish
clearly the conditions under which
employees on personnel platforms may
be hoisted by cranes and derricks. 53 FR
29116 (Aug. 2, 1988). In 1993, a new
paragraph § 1926.550(a)(19) was added
to require that all employees be kept
clear of lifted and suspended loads.
There have been considerable
technological changes since the 1971
OSHA standard was issued. For
example, hydraulic cranes were rare at
that time but are now prevalent.
Although the OSHA standard remains
largely unchanged, the construction
industry has updated the consensus
standards on which the OSHA standard
is based. For example, the industry
consensus standard for derricks was
most recently updated in 2003, and that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
for crawler, locomotive and truck cranes
in 2004.
In recent years, a number of industry
stakeholders asked the Agency to
update Subpart N’s cranes and derrick
requirements. They were concerned that
accidents involving cranes and derricks
continued to be a significant cause of
fatal and other serious injuries on
construction sites and believed that an
updated standard was needed to address
the causes of these accidents and to
reduce their numbers. They emphasized
that the considerable changes in both
work processes and technology have
made much of Subpart N obsolete.
In response to these requests, in 1998
OSHA’s Advisory Committee for
Construction Safety and Health
(ACCSH) established a workgroup to
develop recommended changes to the
Subpart N requirements for cranes and
derricks. The workgroup developed
recommendations on some issues and
submitted them to the full committee in
a draft workgroup report. (OSHA–2007–
0066–0020). In December 1999, ACCSH
recommended to OSHA that the agency
consider using a negotiated rulemaking
process as the mechanism to update
Subpart N (ACCSH 1999–4, Ex. 100x,
p. 112).
B. The Cranes and Derricks Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(C–DAC)
In July 2002, OSHA announced its
intent to use negotiated rulemaking
under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act
(NRA), 5 U.S.C. 561 et seq., to revise the
cranes and derricks standard. The
Agency made this decision in light of
the stakeholder interest in updating
Subpart N, the constructive discussions
and work of the ACCSH workgroup,
ACCSH’s recommendation, a positive
assessment of the criteria listed in the
NRA (5 U.S.C. 563(a)) for the use of
negotiated rulemaking, and the
Department of Labor’s policy on
negotiated rulemaking (See ‘‘Notice of
Policy on Use of Negotiated Rulemaking
Procedures by Agencies of the
Department of Labor,’’ 57 FR 61925
(Dec. 29, 1992)). The Agency issued a
notice of intent to use negotiated
rulemaking for this project and establish
the Cranes and Derricks Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(‘‘C–DAC’’ or ‘‘the Committee’’) (67 FR
46612, July 16, 2002).
Negotiated rulemaking is a process by
which a proposed rule is developed by
a committee comprised of members who
represent the interests that will be
significantly affected by the rule.
Section 562 of the NRA defines
‘‘interest’’ as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59715
‘‘[I]nterest’’ means, with respect to an issue
or matter, multiple parties which have a
similar point of view or which are likely to
be affected in a similar manner.
By bringing different viewpoints to
the table and sharing views, the
members of the negotiated rulemaking
committee learn the reasons for different
positions on the issues as well as the
practical effect of various approaches.
Each member of the committee
participates in resolving the interests
and concerns of other members.
Negotiation allows interested parties,
including members who represent the
interests of employers who will be
subject to the rule and the employees
who stand to benefit from the safer
workplaces the rule will produce, to
become involved at an earlier stage of
the rulemaking process. As a result, the
rule that OSHA proposes will have
already received close scrutiny by
affected parties at the pre-proposal
stage.
The goal of the negotiated rulemaking
process is to develop a proposed rule
that represents a consensus of all the
interests. The NRA defines consensus as
unanimous concurrence among the
interests represented on a negotiated
rulemaking committee unless the
committee itself unanimously agrees to
use a different definition of consensus.
As discussed below, C–DAC agreed by
unanimous vote to a different definition:
a consensus was reached on an issue
when not more than two non-federal
members dissented on that issue.
In the July 2002 notice of intent to
establish a negotiated rulemaking
committee referred to above, the Agency
listed key issues that OSHA expected
the negotiations to address and the
interests that OSHA had tentatively
identified as being significantly affected
by the rulemaking. Those interests were:
—Crane and derrick manufacturers,
suppliers, and distributors.
—Companies that repair and maintain
cranes and derricks.
—Crane and derrick leasing companies.
—Owners of cranes and derricks.
—Construction companies that use
cranes and derricks.
—General contractors.
—Labor organizations representing
construction employees who operate
cranes and derricks.
—Labor organizations representing
construction employees who work in
conjunction with cranes and derricks.
—Owners of electric power distribution
lines.
—Civil, structural and architectural
engineering firms and engineering
consultants involved with the use of
cranes and derricks in construction.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59716
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
—Training organizations.
—Crane and derrick operator testing
organizations.
—Insurance and safety organizations,
and public interest groups.
—Trade associations.
—Government entities involved with
construction safety and with
construction operations involving
cranes and derricks.
OSHA asked for public comment on
whether interests other than those listed
would be significantly affected by a new
rule. It also solicited requests for
membership on the committee. OSHA
urged interested parties to communicate
with others who shared similar interests
and to begin organizing coalitions to
support those interests in order to
identify individuals for nomination to
the committee.
The Agency noted that the need to
limit the committee’s membership to a
number that could conduct effective
negotiations might mean that not all
interests could be represented on the
committee itself. However, OSHA
further noted that interested persons
had means other than committee
membership available to participate in
the committee’s deliberations, including
attending committee meetings and
addressing the committee, providing
written comments to the committee, and
participating in committee workgroups.
67 FR at 46615.
In response to its request for public
input, the Agency received broad
support for using negotiated rulemaking
and 55 nominations for committee
membership. To keep membership to a
reasonable size, OSHA tentatively listed
20 potential committee members and
asked for public comment on that
proposed list. 68 FR 9036 (Feb. 27,
2003). In response to the comments,
OSHA added three members to the
committee—individuals from the
mobile crane manufacturing industry,
the Specialized Carriers & Rigging
Association, and the outdoor advertising
industry. 68 FR 39879 (July 3, 2003).
The members of the Committee, the
organizations and interests they
represent, and a summary of their
qualifications at the time the Committee
was formed are in Table 1 as follows:
TABLE 1—THE QUALIFICATIONS OF C–DAC PANEL MEMBERS
Stephen Brown, International Union of Operating Engineers (labor).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organizations/Interests represented ........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Michael Brunet, Manitowoc Cranes, Inc. (manufacturers and suppliers).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organizations/Interests represented ........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Stephen P. Charman, Viacom Outdoor, Inc. (employer users).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organizations/Interests represented ........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Joseph Collins, Zachry Construction Corporation (employer users).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organizations/Interests represented ........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Noah Connell, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (government).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests represented ..........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Peter Juhren, Morrow Equipment Company, L.L.C. (manufacturers and
suppliers).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests represented ..........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Bernie McGrew, Link-Belt Construction Equipment Corp. (manufacturers and suppliers).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests represented ..........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Larry Means, Wire Rope Technical Board (manufacturers and suppliers).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests represented ..........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Frank Migliaccio, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers (labor organization).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Director of Construction Training, International Union of Operating Engineers.
Organized construction employees who operate cranes and derricks,
and work with such equipment.
Worked in numerous positions in the construction industry over 28
years, including Equipment Operator, Mechanic, and Training Director.
Director of Product Support for Manitowoc Cranes.
Crane manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors.
Extensive engineering experience in crane engineering; participated in
development of SAE and ISO standards for cranes.
Vice President (New York) of Viacom Outdoor Group.
Billboard construction.
Over 43 years’ experience with the construction industry, including specialized rigging.
Crane Fleet Manager.
Highway/Railroad Construction.
Over 30 years’ experience with the construction industry in a variety of
positions including crane operator, mechanic, and rigger.
Director, Office of Construction Standards and Guidance.
Government.
22 years’ experience with government programs.
National Service Manager.
Tower crane distributor/manufacturer.
22 years’ experience with Morrow Equipment Company, L.L.C.
Manager for Crane Testing, Product Safety, Metal Labs and Technical
Computing.
Mobile crane manufacturers.
Extensive engineering experience in crane engineering.
Rope Engineer.
Wire rope manufacturing industry.
36 years’ wire rope engineering experience.
Executive Director for Safety and Health.
Organized construction employees who operate cranes and derricks,
and work with such equipment.
31 years’ experience in the ironworking industry, including ten years as
Director of Safety and Health Training for the Ironworker’s National
Fund.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
59717
TABLE 1—THE QUALIFICATIONS OF C–DAC PANEL MEMBERS—Continued
Brian Murphy, Sundt Corporation (employer users).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
George R. ‘‘Chip’’ Pocock, C.P. Buckner Steel Erection (employer
users).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
David Ritchie, St. Paul Companies (trainer and operator testing).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Emmett Russell, International Union of Operating Engineers (labor).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Dale Shoemaker, Carpenters International Training Center (labor).
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
William Smith, Maxim Crane Works (lessors/maintenance).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Craig Steele, Schuck & Sons Construction Company, Inc. (employer
users).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Darlaine Taylor, Century Steel Erectors, Inc. (employer users).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Wallace Vega III, Entergy Corp. (power line owners).
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
William J. ‘‘Doc’’ Weaver, National Electrical Contractors Association
(employer users).
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Robert Weiss, Cranes, Inc. and A.J. McNulty & Company, Inc. (employer users).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Doug Williams, C.P. Buckner Steel Erection (employer users).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Stephen Wiltshire, Sports and Public Assembly Group, Turner Construction Corp. (employer users).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
Charles Yorio, Acordia (Wells Fargo) (insurance).
Title ...........................................................................................................
Organization/Interests Represented .........................................................
Experience ................................................................................................
C–DAC was chaired by a facilitator,
Susan L. Podziba of Susan Podziba &
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Vice President and Safety Director.
General contractors/crane owners/users.
Over 35 years’ experience in the construction industry, most of them
with Sundt.
Safety and Risk Manager.
Steel Erection crane user/employers.
Over 22 years’ experience in the construction/steel erection industry.
Crane and Rigging Specialist.
Employee Training/Evaluation.
Over 31 years’ experience in the construction industry.
Director of Safety and Health.
Organized construction employees who operate cranes and derricks,
and work with such equipment.
Over 32 years’ experience in the crane/construction industry, including
ten years in the field as well as over 20 years with IUOE.
Labor organizations representing construction employees who operate
cranes and derricks and who work in conjunction with cranes and
derricks.
Became a crane operator in 1973; served as a rigging trainer for labor
organizations since 1986.
Corporate Safety/Labor Relations Manager.
Crane/Derrick repair and maintenance companies.
24 years’ experience in the crane, rigging, and construction industry,
both public and private sectors.
President and CEO.
Employers/users engaged in residential construction.
30 years’ experience in the construction industry with Schuck & Sons
Construction Company, Inc.
Vice President.
Steel Erection/Leased Crane Users.
19 years with Century Steel Erectors, over 12 years in the construction
safety field.
Power line owners.
35 years’ experience in the power line industry.
Electrical contractors engaged in power line construction.
Over 53 years’ electrical construction experience, 37 of which is spent
in management positions.
Vice President and Project Manager for Safety (respectively).
Employers/users engaged in precast concrete erection.
20 years’ experience in the precast and steel erection industry.
President.
Buckner Heavy Lift Cranes.
32 years’ experience in the construction industry.
National Safety Director.
Employer/users of owned and leased cranes.
28 years’ experience in construction safety.
Assistant Vice President.
Insurance.
17 years’ experience in loss prevention and regulatory compliance.
Associates, a firm engaged in public
policy mediation and consensus
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
building. Ms. Podziba’s role was to
facilitate the negotiations by:
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59718
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(1) Chairing the Committee’s meetings
in an impartial manner;
(2) impartially assisting the members
of the committee in conducting
discussions and negotiations; and
(3) supervising the taking of minutes
and keeping of records and other
relevant responsibilities, including the
drafting of meeting summaries after
each meeting to be reviewed and
approved by C–DAC members.
C–DAC first met from July 30 to
August 1, 2003. Before addressing
substantive issues, the Committee
developed ground rules (formally
approved on September 26, 2003) that
would guide its deliberations. (OSHA–
S030–2006–0663–0373). In addition to
procedural matters, the ground rules
addressed the nature and consequences
of the Committee’s decision-making.
C–DAC agreed that it would make every
effort to reach unanimous agreement on
all issues. However, if the facilitator
determined that unanimous consent
could not be achieved, the Committee
would consider consensus to be reached
when not more than two non-federal
members (i.e., members other than the
OSHA member) dissented. Under this
definition, if OSHA dissented, there
would be no consensus.
This definition of consensus reflects
the non-federal members’ view that
Agency support of the Committee’s
work was essential. The non-federal
members believed that, if OSHA
dissented, there would be little
likelihood that the Committee’s work
product would eventually be reflected
in the final rule. These members wanted
to ensure that concerns of the Agency
that would prompt it to dissent were
instead resolved in the negotiating
process.
Under this ground rule, if C–DAC
reached a final consensus agreement on
some or all issues, OSHA would use the
consensus-based language on those
issues for which agreement was reached
as its proposed standard, and C–DAC
members would refrain from providing
formal written negative comment on
those issues in response to the proposed
rule.
The ground rules provide that OSHA
may only depart from this aspect of the
agreement by either reopening the
negotiated rulemaking process or
providing to the C–DAC members a
detailed statement of the reasons for
altering the consensus-based language
sufficiently far in advance of
publication that the C–DAC members
could express their concerns to OSHA.
The Committee members could also
provide negative or positive public
comment in response to those changes.
(OSHA–S030–2006–0663–0373).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
A tentative list of issues for the
Committee to address was published
along with the final list of Committee
members (68 FR at 39879–90). At its
initial meeting, the Committee reviewed
and revised the issue list, adding several
issues. (OSHA–S030–2006–0663–0372).
The Committee met 11 times between
July 30, 2003 and July 9, 2004. As the
meetings progressed, the Committee
reached consensus agreement on
various issues and, at the final meeting,
reached consensus agreement on all
outstanding issues. The Committee’s
work product, which is the Committee’s
recommended regulatory text for the
proposed rule, is referred to here as the
C–DAC Consensus Document. (OSHA–
S030–2006–0663–0639). On October 12,
2006, ACCSH adopted a resolution
supporting the C–DAC Consensus
Document and recommending that
OSHA use it as the basis for a proposed
standard. (ACCSH 2006–1, Ex. 101x, pp.
248–49).
As noted earlier, OSHA’s assent was
needed for C–DAC to reach consensus
agreement on an issue. Thus, the fact
that the Committee reached consensus
agreement on all issues means that this
proposal reflects OSHA’s agreement
with the Consensus Document. In the
discussion of the various sections of the
proposal below, when the Committee’s
views or conclusions are stated, OSHA
agrees with those views or conclusions
unless otherwise noted.
In reviewing the Consensus Document
to draft this proposed rule, OSHA
identified certain problems in the
Consensus Document. These range from
misnumbering and other typographical/
technical errors to provisions that
appear to be inconsistent with the
Committee’s intent or that are worded in
a manner that requires clarification.
This proposed rule deviates from the
Consensus Document where changes
were clearly needed to reflect the
Committee’s intent, or to correct
typographical/technical errors. With
respect to substantive changes, the
Agency has identified and explained
them in the portions of this preamble
that address the affected provisions.
There are instances where it appears
to the Agency that other changes may be
needed for several reasons: To conform
to the Committee’s intent; where the
precise form of a change needed to
conform to that intent is not clear; or
where an aspect of a significant issue
appears not to have been considered by
C–DAC. In each such instance OSHA
has retained the regulatory language
used in the Consensus Document but
asks for public comment on them.
Numerous Committee members had
vast and varied experience in cranes
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and derricks in construction, which
gave them a wealth of knowledge in the
causes of accidents and safety issues
involving such equipment. In addition,
other members had substantial
knowledge and experience in other
types of subject areas that also related to
crane and derrick safety. This is
reflected in the summary of their
qualifications (see list above).
The members used this knowledge to
identify issues that required particular
attention and to devise regulatory
language that would address the causes
of such accidents. Their extensive
practical experience in the construction
industry and the other industries
represented on the Committee helped
them to design improvements to the
current Subpart N requirements that
would be practical and workable. This
preamble describes the proposed
standard and the Committee’s reasons
for resolving the various issues in the
manner it did.
In examining the causes of crane
accidents and devising ways to reduce
them, the Committee concluded that
incorrect operation was a factor in many
accidents. Operating a crane is a
complex job requiring skill and
knowledge. To operate a crane safely
requires a thorough knowledge of the
equipment and controls and a complete
understanding of the factors that can
affect the safety of its operation. The
Committee believed that it was essential
to address the issue of operator
qualification so that accidents resulting
from incorrect operation would be
reduced.
C–DAC spent considerable time and
effort determining how the proposed
rule could best ensure that equipment
operators are well qualified. C–DAC
decided that it was necessary for crane
operators to be certified or qualified
through a formal process to ensure that
they possessed the degree of knowledge
necessary to operate their equipment
safely. The Committee’s reasoning and
the details of the qualification/
certification process are discussed
below in connection with § 1926.1427,
Operator Qualification and
Certification.
Another cause of numerous fatal and
serious accidents that C–DAC addressed
was equipment making electrical
contact with power lines. Although
Subpart N currently addresses this issue
by requiring equipment to maintain a
minimum distance from power lines
that depends on the voltage of the line,
the Committee identified reasons why
the current standard was not preventing
the many accidents that continue to
occur. The Committee concluded that
simply requiring a minimum clearance
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
distance was not sufficient to eliminate
the human error that led to most
instances of power line contact and that
additional requirements that would help
employers identify potential power line
hazards and systematic procedures to
protect against those hazards were
needed to prevent power line contact.
See the discussion below under
§§ 1926.1407–1411, which deal with the
various aspects of power line safety.
As noted above, OSHA’s current
standard on cranes and derricks, 29 CFR
1926.550, incorporates numerous
national consensus standards by
reference. The Committee reviewed the
most recent versions of these consensus
standards. For some issues, the
Committee determined that a different
approach was warranted (such as in the
case of protections against power lines
and operator qualification/certification).
In many other instances the Committee
determined that concepts in the
consensus standards were appropriate
but that different wording was needed
to improve clarity and enforceability, or
to be more readable within the structure
of the proposed rule.
Where the Committee incorporated
consensus standards by reference, it
agreed with the concepts, found the
structure and wording appropriate, and
determined that the incorporation of the
provisions would not detract from its
goal of producing a readable document.
In addition, to avoid encumbering the
text with too much length and technical
detail that would hinder readability, C–
DAC decided to incorporate by
reference certain requirements from
consensus standards where those
requirements addressed highly technical
topics, such as welding criteria.
C–DAC also determined that some
categories of equipment needed to be
addressed differently than others. The
proposed standard contains general
requirements in §§ 1926.1402–1434 that
are appropriate for most types of
equipment and workplaces but which
contain certain specific exclusions.
Sections 1926.1435–1441 each address a
specific type of equipment, such as
§ 1926.1435, Tower cranes. Those
sections tailor the requirements of the
proposed standard to accommodate the
unique characteristics of that
equipment. They state which of the
general provisions in §§ 1926.1402–
1434 apply to that type of equipment
and which do not. They also include
requirements specific to that type of
equipment either (as specified) as a
substitute for, or in addition to, the
general provisions in §§ 1926.1402–
1434. In this way, C–DAC ensured that
each type of equipment would be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
subject to requirements appropriate for
that equipment.
In drafting some of the provisions in
this proposal, the Committee recognized
that OSHA would be requiring cranes
and derricks to be equipped with
operational aids that have not been
mandatory in the past. For some types
of these aids, the Committee believed it
would be impractical to require that
cranes and derricks be retrofitted with
the devices. In determining whether to
propose that such requirements be
prospective only, the Committee
considered the degree of importance of
the device to safety, whether the devices
are required under industry consensus
standards and, if so, the date they were
first required under such standards.
Recognizing that manufacturers
generally follow industry consensus
standards, C–DAC drafted these
provisions to require equipment
manufactured after the date an
operational aid was required by an
industry consensus standard to be
equipped with the device.
In situations where no industry
consensus standard required that cranes
or derricks be equipped with a certain
operational aid or fall protection device,
the Committee decided to allow
sufficient lead time for manufacturers to
install the aids and devices. The
Committee proposed to require some
aids and devices on equipment
manufactured one year after the
effective date of this standard. In other
cases, the Committee specified that the
aids and devices would be required on
equipment manufactured after January
1, 2008.
It is now evident that the standard
will not be finalized by that date and
that keying requirements to that date
will not afford employers the lead time
intended by the Committee. To conform
this proposed standard to the
Committee’s intent, and to ensure that
industry has sufficient lead time to
equip cranes and derricks with the
required aids and devices, OSHA is
substituting ‘‘more than one year after
the effective date of this standard’’ for
‘‘January 1, 2008’’ wherever that date
appears in the Committee’s draft.
C. Hazards Associated With Cranes and
Derricks in Construction Work
OSHA estimates that 89 crane-related
fatalities occur per year in construction
work. The causes of crane-related
fatalities were recently analyzed by
Beavers, et al. J.E. Beavers, J.R. Moore,
R. Rinehart, and W.R. Schriver, ‘‘CraneRelated Fatalities in the Construction
Industry,’’ 132 Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 901 (Sept.
2006) (OSHA–2007–0066–0012). The
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59719
authors searched OSHA’s Integrated
Management Information System (IMIS)
database for all fatal accidents for 1997–
2003 investigated by OSHA involving
cranes in the construction industry. By
searching the database for cases using
the key words ‘‘crane,’’ ‘‘derrick,’’ or
‘‘boom,’’ they identified 381 IMIS files
for the covered years in the federal
program states, which include states
with about 57% of all workers
throughout the country. The authors
requested the case files from OSHA so
that they could confirm that a crane or
derrick was involved in the fatality. Of
the 335 case files that OSHA provided,
the authors identified 125 (involving
127 fatalities) as being crane or derrick
related. From these files, they
determined that the percentages of
fatalities caused by various types of
incident are in Table 2 as follows:
TABLE 2—THE CAUSES OF FATALITIES
DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF
HOISTING ACTIVITIES
Percent
Struck by load (other than failure
of boom/cable) ..........................
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. A. Suruda, M. Egger,
& D. Liu, ‘‘Crane-Related Deaths in the
U.S. Construction Industry, 1984–94,’’
The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights
(Oct. 1997) (OSHA–2007–0066–0013).
The authors examined OSHA IMIS data
to identify the number of fatal accidents
involving cranes and determine their
causes. For the years in question, they
found 479 accidents involving 502
fatalities. In the worst year, 1990, 70
deaths occurred.
The authors noted some limitations in
the data they examined: Data for
California, Michigan, and Washington
state were not available for 1984–1989;
the proportion of fatal accidents that
OSHA and the states that enforce their
own state plans investigate is unknown;
and some of the investigation reports
were not sufficiently detailed to allow
the cause of the accident or the type of
crane involved to be determined.
The Suruda study determined that the
number and the percentage of fatalities
from various causes are in Table 3 as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59720
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—THE CAUSES OF CRANE
INCIDENTS
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
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%)
The proposed standard addresses the
major causes of the equipment related
fatalities identified in the Beavers and
Suruda studies. The following is a brief
synopsis of the sections in this proposed
standard that address them; each
proposed section is explained in detail
later in this preamble.
The electrocution hazard is addressed
by proposed §§ 1926.1407–1411, which
deal with various aspects of power line
safety. These sections contain
requirements designed to prevent
equipment from contacting energized
power lines. The proposed rule
delineates systematic, reliable
procedures and methods that must be
used to prevent a safe clearance distance
from being breached. If maintaining the
safe clearance distance is infeasible,
additional protections would be
required, including grounding the
equipment, covering the line with an
insulating sleeve, and using insulating
links and nonconductive tag lines.
These procedures and methods are
supplemented by requirements for
training the operator and crew in power
line safety and the requirement for
operator qualification and certification
in proposed § 1926.1427. C–DAC
concluded that compliance with these
training and certification requirements
will not only reduce the frequency of
power line contact but will give the
workers the knowledge they need to
help avoid injury in the event such
contact does occur.
Fatalities that involve employees
being struck or crushed during
assembly/disassembly are addressed in
proposed §§ 1926.1403–1406. These
sections require certain specific safe
practice procedures to be followed and
for the employer to address a list of
specific hazards. Also, assembly/
disassembly must be supervised by an
individual who is well qualified to see
that these requirements are properly
implemented.
As the studies show and the
Committee’s experience confirms, many
disassembly accidents occur when
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
sections of lattice booms unexpectedly
move and strike or crush an employee
who is disassembling the boom. The
proposal addresses this scenario in
proposed § 1926.1404(f) by prohibiting
employees from being under the boom
when pins are removed unless special
precautions are taken to protect against
boom movement.
Accidents resulting from boom or
cable failure are addressed in a number
of provisions. For example, the
proposed standard includes
requirements for: Proper assembly
procedures (proposed § 1926.1403);
boom stops to prevent booms from being
raised too far and toppling over
backwards (proposed § 1926.1415,
Safety devices); a boom hoist limiting
device to prevent excessive boom travel,
and an anti-two-block device, which
prevents overloading the boom from
two-blocking (proposed § 1926.1416,
Operational aids). Also, the inspection
requirements (proposed § 1926.1412) are
designed so that a structural deficiency
in a boom will be detected and
addressed before an accident occurs.
Cable failure will be avoided by
compliance with proposed sections
such as § 1926.1413, Wire rope—
inspection, § 1926.1414, Wire rope—
selection and installation criteria, and
the provision in proposed § 1926.1416
requiring two-block protection.
Crane tip-over is caused by factors
such as overloading, improper use of
outriggers and insufficient ground
conditions. Proposed § 1926.1417,
Operations, includes provisions
designed to prevent overloading. That
section prohibits the equipment from
being operated in excess of its rated
capacity and includes procedures for
ensuring that the weight of the load is
reliably determined and within the
equipment’s rated capacity. Proposed
§ 1926.1404(q) has requirements for
outrigger use designed to ensure that
outriggers are properly set when they
are needed to provide stability when a
load is lifted. Proposed § 1926.1402 has
requirements designed to ensure
sufficient ground conditions.
The provisions on training and
operator qualification and certification
will also prevent this type of accident
by ensuring that the operator is
sufficiently knowledgeable and skilled
to recognize situations when the crane
may be overloaded and to either require
that the situation be corrected or refuse
to proceed in accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1418, Authority to stop
operation.
Fatalities that result from workers
being struck by the cab or
counterweights will be avoided by
compliance with proposed § 1926.1424,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Work area control. That section would
require that employees who must work
near equipment with a rotating
superstructure be trained in the hazards
involved, that employers mark or
barricade the area within the area
covered by the rotating superstructure,
and that the operator be alerted
whenever an employee must enter that
area and not rotate the superstructure
until the area is clear. Protection against
being struck by a counterweight during
assembly/disassembly is provided by
proposed § 1926.1404(h)(9), which
would require the assembly/
disassembly supervisor to address this
hazard and take steps when necessary to
protect workers against that danger.
The proposal addresses a number of
types of equipment failure that can
result in the load striking a worker.
Such accidents are directly addressed
by proposed § 1926.1425, Keeping clear
of the load, and § 1926.1426, Free fall/
controlled load lowering. In addition,
improved requirements in proposed
§§ 1926.1419–1422 for signaling will
help avoid load struck-by accidents
caused by miscommunication.
Improper operation, including, for
example, the failure to understand and
compensate for the effects of factors
such as dynamic loading, can also cause
employees to be struck by a load. Such
incidents will be reduced by
compliance with proposed § 1926.1427,
Operator qualification and certification
and proposed § 1926.1430, Training.
Other provisions, such as those for
safety devices and operational aids
(proposed § 1926.1415 and § 1926.1416),
and the requirement for periodic
inspections in proposed § 1926.1412,
will also reduce the number of this type
of accident.
Protection against falling from
equipment is addressed by proposed
§ 1926.1423, Fall protection. That
section would require new equipment to
provide safe access to the operator work
station by the use of devices such as
steps, handholds, and grabrails. Certain
new lattice boom equipment would
have to be equipped with boom
walkways. There are also fall protection
provisions tailored to assembly and
disassembly work and to other work.
Proposed § 1926.1431, Hoisting
personnel, addresses fall protection
when employees are being hoisted.
OSHA has investigated numerous
equipment accidents that have resulted
in fatalities from the causes listed in the
Beavers and Suruda studies. Below is a
discussion of examples from OSHA’s
IMIS accident investigation reports from
recent years that illustrate some of the
types of accidents that occur when
using the types of equipment covered by
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
this proposed standard and the ways
that this proposed standard would
prevent such incidents. These examples
illustrate the limitations of the current
standard and highlight the need for a
revised standard that will address the
causes of the equipment accidents that
continue to kill and injure construction
workers.
1. February 16, 2004: 4 fatalities, 4
injuries. A launching gantry collapsed
and fatally injured 4 workers and sent
4 other workers to the hospital. The
launching gantry was being used to
erect pre-cast concrete segments span by
span. The manufacturer required that
the rear legs and front legs be properly
anchored to resist longitudinal and
lateral forces that act on the launching
gantry. The legs of the launching gantry
were not properly anchored. (OSHA–
2007–0066–0017).
OSHA believes that this type of
accident would be prevented by
compliance with the provisions of this
proposed standard for assembling
equipment. Proposed § 1403 requires
that equipment be assembled in
compliance with manufacturer
procedures or with alternative employer
procedures (see proposed § 1406)
designed, among other things, to
prevent the equipment from collapsing.
In addition, under proposed § 1404,
assembly must be conducted under the
supervision of a person who
understands the hazards associated with
an improperly assembled crane and is
well-qualified to understand and
comply with the proper assembly
procedures.
2. January 30, 2006. 1 fatality. An
employee was crushed by the lower end
section of the lattice boom on a truck
mounted crane while working from a
position underneath the boom to
remove the 2nd lower pin. When the
2nd lower pin was removed the
unsecured/uncribbed boom fell on the
employee. (OSHA–2007–0066–0017.1)
Proposed § 1926.1404(f) would
prevent this type of accident by
generally prohibiting employees from
being under the boom when pins are
removed. In situations where site
constraints require an employee to be
under the boom when pins are removed,
the employer must implement other
procedures, such as ensuring that the
boom sections are adequately
supported, to prevent the sections from
falling onto the employee.
3. July 23, 2001: 1 fatality. Employee
failed to extend the outriggers before he
extended the boom of a service truck
crane to lift up some pipes. As he
extended his boom, the crane tipped
over on its side and an employee was
struck on the head by the hook block as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
he stood near the rear of the truck.
(OSHA–2007–0066–0017.10)
This type of accident would be
prevented by compliance with proposed
§ 1926.1404(q), which contains several
provisions designed to ensure that
outriggers are deployed properly before
lifting a load. In addition, the operator
qualification and certification
requirement of proposed § 1926.1427,
which is intended to ensure that
operators understand and follow the
safety requirements for the equipment
they are operating, would help prevent
this type of accident.
4. March 8, 1999. 1 fatality. Some
employees were using a mobile crane to
maneuver a load of steel joists. The
crane contacted a 7,200-volt overhead
power line, electrocuting an employee
who was signaling and guiding the load.
The crane operator jumped clear and
was not injured. (OSHA–2007–0066–
0017.11)
Section 1926.1408 includes
provisions that would prevent this type
of accident. First, it would require the
use of ‘‘encroachment prevention’’
measures designed to prevent the crane
from breaching a safe clearance distance
from the power line. Second, if tag lines
are used to guide the load, they would
have to be non-conductive. Third, if
maintaining the normal clearance
distance were infeasible, a number of
additional measures would have to be
used. One of those additional measures
is the use of an insulating link between
the end of the load line and the load.
These measures would protect the
employee guiding the load in several
ways, including the following: First,
they would reduce the chance that the
crane would come into electrical contact
with the power line. Second, if the
employee were using a tag line to guide
the load, it would have to be nonconductive, which would protect the
employee if the load became energized.
If the crane were intentionally
operated closer than the normal
clearance distance, and the employer
complied with the additional protective
measures required in that circumstance,
an insulating link would be in place. In
such a case, even if there was a failure
of the encroachment prevention
measures and electrical contact resulted,
the insulating link would prevent the
load from becoming energized and
prevent the employee guiding the load
from being electrocuted.
5. August 21, 2003. 3 fatalities. A
crane operator and two co-workers were
electrocuted when a truck crane’s
elevated boom contacted a 7,200 Volt
uninsulated primary conductor 31 feet
from the ground. When the operator
stepped from the cab of the truck he
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59721
created a conduction pathway to the
ground through his right hand and right
foot, causing him to be electrocuted. A
co-worker attempted to revive the
incapacitated crane operator with
cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (‘‘CPR’’)
while a third co-worker contacted 911
and returned to the incident location.
When the third co-worker
simultaneously touched the energized
truck crane and the back of his coworker performing CPR, the resulting
pathway created a conduction pathway
through the workers, electrocuting them
all. (OSHA–2007–0066–0017.12).
This type of accident would be
avoided by compliance with the
proposed rule. First, as explained in the
previous electrocution accident
examples, proposed § 1926.1408 is
designed to ensure that a minimum safe
distance from the power line is
maintained, which would prevent the
equipment from becoming energized.
Also, when working closer than the
normal minimum clearance distance,
the crane would have to be grounded;
that would reduce the chance of an
electrical pathway through the
employees in this type of scenario.
In addition, proposed § 1926.1408(g)
would require the operator to be trained
to remain inside the cab unless there is
imminent danger of fire or explosion.
The operator must also be trained in the
danger of simultaneously touching the
equipment and the ground, as he did in
this case, and in the safest means of
evacuating the equipment. The crane’s
remaining crew must be trained to avoid
approaching or touching the equipment.
The required training would be
reinforced by the electrocution warnings
that must be posted in the cab and on
the outside of the equipment.
6. September 28, 1999: 1 fatality. A
19-year old electrical instrument helper
was at a construction site that was on a
manufacturing company’s property.
That morning a contractor had
positioned a 50-ton hydraulic crane in
an open area that consisted of
compacted fill material. This was the
only location that the crane could be
situated because the receiving area for
the equipment was very close to the
property border. The crane was moving
large sections of piping to a new
location when it overturned and struck
the helper.
The crane’s outriggers were set but
matting was placed only under the
northwest outrigger pad. At the start of
the construction project, the
manufacturing company cleared the site
and had fill material brought in. The site
was originally swamp and large
amounts of fill had been brought in.
(OSHA–2007–0066–0017.13).
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59722
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Proposed § 1926.1402, Ground
conditions, is designed to prevent this
type of accident. Under that paragraph,
care must be taken to ensure that the
surface on which a crane is operating is
sufficiently level and firm to support the
crane in accordance with the
manufacturer’s specifications. A
contributing factor to this accident may
have been a lack of clarity regarding
responsibility for adequate ground
conditions due to the fact that the
employer who operated the crane did
not control the ground conditions on the
property.
Section 1926.1402 would impose
specific duties on both the entity
responsible for the project (the
controlling entity) and the entity
operating the crane to ensure that the
crane is adequately supported. It places
responsibility for ensuring that the
ground conditions are adequate on the
controlling entity while also making the
employer operating the crane
responsible for calling any deficiency to
the controlling entity’s attention and
having it corrected before using the
crane.
7. June 17, 2006: 1 fatality. A crane
was being used on a barge to install a
dock in a waterway. Employees were
preparing to move the barge. A spud
pipe, which anchored the barge, was
being raised by the barge-mounted crane
when the hoisting cable broke, dropping
the headache ball and rigging onto one
of the employees. (OSHA–2007–0066–
0017.3).
This type of accident can have various
causes. An incorrectly selected wire
rope (one that has insufficient capacity),
use of a wire rope that is damaged or
worn to the point where it needs to be
replaced, or two-blocking, in which the
headache ball is forced against the
upper block, can each cause this type of
failure. The provisions of proposed
§§ 1926.1413 and 1414 on wire rope
inspection, selection, and installation
are designed to ensure that appropriate
wire rope is installed, inspected and
removed from service when its
continued use would be unsafe. Section
1926.1416, Operational aids, contains
provisions designed to protect against
two-blocking.
8. July 13, 1999: 3 fatalities. Three
employees were in a personnel basket
280 feet above the ground. They were in
the process of guiding a large roof
section, being lifted by another crane,
into place. Winds gusting to 27 miles
per hour overloaded the crane holding
the roof section; that crane collapsed,
striking the crane that was supporting
the personnel basket, causing the boom
to fall. All three employees received
fatal crushing injuries. (OSHA–2007–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
0066–0017.4 & OSHA–2007–0066–
0018).
This type of accident would be
prevented by compliance with proposed
§ 1926.1417(n), which requires the
competent person in charge of the
operation to consider the effect of wind
and other adverse weather conditions
on the equipment’s stability and rated
capacity. In addition, proposed
§ 1926.1431, Hoisting personnel,
requires that when wind speed
(sustained or gust) exceeds 20 mph,
personnel are prohibited from being
hoisted by a crane unless a qualified
person determines it is safe to do so.
9. November 7, 2005: 1 fatality. A
construction worker was crushed
between the outrigger and the rotating
superstructure of a truck crane. He
apparently tried to retrieve a level and
a set of blueprints which were laying on
the horizontal member of one of the
outriggers at the same time the operator
began to swing the boom. (OSHA–2007–
0066–0017.5).
This type of accident would be
avoided by compliance with proposed
§ 1926.1424, Work area control. That
section generally requires that
employers erect barriers to mark the
area covered by the rotating
superstructure to warn workers of that
danger zone. In addition, employees
who must work near equipment with a
rotating superstructure must be trained
in the hazards involved. If an employee
must enter the marked area, the crane
operator must be alerted and not rotate
the superstructure until the area is clear.
10. March 19, 2005: 2 fatalities and 1
injury. During steel erection operations,
a crane was lifting three steel beams to
a parking garage under construction.
The crane tipped over and the boom
collapsed. The boom and attached
beams struck concrete workers next to
the structure. Two were killed and one
injured. The accident apparently
occurred as a result of overloading the
crane. (OSHA–2007–0066–0017.6).
Overloading a crane can cause it to tip
over. When it does, the load or crane
structure can strike and fatally injure
workers who may be some distance
from the crane. Proposed § 1926.1417,
Operations, includes provisions
designed to prevent overloading. That
section prohibits the equipment from
being operated in excess of its rated
capacity and includes procedures for
ensuring that the weight of the load is
reliably determined and within the
equipment’s rated capacity.
The provisions on operator training
and certification/qualification will also
help prevent this type of accident by
ensuring that the operator is sufficiently
knowledgeable and skilled in
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
recognizing conditions that would
overload the crane.
11. December 7, 2005. 1 fatality. Two
cranes were being used to lower a
concrete beam across the river. During
the lowering process, the west side of
the beam became lower than the east
side. The consequent shifting of the
load’s weight to the west side crane
caused that crane to tip over. The west
end of the beam went into the river and
the east end fell on the bank and a
support mat, causing a flag person to be
thrown into the beam. (OSHA–2007–
0066–0017.7).
This type of accident would be
prevented by compliance with proposed
§ 1926.1432, Multiple crane/derrick lifts.
That section specifies that when more
than one crane will be supporting a
load, the operation must be performed
in accordance with a plan developed by
a qualified person. The plan must be
designed to ensure that the
requirements of this proposed standard
will be met and must be reviewed with
all individuals who will be involved in
the process. Moreover, the lift must be
supervised by an individual who
qualifies as both a competent person
and a qualified person as defined in this
standard.
In the type of scenario involved in
this accident, a plan that would comply
with this requirement would, for
example, include a determination of the
degree of level that is needed to be
maintained in order to prevent either
crane from being overloaded. In
addition, such a plan would include a
system of communications and a means
of monitoring the operation designed to
ensure that the cranes’ operation was
properly coordinated.
12. May 7, 2004: 1 fatality. An
employee, a rigger/operator-in-training,
was in the upper cab of a 60-ton
hydraulic boom truck crane to set up
and position the crane boom prior to a
lift. The crane was equipped with two
hoists, a main line and auxiliary. The
main hoist line had a multi-sheave
block and hook and the auxiliary line
had a 285 pound ball and hook. When
the employee was extending the
hydraulic boom, a two-block condition
occurred with the auxiliary line ball
striking the auxiliary sheave head,
knocking the sheave and ball from the
boom. The employee was struck in the
head and killed by the falling ball.
(OSHA–2007–0066–0017.8).
This type of accident would be
prevented by compliance with proposed
§ 1926.1416, Operational aids, which
requires protection against twoblocking. A hydraulic boom crane, if
manufactured after February 28, 1992,
would have to be equipped with a
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
device that automatically prevents twoblocking.
Also, the operator-in-training in this
case apparently did not understand that
extending a hydraulic boom would
move the sheave head toward the ball
and could cause two-blocking. The
proposed standard, through proposed
§ 1926.1427(a) and (f), would avoid
having inexperienced operators make
this type of mistake by prohibiting an
operator-in-training from operating a
crane without supervision and without
first having had enough training to
enable the operator to perform the
assigned task safely.
13. April 26, 2006: One fatality. The
deceased employee was part of a
framing crew which was in the process
of installing sheathing for a roof. A
bundle of plywood sheathing was being
hoisted by a crane to a location on the
roof. As the crane was positioning the
bundle of sheathing above its landing
location, the load hoist on the crane free
spooled, causing an uncontrolled
descent of the load. The employee was
under the load, preparing to position it
to its landing spot, when the load fell
and crushed him. (OSHA–2007–0066–
0017.9).
This type of accident would be
prevented by compliance with
§ 1926.1426, Free fall and controlled
load lowering, which prohibits free fall
of the load line hoist and requires
controlled load lowering when an
employee is directly under the load.
As discussed below in the Preliminary
Economic Analysis, OSHA finds that
construction workers suffer 89 fatal
injuries per year from the types of
equipment covered by this proposed
standard. Of that number, OSHA
estimates that 53 would be avoided by
compliance with the proposed standard.
In addition, OSHA estimates that the
proposed standard would prevent 155
non-fatal injuries each year. Based on all
of the available evidence and on the
collective expertise of the members of
C–DAC, OSHA preliminarily finds that
construction workers are faced with a
significant risk of death and injury
resulting from equipment operations
and that the risk would be substantially
reduced by compliance with this
proposed standard.
During the SBREFA process, several
Small Entity Representatives expressed
concern that the C–DAC proposal was
so long and complex that small
businesses would have difficulty
understanding it and complying with it.
The SBREFA Panel recommended that
OSHA solicit public comment on how
the rule could be simplified and made
easier to understand without creating
ambiguities. OSHA welcomes public
comment on this issue.
III. The SBREFA Process
Before proceeding with a proposed
rule based on the C–DAC Consensus
Document, OSHA was required to
comply with the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (SBREFA).
This required OSHA to draft an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis that
would evaluate the potential impact of
the rule on small entities (defined as
small businesses, small governmental
units, and small nonprofit
organizations) and identify the type of
small entities that might be affected by
the rule. In accordance with SBREFA,
OSHA then convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel (‘‘Panel’’)
composed of representatives of OSHA,
59723
the Office of Management and Budget,
and the Office of Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. Individuals
who were representative of affected
small entities (Small Entity
Representatives, or ‘‘SERs’’) were then
identified for the purpose of obtaining
advice and recommendations from those
individuals about the potential impacts
of the proposed rule.
OSHA provided the SERs with the C–
DAC consensus document and the draft
regulatory flexibility analysis and
afforded them the opportunity to submit
written comments on those documents.
The Agency also drafted questions
asking them their views on the specific
aspects of the C–DAC document it
thought would be of most concern to
small entities.
The Panel conducted two conference
calls with the SERs in which the SERs
presented their views on various issues.
After reviewing the SERs’ oral and
written comments, on October 17, 2006,
the Panel submitted its report
summarizing the requirements of the
C–DAC proposal, the comments
received from the SERs, and presenting
its findings and recommendations.
(OSHA–S030A–2006–0664–0019). In its
findings and recommendations, the
Panel identified issues that it believed
needed particular attention and analysis
in the proposal or for which it believed
OSHA should explicitly solicit public
comment.
In the discussion that follows, OSHA
addresses each of the Panel’s findings
and recommendations in the section
pertaining to the issue involved. Table
4 summarizes the Panel’s
recommendations and the portions of
this preamble in which they are
discussed.
TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
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.
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 recommends that OSHA consider studying the impacts of
the implementation of operator certification in California.
See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this
Federal Register notice.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this
Federal Register notice.
See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this
Federal Register notice.
See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this
Federal Register notice.
See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this
Federal Register notice.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59724
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
SBREFA panel recommendation
OSHA response
The Panel recommends that OSHA reexamine its estimates for the
amount of time required to assess ground conditions, the number of
persons involved in the assessment, and the amount of coordination
involved; clarify the extent to which such assessments are currently
being conducted and what OSHA estimates as new costs for this
rule represent; and seek comments on OSHA’s cost estimates.
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.
See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this
Federal Register notice.
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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
The Panel recommends that OSHA provide full documentation for its
analysis of the benefits the proposed rule is expected to produce and
assure that the benefits analysis is reproducible by others.
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.
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’’.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
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
current standard at 29 CFR 1926.550 requires inspections each time
the equipment is used as well as thorough annual inspections. In addition, national consensus standards that are incorporated by reference include additional inspection requirements. This proposal
would list the inspection requirements in one place rather than rely
on incorporated consensus standards. OSHA does not believe this
proposed standard imposes significant new requirements for inspections. Section 1926.1413(a) explicitly says that booming down is not
required for shift (and therefore monthly) inspections.
Similarly, OSHA does not believe that inspection of any of those items
would require removal of non-hinged inspection plates. In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1412, OSHA requests public comment on
these points.
Currently, Subpart N, at 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(2), requires load charts,
so that is not a new cost. Subpart N does not require manuals.
OSHA believes that most crane owners and operators have and
maintain crane manuals, which contain the load charts and other critical technical information about crane operations and maintenance.
The Agency believes that the cost of obtaining a copy of a manual
should be modest and solicits comment on how many owners or operators do not have full manuals for their cranes or derricks.
See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this
Federal Register notice.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1400(c)(8) and solicits public comment on the issue.
OSHA explains in the discussion of proposed § 1926.1402(e) how the
various employers, including the controlling entity, the employer
whose employees operate the equipment, and the employer of the
A/D supervisor share responsibility for ensuring adequate ground
conditions.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1412(e) and solicits public comment on the issue.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1412(d) and solicits public comment on the issues raised in
the recommendation.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1412(a) and solicits public comment on the issues raised in
the recommendation.
In the explanation of § 1926.1412(d)(1) of the proposed rule, OSHA explains that the shift inspection may be completed during the shift.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) and requests public comment on the issues
raised in the recommendation.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
59725
TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
OSHA response
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit comment on whether
§ 1926.1412(f)(2)(xii)(D) should be changed to require that pressure
be inspected ‘‘at the end of the line,’’ as distinguished from ‘‘at each
and every line,’’ and if so, what the best terminology would be to
meet this purpose. (An SER indicated that proposed paragraph
(f)(2)(xiv)(D) of § 1926.1412 should be modified to ‘‘checking pressure setting,’’ in part to avoid having to check the pressure at ‘‘each
and every line’’ as opposed to ‘‘at the end of the line.’’).
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether
proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xx) of § 1926.1412 should be deleted because an SER believes that it is not always appropriate to retain
originally equipped steps and ladders, such as in instances where
they are replaced with ‘‘attaching dollies.’’.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
SBREFA panel recommendation
There is no proposed requirement to check the pressure ‘‘at each and
every line.’’ The provision simply states that relief valves should be
checked for failure to reach correct pressure. If this can be done at
one point for the entire system, then that would satisfy the requirement.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on 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.
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 proposed 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.
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 ASME B30.5–2000 (i.e., commercial truckmounted crane—telescoping boom; commercial truck-mounted
crane—non-telescoping boom; crawler crane; crawler crane—telescoping boom; locomotive crane; wheel mounted crane (multiple
control station); wheel mounted crane—telescoping boom (multiple
control station); wheel mounted crane (single control station); wheel
mounted crane—telescoping boom (single control station)) should be
used.
The Panel recommends that OSHA ask for public comment on whether
the rule needs to state more clearly that proposed
§ 1926.1427(j)(1)(i) requires more limited training for operators of
smaller capacity equipment used in less complex operations as compared with operators of higher capacity, more complex equipment
used in more complex situations.
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
proposed § 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Proposed § 1926.1412(f)(2)(xx) does not require the corrective action
to which the SER refers. If an inspection under proposed
§ 1926.1412(f) reveals a deficiency, a qualified person must determine whether that deficiency is a safety hazard requiring immediate
correction. If the inspection reveals that original equipment, such as
stairs and ladders, have been replaced with something equally safe,
there would be no safety hazard and no requirement for corrective
action.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1412(f) and requests public comment on the issue.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1412(e) and requests public comment on the issue.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1416(d) and solicits public comment on the issue.
In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1423, OSHA explains the Committee’s rationale underlying the proposed section.
OSHA addresses these recommendations in the discussion of proposed § 1926.1427 and requests public comment on the issues
raised by the Panel.
The issue is discussed in the explanation of the proposed rule for
§ 1926.1427(h).
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) and requests public comment on the issue.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1430(c) and requests public comment on the issue.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1430(c) and requests public comment on the issue.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1430(c) and requests public comment on the issue.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59726
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
SBREFA panel recommendation
OSHA response
The Panel recommends OSHA solicit comment on whether there are
qualified persons in the field with the necessary expertise to assess
how the rated capacity for land cranes and derricks used on barges
and other flotation devices needs to be modified as required by proposed § 1926.1437(n)(2).
The Panel also recommends that OSHA solicit comment on whether it
is necessary, from a safety standpoint, to apply this provision to
cranes used only for duty cycle work, and if so, why that is the case,
and how ‘‘duty cycle work’’ should be defined.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and ask for comment on
whether it would be appropriate to exempt from the rule small side
boom cranes incapable of lifting above the height of a truck bed and
with a capacity of not more than 6,000 pounds.
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.
OSHA addresses these recommendations in the discussion of proposed § 1926.1437(n)(2) and requests public comment on the
issues.
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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
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.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on allowing the written and practical tests described in Option
(1) of § 1926.1427(b) to be administered by an accredited educational institution.
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 Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
paragraph § 1926.1440(a) and requests public comment on the
issue.
The length and comprehensiveness of the standard is an issue for this
rulemaking. OSHA requests comment on how and whether the proposal can be shortened or simplified—made easier to understand—
and the effect of that on addressing construction hazards.
OSHA will consider developing such an aid as a separate guidance
document.
Some SERs requested clarification as to when documentation was required, believing that the document implicitly requires documentation
when it states that the employer must ‘‘determine’’ or ‘‘demonstrate’’
certain things. OSHA notes that it cannot cite an employer for failing
to have documentation not explicitly called for in a standard. See
also the discussion under proposed § 1926.1402(e).
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1416(d) and requests public comment on the issue.
OSHA discusses in detail the types of machinery that are included
under this proposed standard and those that are excluded in the explanation of § 1926.1400.
OSHA has obtained and evaluated a study by the Construction Safety
Association of Ontario showing that Ontario’s certification requirement has led to a substantial decrease in crane-related fatalities
there.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1400(c) and requests public comment on the issue.
The information and opinions submitted by the SERs are part of the
record for this rulemaking, and OSHA will consider them along with
the other public comments on the proposed rule.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1427(j)(1) and requests public comment on the issue.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1427(j)(1) and requests public comment on the issue.
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion
§ 1926.1427(b)(3) and requests public comment on the issue.
of
OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1427(h)(1) and requests public comment on the issues.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
59727
TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
SBREFA panel recommendation
OSHA response
The Panel recommends that OSHA explain in a Small Business Compliance Guide that the certification/qualification test does not need to
be administered in English but can be administered in a language
that the candidate can read; and that while the employee would also
need to have a sufficient level of literacy to read and understand the
relevant information in the equipment manual, that requirement
would be satisfied if the material is written in a language that the employee can read and understand.
OSHA will issue a Small Business Compliance Guide after a final rule
is issued and will explain these points in the Guide.
IV. Summary and Explanation of the
Proposed Standard
The following discussion summarizes
and explains each provision in the
proposal and the substantive differences
between the proposal and OSHA’s
current standard for cranes and derricks
at 29 CFR 1926.550, which is located in
Subpart N of OSHA’s standards for
construction work. In the discussion,
OSHA explains corrections and
clarifications it has made to the
language in the C–DAC Document. The
Agency also identifies other areas in the
C–DAC Document it believes could
benefit from modifications to the
C–DAC language and asks for public
comment on the need for such changes
and, in some instances, the
appropriateness of particular clarifying
language.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Section 1400 Scope
Paragraphs (a) through (d) of proposed
§ 1926.1400 set forth the scope of the
proposed rule. Proposed paragraphs (a)
through (c) describe, respectively, what
equipment is included, the application
of the standard to equipment used with
attachments, and specific exclusions.
Combining a Functional Description
With a List of Covered Equipment
Proposed paragraph (a) provides a
functional definition of the covered
equipment as well as a non-exclusive
list of what is covered. C–DAC
considered choosing between these
approaches, but ultimately decided to
use a combination of the two. The
Committee also agreed that equipment
listed in this proposed paragraph should
be defined; these definitions, among
others, are set forth in § 1926.1401,
Definitions. It should be noted that the
scope of some of the listed equipment
is further delineated in the section of
the standard that specifically relates to
that equipment (for example,
§ 1926.1436, Derricks and § 1926.1438,
Overhead & Gantry Cranes). OSHA
believes that this format strikes an
appropriate balance between clarity and
avoiding unintended limitations that
might eliminate new and/or other
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
existing technology that is similar to the
listed examples.
The decision to propose a functional
definition with a non-exclusive list of
covered equipment followed
considerable discussion. The Committee
settled on a definition that focuses on
the equipment’s elemental functions—
hoisting, lowering, and horizontally
moving a suspended load. The goal of
this definition is to cover both existing
and new technologies that share those
same functions. Committee members
rejected using just a list of equipment
because: (1) Even the most
comprehensive list might inadvertently
omit existing technologies, and (2) they
wanted to provide leeway in the scope
for applying the new standard to future
technologies.
On the other hand, C–DAC decided
against a functional definition alone
because that might include equipment
that the standard was not designed to
address (for example, equipment that
poses a different set of hazards than
those addressed by the standard). The
list provides a context in which to apply
the functional definition. The Agency
believes that this hybrid approach
addresses C–DAC’s concerns.
Dedicated Pile Drivers
The Committee quickly agreed to
include most of the items on the nonexclusive list. However, several items
were included only after considerable
debate. For example, C–DAC’s decision
to include dedicated pile drivers
followed much discussion, including a
panel presentation. The panel was
comprised of a manufacturer,
represented by Ahti Knopp and Pentti
Heinonen, President, of Junttan, as well
as a user, represented by Pat Karinen
and Dan Kuhs, of Pile Drivers Local
Union 34 and 56. The focus of the
discussion was whether to include
machinery that fell outside what the
industry traditionally considered to be a
crane or derrick covered by existing
Subpart N.
Although the manufacturer’s
representatives stated that they did not
consider their equipment to be cranes,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
they ultimately supported the inclusion
of dedicated pile drivers in the
proposed standard for several reasons.
Specifically, they emphasized certain
mechanical similarities and the need for
timely regulation. However, they
requested that the standard be adjusted
to address the equipment’s unique
characteristics.
The users on the panel, citing the
similarities in functional capabilities
and hazards between dedicated pile
drivers and cranes, also supported their
inclusion. They were particularly
concerned about the need to establish
required inspections for dedicated pile
drivers in view of the stress placed on
this type of equipment.
The Committee acknowledged the
dilemma it faced in establishing the
parameters of the proposed standard—
including machines not typically
described as cranes versus omitting
machines similar in hazards and
construction—but ultimately decided to
include dedicated pile drivers. Prior to
that decision, however, several members
voiced concerns.
For example, some members were
worried that including these machines
might encourage their ‘‘use as cranes,’’
that is, primarily for hoisting objects.
The manufacturer representatives
pointed out that while these machines
are designed to hoist within a very
limited range and capacity, it is
inappropriate to use them for hoisting
beyond those restricted limits. Others
were concerned that some requirements
in the proposed standard might be a
‘‘bad fit’’ for these machines. In
response to such concerns, the
Committee included dedicated pile
drivers but tailored the requirements of
the standard to take into account the
specific characteristics of such
equipment. As a result, proposed
§ 1439, Dedicated pile drivers, provides
that most provisions of the standard
apply to dedicated pile drivers but
excludes some that the Committee
believed were inappropriate for such
equipment.
OSHA believes that this approach is
appropriate to propose because it
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59728
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
provides a workable approach that
addresses the unique aspects of the
equipment.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Multi-purpose Machines
The concept of ‘‘multi-purpose
machines’’ was discussed in depth. This
term, as used in the proposed standard,
refers to a relatively new type of
equipment that is designed to be
configured in a variety of ways to
perform a variety of different types of
functions. For example, during the
discussion, C–DAC members noted that
this type of machinery in one
configuration works as an aerial forklift,
and in another configuration works as a
crane.
The Agency believes that the
Committee developed an appropriate
approach to coverage of this equipment.
Specifically, the Committee defined this
category of equipment in § 1926.1401,
Definitions, to cover only machinery
‘‘designed to be configured in various
ways’’ and has included it within the
proposed scope of the standard only
when configured ‘‘to hoist (by means of
a winch or hook) and horizontally move
a suspended load.’’ In short, a multipurpose machine would only be
covered by the proposed standard when
configured as a crane.
For example, a machine might be
configured variously as a rough-terrain
type forklift, work platform, or as a
crane. Such a machine would only be
covered by the proposed standard when
configured as a crane. Conversely, a
traditional rough-terrain forklift is
originally designed solely as a forklift.
Even if an employer suspends a load
from its fork, it would still be
configured (and can only be configured)
as a rough terrain forklift. Such forklifts
are not multi-purpose machines and
would specifically be excluded from the
standard’s coverage by proposed
§ 1926.1400(c)(8).
For the same reason, aerial lifts that
may have an incidental capacity to hoist
(by means of suspending loads from the
boom) are not multi-purpose machines.
Even aerial lifts that are equipped with
a low capacity hoisting device (usually
located at basket level) are not
‘‘designed to be configured in various
ways’’ and, as such, would not fall
within the definition of a multi-purpose
machine. Such aerial lifts are designed
to be configured in only one way, that
is, as an aerial lift. In fact, the provision
that specifically excludes aerial lifts,
proposed § 1926.1400(c)(5), emphasizes
that point in its description of aerial lifts
by saying ‘‘[e]quipment originally
designed as vehicle-mounted aerial
devices (for lifting personnel) * * *.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
The Agency agrees with the
Committee that it is appropriate to
propose covering multi-purpose
equipment in this proposed standard
(when configured as a crane) to protect
employees from the types of hazards
that are associated with the other
equipment included in the Scope.
Other Listed Equipment
Some members were concerned that
proposing to include industrial cranes
on the list would result in such cranes
being covered by this proposed standard
even when used in a factory/general
industry setting. That is not the case—
this proposed standard applies only to
employers engaged in construction, and
therefore would apply to such
equipment only when used in
construction.
The Committee decided to cover sideboom cranes, which are included in the
current Subpart N.1 Committee
members noted that side-boom cranes
(defined in proposed § 1926.1401,
Definitions) share characteristics with
cranes. One member also stated that the
American Pipeline Association supports
their inclusion.
Additional machinery that is
proposed to be covered that is either not
currently covered or not specifically
addressed by Subpart N include cranes
on a monorail, luffing tower cranes,
straddle cranes, pedestal cranes and
shearleg derricks (see § 1926.1436,
Derricks). Each of these meets the
functional definition in the proposed
standard and presents the same types of
hazards.
Attachments
Proposed § 1926.1400(b) would
establish that equipment otherwise
covered by proposed § 1926.1400(a)
would remain within the scope of the
proposed standard when used with
attachments that are either ‘‘craneattached or suspended.’’ As defined in
§ 1926.1401, an ‘‘attachment’’ is ‘‘any
device that expands the range of tasks
that can be done by the equipment.
Examples include, but are not limited
to: an auger, drill, magnet, pile-driver,
and boom-attached personnel platform.’’
This definition reflects an inclusive
approach with respect to the use of
attachments.
The Committee recognized that
equipment using these attachments
retain their fundamental nature as
cranes, including most of the hazards
typically associated with crane use. For
example, hazards associated with
1 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(18) of Subpart N requires
sideboom cranes mounted on wheel or crawler
tractors to meet the requirements of SAE J743a–
1964.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ground conditions, assembly/
disassembly and operation near power
lines, as well as the importance of
proper signaling, work area control, and
operator knowledge and skill, remain
the same while an attachment is in use.
Consequently, the proposed standard as
a whole is well suited to the use of this
equipment with attachments.
The ACCSH December 2002 work
group document provided C–DAC with
an initial list of possible attachments
(hooks, magnets, grapples, clamshell
buckets, orange peel buckets) to be
covered by the new rule. (OSHA–2007–
0066–0020). Committee members
suggested the remaining examples.
Whether the proposed rule should
apply to a personnel platform that is
pinned to the boom was the subject of
considerable discussion. Such a
personnel platform was the subject of a
presentation to C–DAC by Dan Wolff of
the National Crane Corporation.
Currently, Subpart N explicitly
addresses suspended personnel
platforms but does not specifically
mention boom-attached personnel
platforms. The Committee confirmed in
its discussions that installing a boomattached personnel platform does not
change the nature of the equipment to
the type of aerial lift that is excluded by
this proposed standard (see proposed
§ 1926.1400(c)(5)). The Committee was
concerned that a failure to specifically
address this type of platform could
result in confusion as to whether its use
would be governed by this standard or
by the aerial lift standard. C–DAC
concluded that it was appropriate to
explicitly include boom-attached
personnel platforms in this standard.
Committee members expressed some
concern as to whether the use of such
an attachment involves additional
hazards not addressed in this proposed
standard. The Agency is asking for
public comment on whether there are
additional requirements that should
apply when using a personnel platform
that is attached directly to the boom.
Exclusions
Proposed paragraph (c) lists
machinery that is specifically excluded
from the scope of the proposed rule. The
Committee referenced a list in the
ACCSH December 2002 work group
document as a starting point for
discussion (OSHA–2007–0066–0020).
As a result of that discussion,
modifications to that list were made. As
discussed below, the Agency believes
that the list in the proposed standard, in
combination with proposed paragraphs
(a) and (b), sets appropriate limits to the
proposed standard’s scope.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) states that
machinery otherwise included under
proposed § 1926.1400(a) but ‘‘converted
or adapted for non-hoisting use’’ is
excluded. Power shovels, excavators
and concrete pumps are listed as
nonexclusive examples of such
‘‘conversions/adaptations’’ or modified
machinery.
The view of the Committee was that,
in most cases, once machinery that
would otherwise be included under
proposed § 1926.1400(a) is converted or
adapted for non-hoisting use, the
configuration and nature of operation of
the machinery is generally changed to
the point where many of the proposed
provisions would not be directly
relevant to the hazards presented. In
contrast, as discussed above, C–DAC
believed that equipment used with
‘‘crane-attached or suspended’’
attachments typically retain many of
their original characteristics and the
proposed provisions remain relevant.
The Agency recognizes that there may
be some instances where covered
equipment used with an attachment is
similar in purpose to machinery
converted or adapted for non-hoisting
use. For example, a crane with a drilling
attachment will serve the same function
as a machine converted to a dedicated
drilling rig. Nonetheless, the Agency
believes that the approach
recommended by C–DAC and reflected
in the proposed rule sets an appropriate
dividing line between covered and
excluded machinery. The crane’s
hoisting mechanisms are mostly still
present while the attachment is in use,
and the crane’s hoisting capability will
likely be called upon fully once the
attachment is removed. Having the
machine move in and out of coverage of
the rule as attachments are put on and
taken off would create significant
confusion. Furthermore, most of the
operational characteristics and hazards
of the equipment remain the same while
the attachment is in use. The Agency
believes that, overall, this represents a
sensible approach to setting the breadth
and limits of the proposed standard.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) contains a
specific list of excluded material
handling machinery. This provision
reflects C–DAC’s decision to name
specific material handling machinery
that is excluded rather than simply
reference ‘‘material handling
machinery’’ as a generic basis for
exclusion. The Committee indicated
that a generic exclusion based upon
material handling would be too broad.
For example, a crane, when equipped
with a clamshell bucket, is used for
material handling, and C–DAC believed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
such equipment should be covered by
the proposed standard.
C–DAC also agreed to a Committee
member’s suggestion of specifying that
the listed machinery is excluded even
when used with rigging to lift
suspended loads. C–DAC acknowledged
that some of the hazards of using this
material handling machinery in this
way are similar to the hazards
associated with equipment covered by
the proposed rule. However, the
Committee also believed the differences
between the covered equipment and the
material handling machinery is such
that one standard could not be readily
designed to suit both. It should be noted
that another construction standard, 29
CFR 1926.602 in subpart O—Motor
Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and
Marine Operations, covers material
handling equipment.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) excludes
automotive wreckers and tow trucks
‘‘when used to clear wrecks and haul
vehicles.’’ A Committee member, citing
C–DAC’s focus on construction
activities, questioned the need for this
provision. In response, another member
explained that some of these vehicles
have substantial hoisting capacity. The
implication of that observation is that
these machines have the capability of
hoisting construction material and so
some construction employers may use
them for that purpose. Consequently, C–
DAC decided to cover them generally,
but to exclude them when used for
clearing wrecks and hauling vehicles.
The exclusion is based on the
Committee’s view that, even if done as
a construction activity (which would be
very rare), clearing wrecks and hauling
vehicles is a highly repetitious,
predictable type of operation that is
sufficiently distinct from typical
construction crane and derrick use to
justify an exclusion from the proposed
rule. It should be noted that ‘‘cranes
designed for . . . automobile wreck
clearance’’ are excluded from the scope
of ASME B30.5–2004.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(4),
service trucks with mobile lifting
devices for use in the power line and
electric service industries, such as
digger derricks, are excluded when
engaged in certain listed activities for
those industries. This machinery is
currently covered by Subpart N, with
the exception of certain provisions, by
virtue of § 1926.952(c). We note that
ASME B30.5–2004 excludes digger
derricks and ‘‘cranes manufactured
specifically for, or when used for,
energized electrical line service’’ from
the scope of that industry consensus
standard.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59729
C–DAC ultimately adopted this
exclusion because of the narrow,
specialized range of activities and
circumstances in which such trucks are
used. The Agency is asking for public
comment as to whether such an
exclusion is appropriate and whether
safety problems would be created by
excluding them from coverage under the
proposed standard.
Proposed paragraph (c)(5) specifically
excludes machinery originally designed
as vehicle mounted aerial lifts and selfpropelled elevating work platforms. The
language of this provision reflects C–
DAC’s intent to differentiate between
equipment with an attachment such as
a personnel platform pinned to the
boom, which is within the scope of the
proposed rule, and machinery originally
designed to be configured only as an
aerial lift, which is excluded. In
excluding this machinery, the
Committee discussed the fact that some
aerial lifts have a small capacity
auxiliary winch. C–DAC decided not to
include such machinery. The use of
such winches is only incidental to an
aerial lift’s primary function. Also,
another standard, § 1926.453, addresses
aerial lifts.
Proposed paragraph (c)(6) excludes
telescopic/hydraulic gantry systems.
This machinery is also not currently
covered by Subpart N or any ANSI/
ASME standards. C–DAC made the
decision to exclude this machinery after
extensive discussion between members
and a presentation by Mr. Kevin
Johnston of J&R Engineering Co., Inc.
The decision was based upon several
factors. One factor was the difference in
design between this machinery and
other equipment covered by the
proposed rule. Telescopic/hydraulic
gantry systems consist (in their most
basic configuration) of a header beam
that is supported on each side by
hydraulic jacks. The load is suspended
by rigging from the header beam. The
load is raised and lowered by raising
and lowering the jacks.
This type of design involves hazards
that are unique to this type of
equipment. For example, keeping the
jacks plumb and closely coordinating
their movements is very important. Mr.
Johnston noted that because of these
differences, many of the requirements in
the proposed standard would not be
workable or needed. Also, hazards
unique to this type of machinery would
not be addressed.
C–DAC was concerned that a failure
to include this machinery in the
proposed rule could result in there
being no applicable OSHA
requirements. The Committee was
particularly concerned about this
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59730
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
because there was no industry
consensus standard for telescopic/
hydraulic gantry systems. Once the
Specialized Carriers & Rigging
Association (SC&RA) indicated its
willingness to draft and complete a
voluntary consensus standard for this
machinery within a short time frame,
the Committee was satisfied that the
best approach was to exclude
telescopic/hydraulic gantry systems
from the proposed rule.
The Agency notes that, in the fall of
2004, SC&RA did in fact complete a
voluntary consensus standard for
telescopic/hydraulic gantry systems.
(OSHA–2007–0066–0027). Accordingly,
the Agency agrees with C–DAC that,
under these circumstances, these
systems should be excluded from the
proposed rule.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(7),
stacker cranes are excluded. This
machinery, covered by ASME B30.18,
was similarly excluded in the ACCSH
draft. The Agency believes that these
cranes are rarely used in construction,
and that their configuration is too unlike
other machinery covered by this
proposed standard to warrant inclusion.
Proposed paragraph (c)(8) excludes
powered industrial trucks (forklifts). As
noted during the C–DAC meetings, this
machinery is already covered by
§ 1926.602 of Subpart O—Motor
Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and
Marine Operations. The Agency believes
that this type of machinery is mostly
used in a manner that does not involve
suspended loads and would often
require different responses to the
hazards presented than provided in this
proposed standard. Therefore, the
Agency agrees with C–DAC that this
machinery should be excluded from the
proposed standard.
During the SBREFA process, one
Small Entity Representative stated that
the C–DAC document does not contain
a provision explicitly excluding
coverage of machines that are originally
designed to function primarily as
forklifts but are modified to perform
tasks similar to cranes and derricks that
are covered under the standard. The
Panel recommended that OSHA
consider and solicit public comment on
whether the scope language should be
modified to explicitly state whether
forklifts modified in such a manner are
covered. OSHA welcomes comment on
this issue.
Proposed paragraph (c)(9) excludes
mechanic’s trucks with hoisting devices
when used in activities related to
equipment maintenance and repair. The
treatment of this machinery is similar to
that of automotive wreckers and tow
trucks. This exclusion reflects the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Committee’s conclusion that mechanic’s
trucks, when used in these support
activities, have the capability of hoisting
construction material and so some
construction employers may use them
for that purpose. Consequently, C–DAC
decided to cover them generally, but to
exclude them when used for equipment
maintenance and repair activities. The
exclusion is based on the Committee’s
view that, even if done as a construction
activity (which would be very rare), the
maintenance and repair activities are
highly repetitious, predictable types of
operations that are sufficiently distinct
from typical construction crane and
derrick use to justify an exclusion from
the proposed rule.
In proposed paragraph (c)(10),
machinery that hoists by using a comea-long or chainfall is excluded. This
exclusion reflects currently industry
practice as exemplified by OSHA’s steel
erection standard. The definition of
‘‘hoisting equipment’’ in OSHA’s steel
erection standard, § 1926.751, defines
‘‘come-a-long’’ as ‘‘a mechanical device
typically consisting of a chain or cable
attached at each end that is used to
facilitate movement of materials through
leverage’’ and notes that such a device
is not considered ‘‘hoisting equipment.’’
§ 1926.1401 of this proposed standard
sets forth the same definition of ‘‘comea-long’’ as OSHA’s steel erection
standard. Committee members decided
that a specific exclusion was needed
because these devices, that members
term ‘‘tools of the trade,’’ are not all
human-powered and thus might
otherwise fall within the scope of the
proposed rule. C–DAC was of the view
that these tools are unlike the
equipment covered by the proposed rule
in terms of both scale and the set of
hazards associated with their use.
Proposed paragraph (c)(11) excludes
dedicated drilling rigs. This exclusion
was agreed upon after substantial
discussion among Committee members.
It should be noted that neither Subpart
N nor other OSHA construction
standards currently cover dedicated
drilling rigs specifically.
Much of the specific information as to
the nature of dedicated drilling rigs and
the concerns of drill rig industry
stakeholders was ascertained during a
panel discussion chaired by members of
the International Association of
Foundation Drilling. Panel members
emphasized that, in their view, a
dedicated drilling rig is not a crane, but
rather is designed to function as
excavating equipment.
In support of that position, the
panelists noted that, unlike cranes, this
machinery lacks load charts and has
only limited horizontal movement,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
radius, and hoisting capabilities. They
also stated that although many are
equipped with an auxiliary service
winch, the primary use of this
machinery is not for hoisting. Panelists
suggested that accidents associated with
the use of dedicated drilling rigs tend to
result from improper use (that is,
attempting to use them for more
extensive hoisting work, beyond the
narrow limits set by manufacturer
specifications). Finally, the speakers
emphasized that while they did not
believe this machinery should be
regulated as cranes under the proposed
rule, if they were to be regulated, they
should be under a more closely related
standard, such as the excavation
standard.
Several additional concerns were
examined in the course of the
discussion. Some members suggested
that dedicated pile drivers and
dedicated drilling rigs be treated in the
same manner—to either cover or
exclude both. Others responded that the
disparate treatment is justified by the
fact that dedicated pile drivers are
frequently used on barges, which
involves additional hazards, and the
more widespread use of that machine’s
hoisting function. Some members
expressed concern that the inclusion of
dedicated drilling rigs under the
proposed rule would encourage their
misuse as cranes.
The Committee decided that the
arguments for excluding dedicated
drilling rigs outweighed those for
including them. The Agency agrees;
while there are certain similarities to
dedicated pile drivers in that both have
an auxiliary hoisting capability, the
dedicated drilling rigs are not typically
used on barges and there seems to be
less abuse of their very limited hoisting
capabilities. Specific public comment is
requested on these issues.
Proposed paragraph (c)(12) contains
an exclusion for gin poles used during
the erection of communication towers. It
is the Agency’s understanding that the
erection of communication towers is a
specialized subset of the construction
industry, and involves issues that go
beyond those C–DAC was designed to
address. OSHA is therefore not
proposing to include gin poles used for
this purpose in the proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (c)(13) excludes
tree trimming and tree removal work
from the scope of the proposed rule. In
correspondence to the Committee
(OSHA S030–2006–0663–0534), the
Tree Care Industry Association had
requested that their work be excluded
from the proposed rule. The Committee
noted that the vast majority of the tree
care industry’s work does not take place
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
in construction and agreed that such
work should be excluded. The Agency
believes that, since tree trimming and
tree removal work so rarely falls within
construction, it is appropriate to
exclude tree trimming and removal from
the proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (c)(14) excludes
anchor handling with a vessel or barge
using an affixed A-frame. C–DAC
decided to exclude this activity after the
Cranes on Barges Work Group found
that there would be problems tailoring
the general requirements of the C–DAC
draft to address the use of these
specialized devices.
Proposed paragraph (c)(15), the final
item listed, excludes roustabouts. The
Committee was of the view that the
proposed rule is not suited to
addressing these devices, which are
moved about by hand.
The SBREFA Panel recommended
that OSHA consider, and solicit
comment on, whether equipment used
solely to deliver materials to a
construction site by placing/stacking the
materials on the ground should be
explicitly excluded from the scope of
the rule. OSHA requests public
comment on this issue.
Note: OSHA replaced the word
‘‘Equipment’’ used in proposed
§§ 1926.1400(c)(1), (c)(5) and (c)(10) of the C–
DAC Consensus Document with the word
‘‘Machinery.’’ This was done because
‘‘equipment’’ is a defined term in the
proposed standard that refers to covered
equipment and, thus, cannot be used to mean
excluded machinery.
Unspecified Equipment
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Proposed paragraph (d) is included to
clarify that all provisions of the
proposed rule apply to covered
equipment unless otherwise noted. This
paragraph was included because there
are some types of equipment for which
only limited requirements apply, and
others where there are special
requirements that supplement, rather
than displace, the other requirements in
the proposed rule. To avoid confusion,
this proposed paragraph establishes that
all parts of the proposed rule apply
unless a provision specifically identifies
other parts of the proposed rule as
inapplicable, or identifies the only
provisions of the standard that are
applicable.
Controlling Entities
Proposed paragraph (e) provides that
the duties of controlling entities 2 are
not limited to the duties specified in
2 The definition of ‘‘controlling entity’’ is
explained in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1402(c).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
§§ 1926.1402(c), (e) and 1926.1424(b).
This was included to clarify that the
controlling entity duties specified in the
proposed rule are intended to
supplement, rather than displace,
controlling entity duties under OSHA’s
multi-employer policy.
The Agency has clear authority to
include in this proposed rule the
provisions in proposed §§ 1926.1402(c),
(e) and 1926.1424(b), which would
apply specific requirements to
controlling entities. First, the plain
language of the OSH Act and its
underlying purpose support OSHA’s
authority to place requirements on
employers that are necessary to protect
the employees of others. Second,
congressional action subsequent to
passage of the OSH Act recognizes this
authority. Third, OSHA has consistently
interpreted its statutory authority as
permitting it to impose obligations on
employers that extend beyond their own
employees, as evidenced by the
numerous standards, including several
construction standards, that OSHA has
promulgated with multi-employer
provisions. Finally, OSHA’s authority to
place obligations on employers that
reach beyond an employer’s own
employees has been upheld by
numerous courts of appeals and the
Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission (OSHRC).
The purpose of the Act is to assure so
far as possible safe and healthful
working conditions for every working
man and women in the nation. 29 U.S.C.
651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress
authorized the Secretary to establish
mandatory occupational safety and
health standards. The Act broadly
defines an OSHA standard as a rule that
‘‘requires conditions, or the adoption or
use of one or more practices, means,
methods, operations, or processes,
reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employments
and places of employment.’’ 29 U.S.C.
652(8). See Building and Constr. Trades
Div., AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258,
1278 (DC Cir. 1988). OSHA standards
must prescribe measures that are
appropriate to protect ‘‘places of
employment’’; nothing in the statutory
language suggests that OSHA may do so
only by regulating an employer’s
interaction with its own employees. On
the contrary, the Act’s broad language
gives OSHA almost ‘‘unlimited
discretion’’ to devise means to reach the
statutory goal. See United Steelworkers
v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1230 (DC
Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913
(1981).
Similarly, Section 5(a)(2) provides
that each employer ‘‘shall comply with
occupational safety and health
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59731
standards promulgated under this
Act.’’ 3 Nothing in this language suggests
that compliance is required only when
necessary to protect the employers’ own
employees, or that the employer is
entitled to endanger other employers’
employees at the worksite. Finally,
Section 6(b)(7) of the Act authorizes the
Secretary to ‘‘prescribe the use of labels
or other appropriate forms of warning as
are necessary to insure that employees
are apprised of all hazards to which
they are exposed.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7).
Again, this authority is not limited to
labels that would warn the employer’s
own employees of the hazard. Given the
distribution of potentially hazardous
products in commerce, employees are
predictably exposed to hazardous
conditions created by other employers.
Requiring employers to include hazard
information needed by downstream
employees is a necessary and
appropriate means to ensure that the
employees are apprised of all hazards to
which they are exposed.
In short, the statute focuses on
workplace conditions to effectuate the
OSH Act’s congressional mandate, and
not on a particular employment
relationship. The OSH Act’s underlying
purpose is broad—to assure safe and
healthful working conditions for
working men and women—and
Congress made clear that it expected the
Act to protect all employees. (H. Rep.
No. 91–1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., p.
14–16 (July 9, 1970)). Numerous
references in the legislative history of
the Act require employers to provide a
safe and healthful ‘‘place of
employment’’ (see, e.g., S. Rep. No. 91–
1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 10
(October 6, 1970)). The OSH Act tasks
OSHA with promulgating rules that will
create safe places of employment,
notwithstanding the many varied
employment relationships that might
exist at a worksite.
Subsequent congressional action has
also recognized OSHA’s authority to
impose responsibilities on employers to
protect employees who are not their
own. For example, Congress directed
OSHA to develop a chemical process
safety standard (the PSM standard)
requiring employers to ‘‘ensure
contractors and contract employees are
provided appropriate information and
training’’ and to ‘‘train and educate
3 This language is in marked contrast to the
language of Section 5(a)(1) of the Act (known as the
‘‘general duty clause’’), which requires each
employer to ‘‘furnish to each of his employees
employment and a place of employment which are
free from recognized hazards that are causing or are
likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his
employees.’’ 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1) (emphases added).
See Brennan v. OSHRC, 513 F.2d 1032, 1037–38
(2nd. Cir. 1975).
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59732
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
employees and contractors in
emergency response.’’ (29 U.S.C. note)
(quoting Pub.L. 101–549, Title III, Sec.
304, November 15, 1990, 104 Stat.
2576). This is a clear ratification of the
Agency’s authority to require employers
to protect the employees of others.
Congress also approved of the Agency’s
authority when it relied on the
provisions of OSHA’s Hazard
Communication standard in
promulgating the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act (42
U.S.C. 11001–11050) (EPCRA). OSHA’s
Hazard Communication standard,
among other things, requires a
manufacturer of a hazardous chemical
to ‘‘inform not only its own employees
of the dangers posed by the chemicals,
but downstream employers and
employees as well.’’ Martin v. American
Cyanamid Co., 5 F.3d 140, 141 (6th Cir.
1993). Congress incorporated provisions
of the Hazard Communication standard
in EPCRA as a basis for triggering
obligations on owners or operators of
facilities producing hazardous
chemicals to provide local governments
with information needed for emergency
response. Had Congress not approved of
the multi-employer provisions in the
Hazard Communication standard, it
would not have approved of it as a basis
for obligations in the EPCRA.
Furthermore, OSHA has consistently
interpreted the OSH Act as authorizing
it to impose multi-employer obligations
in its standards. In addition to the
Hazard Communication standard and
PSM standard discussed above, OSHA
included multi-employer provisions in
its powered platforms standard, which
requires that a building owner inform
employers that the building installation
has been inspected and is safe to use. 29
CFR 1910.66(c)(3). OSHA has also
imposed multi-employer obligations in
other construction standards.
For example, in the construction
asbestos standard, OSHA requires
building owners/employers to perform
initial monitoring for asbestos and to
communicate the presence of asbestos
or presumed asbestos containing
materials to prospective employers
whose employees reasonably can be
expected to work in exposed areas. 29
CFR 1926.1101(k)(2). In the recently
promulgated steel-erection standard,
OSHA imposed duties on controlling
contractors to ensure that site
conditions are safe for steel erection. 29
CFR 1926.752(c). OSHA just recently
proposed in updates to its electricpower transmission and distribution
construction standard similar multiemployer communication provisions.
See 70 FR 34947–48. OSHA’s inclusion
of multi-employer provisions in this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
proposed rule is fully consistent with its
past practice of ensuring the safety and
health of all employees at construction
worksites.
Finally, OSHA’s authority to impose
these provisions is confirmed by the
decisions of numerous courts of appeals
and the Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission holding that an
employer’s duties and OSHA standards
may extend beyond an employer’s own
employees. See Universal Constr. Co. v.
OSHRC, 182 F.3d 726, 728 (10th Cir.
1999) (following decisions from Second,
Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth
Circuits); Access Equip. Sys., 18 BNA
OSHC 1718, 1722–24 (No. 95–1449,
1999). But see Melerine v. Avondale
Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706 (5th Cir.
1981). The DC Circuit suggested in
Anthony Crane Rental, Inc. v. Reich, 70
F.3d 1298, 1306 (DC Cir. 1995),
however, that 29 CFR 1910.12(a)—a rule
promulgated by OSHA to adopt
Construction Safety Act (CSA) standards
as OSHA standards—might limit an
employer’s obligations under the
construction standards in part 1926 to
its own employees. The court did not
reach the issue, noting that the parties
had not briefed it. The proposed cranes
and derricks in construction standard
will be included in part 1926.
Paragraph 1910.12(a) is consistent
with the promulgation of requirements
that place obligations on employers
necessary to protect the employees of
others. The provision states:
The standards prescribed in part 1926 of
this chapter are adopted as occupational
safety and health standards under section 6
of the Act and shall apply, according to the
provisions thereof, to every employment and
place of employment of every employee
engaged in construction work. Each employer
shall protect the employment and places of
employment of each of his employees
engaged in construction work by complying
with the appropriate standards prescribed in
this paragraph.
The language of the provision
supports OSHA’s interpretation that an
employer’s responsibilities can extend
beyond the employer’s employees. The
first sentence makes the construction
standards applicable to every
employment and to every ‘‘place of
employment’’ of every construction
employee. This is broad language that
does not limit an employer’s obligations
to its own employees. The second
sentence, by providing that each
employer must protect the employment
and the places of employment of each
of his employees, does not limit an
employer’s obligations to only
protecting his or her employees and
does not negate the broad reach of the
first sentence. The two sentences, read
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
together, require employers to comply
with standards at all sites where they
are working in order to protect
employees who are predictably present
at those sites.
The sole purpose of the provision was
to ‘‘adopt and extend’’ existing
Construction Safety Act (CSA) standards
applicable under the OSH Act. 29 CFR
1910.11. Under the CSA, standards
applied only to employers with
Federally funded contracts, and only
with respect to employees engaged on
those Federal projects. See 29 CFR part
1926 subpart B; CH2M Hill, Inc. v.
Herman, 192 F.3d 711, 718 n.1 (7th Cir.
1999). The function of 29 CFR
1910.12(a) was to adopt the CSA
standards as OSHA standards and in so
doing to make it clear that neither of
those limitations would apply. Thus,
OSHA stressed that compliance would
broadly extend to each construction
employer (not just those with Federal
contracts) and to every construction
employee (not just those working on
Federal projects). In no way did OSHA
intend for the language of 29 CFR
1910.12(a) to restrict its authority to
promulgate construction standards that
establish obligations extending beyond
an employer’s own employees.
Other factors confirm that OSHA had
no intention in 29 CFR 1910.12(a) to bar
multi-employer responsibilities under
the construction standards. OSHA
issued the regulation without notice and
comment under Section 6(a) of the Act.
That section provided authority only to
adopt established federal standards,
such as the CSA standards, without
making any substantive changes. Usery
v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 577 F.2d
1113 (10th Cir. 1977). The CSA
regulations did not limit multi-employer
responsibilities; the regulations
expressly provided for them. 29 CFR
1926.16. OSHA could not have intended
to limit statutory obligations in an
action under Section 6(a).
In addition, concurrently with
issuance of 29 CFR 1910.12(a), OSHA
issued its initial Field Operations
Manual, which expressly directed
issuance of citations to construction
employers who created a hazard
endangering their own employees or
those of another employer. The Agency
has also consistently promulgated rules
in 29 CFR Part 1926 that expressly
extend employers’ obligations beyond
their own employees. The requirements
in proposed 29 CFR 1926.1204 reflect
this consistent interpretation and will
ensure that all employees on
construction worksites are protected
from the hazards of confined spaces.
The Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission’s recent decision in
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Secretary of Labor v. Summit
Contractors (OSHRC Docket No. 03–
1622 (April 27, 2007), has no
application to this proposed rule. In
Summit, a divided Review Commission
vacated citations issued to a controlling
employer for violations of a
construction standard. The two
Commissioners who joined in this result
issued separate opinions; each read 29
CFR 1910.12(a) as establishing a
limitation on the Agency’s authority to
hold controlling employers accountable
for violations. OSHA believes this view
is mistaken, and has appealed the
OSHRC decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals (8th Cir. No. 07–2191).
Moreover, Summit has no bearing on
the duties established under the
proposed rule. The Summit opinions
interpreted OSHA’s intent under then
existing rules. They did not question
OSHA’s authority under the Act to
establish multi-employer obligations
through rulemaking. OSHA is exercising
its authority under Section 6(b) to issue
this proposed rule, and nothing in 29
CFR 1910.12(a) limits an employer’s
compliance obligations under the rule.
Proposed paragraph (f) would require
that where a provision in the proposed
rule directs an operator, crewmember or
other employee to take a specified
action, it would be the employer’s
responsibility to establish work rules to
require the relevant employees to take
that action, and to effectively
communicate and enforce those work
rules. This paragraph clarifies the
employer’s obligations with regard to
such provisions.
Terminology
According to § 1926.1401, Definitions,
two terms are defined as meaning all
equipment covered by this subpart:
‘‘Equipment’’ and ‘‘cranes/derricks.’’ In
reviewing the C–DAC document, OSHA
has found that in some places it uses the
word ‘‘crane’’ standing alone when C–
DAC’s intent was to refer to all covered
equipment. To avoid any ambiguity,
OSHA has modified the document
where appropriate to replace ‘‘crane’’
with either ‘‘equipment’’ or ‘‘crane/
derrick.’’ Where ‘‘crane’’ is used in a
way that is technically correct, as in
referring to ‘‘tower cranes,’’ OSHA has
not changed it.
In instances where the C–DAC
document uses the phrase ‘‘crane
operator,’’ OSHA has deleted the word
‘‘crane.’’ By definition (in § 1926.1401)
‘‘operator’’ refers to the equipment
operator and, in many locations, the C–
DAC document already uses ‘‘operator’’
without a modifier to refer to the
equipment operator. Therefore, use of
‘‘crane’’ to modify ‘‘operator’’ is
unnecessary and potentially confusing.
Section 1401
59733
Definitions
C–DAC included a number of
definitions to clarify the meaning of
terms used in the proposed standard.
Many of the defined terms are
commonly used in the industry, and
C–DAC in most instances relied on
standard industry sources or its own
understanding of how terms are used in
the industry to help ensure that the
definitions would be readily understood
by employers and employees. Industry
sources on which C–DAC relied include
existing OSHA standards, consensus
standards, and ‘‘A Glossary of Common
Crane and Rigging Terms’’ (Specialized
Carriers and Rigging Foundation 1997)
(‘‘SC&RF Handbook’’)(OSHA–2007–
0066–0019). Some definitions were also
included to ensure that certain terms
used in the proposed standard have a
precise, unambiguous meaning.
Where defined terms are used
primarily in a single section or group of
sections (such as §§ 1926.1407–1411 on
power line safety), the definition will be
explained in the preamble to that
section or group. Definitions that are
used in a number of sections will be
explained in this section. Table 5 shows
the section or paragraph where each
definition is discussed.
TABLE 5—INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS
Section or paragraph where definition is
discussed in the preamble
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Term
A/D supervisor .......................................................................................................................................
Articulating crane ...................................................................................................................................
Assembly/Disassembly ..........................................................................................................................
Assist crane ...........................................................................................................................................
Attachments ...........................................................................................................................................
Audible signal ........................................................................................................................................
Blocking .................................................................................................................................................
Boatswain’s chair ...................................................................................................................................
Bogie ......................................................................................................................................................
Boom (equipment other than tower crane) ...........................................................................................
Boom (tower cranes) .............................................................................................................................
Boom angle indicator .............................................................................................................................
Boom hoist limiting device .....................................................................................................................
Boom length indicator ............................................................................................................................
Boom stop ..............................................................................................................................................
Boom suspension systems ....................................................................................................................
Builder ....................................................................................................................................................
Calculate ................................................................................................................................................
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) .............................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
§ 1926.1404(a)(1)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1403
§ 1926.1404(h)(4)
§ 1926.1400(b)(2)
§ 1926.1419(b)
§ 1926.1404(h)(2)
§ 1926.1431(o)
§ 1926.1435
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1435(e)(5)(ii)
§ 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)(1)
§ 1926.1401
§ 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)
09OCP2
59734
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS—Continued
Section or paragraph where definition is
discussed in the preamble
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Term
Directly under the load ..........................................................................................................................
Dismantling ............................................................................................................................................
Drum rotation indicator ..........................................................................................................................
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 .................................................................................................................................
Hoist .......................................................................................................................................................
Hoisting ..................................................................................................................................................
Include/including ....................................................................................................................................
Insulating link/device ..............................................................................................................................
Jib stop ..................................................................................................................................................
Land crane/derrick .................................................................................................................................
List .........................................................................................................................................................
Load .......................................................................................................................................................
Load moment (or rated capacity) indicator ...........................................................................................
Load moment (or rated capacity) limiter ...............................................................................................
Locomotive crane ..................................................................................................................................
Luffing jib limiting device .......................................................................................................................
Marine hoisted personnel transfer device .............................................................................................
Marine worksite ......................................................................................................................................
Mobile cranes ........................................................................................................................................
Moving point-to-point .............................................................................................................................
Multi-purpose machine ..........................................................................................................................
Nationally recognized accrediting agency .............................................................................................
Non-conductive ......................................................................................................................................
Operational aids .....................................................................................................................................
Operational controls ...............................................................................................................................
Operator .................................................................................................................................................
Overhead and gantry cranes .................................................................................................................
Paragraph ..............................................................................................................................................
Pendants ................................................................................................................................................
Personal fall arrest system ....................................................................................................................
Portal cranes ..........................................................................................................................................
Power lines ............................................................................................................................................
Procedures .............................................................................................................................................
Proximity alarm ......................................................................................................................................
Qualified evaluator (not a third party) ....................................................................................................
Qualified evaluator (third party) .............................................................................................................
Qualified person .....................................................................................................................................
Qualified rigger ......................................................................................................................................
Range control warning device ...............................................................................................................
Rated capacity .......................................................................................................................................
Rated capacity indicator ........................................................................................................................
Rated capacity limiter ............................................................................................................................
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 ..........................................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
§ 1926.1425(e)(1)
§ 1926.1405
§ 1926.1416(e)(5)
§ 1926.1407–1411
§ 1926.1437(m)(4)
§ 1926.1407–1411
§ 1926.1400
§ 1926.1412(b)(1)(i)
§ 1926.1423(d)
§ 1926.1423(d)
§ 1926.1425(b)
§ 1926.1413(a)(3)(iii)
§ 1926.1437
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1426(d)
§ 1926.1437(m)(5)(ii)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(v)
§ 1926.1415(a)(3)
§ 1926.1437(h)
§ 1926.1437(e)(1)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1416(e)(4)
§ 1926.1416(e)(4)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1416(d)(2)
§ 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii)
§ 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1423(d)(1)
§ 1926.1400(a)
§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(i)
§ 1926.1407(b)(2)
§ 1926.1416
§ 1926.1417(b)(2)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1438
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1404(h)(8)
§ 1926.1423(f)
§ 1926.1415(a)(1)
§ 1926.1407–1411
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1407(b)(3)
§ 1926.1428(a)(2)
§ 1926.1428(a)(2)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1425(c)(3)
§ 1926.1407(a)(3)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1416(e)(4)
§ 1926.1416(e)(4)
§ 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)(5)(iii)
§ 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)
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
59735
TABLE 5—INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS—Continued
Section or paragraph where definition is
discussed in the preamble
Term
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Unavailable procedures .........................................................................................................................
Up to ......................................................................................................................................................
Upperstructure .......................................................................................................................................
Upperworks ............................................................................................................................................
Wire rope ...............................................................................................................................................
Four terms that are defined in the C–
DAC document—‘‘alongside,’’
‘‘appointed person,’’ ‘‘blind pick,’’ and
‘‘power down,’’—were used by C–DAC
in earlier drafts but are not used in the
proposed standard. OSHA has therefore
not included them in this section.
‘‘A/D supervisor’’ means ‘‘an
individual who meets this standard’s
requirements for an A/D supervisor,
irrespective of the person’s formal job
title or whether the person is nonmanagement or management
personnel.’’
‘‘Articulating crane’’ means ‘‘a crane
whose boom consists of a series of
folding, pin connected structural
members, typically manipulated to
extend or retract by power from
hydraulic cylinders.’’ This definition is
taken from the SC&RF Handbook
definition of ‘‘articulating boom crane.’’
‘‘Assist crane’’ is ‘‘a crane used to
assist in assembling or disassembling a
crane.’’
‘‘Assembly/Disassembly’’ means ‘‘the
assembly and/or disassembly of
equipment covered under this standard.
With regard to tower cranes, ‘‘erecting
and climbing’’ replaces the term
‘assembly,’ and ‘dismantling’ replaces
the term ‘disassembly.’ ’’
‘‘Attachments’’ means ‘‘any device
that expands the range of tasks that can
be done by the equipment. Examples
include, but are not limited to: an auger,
drill, magnet, pile-driver, and boomattached personnel platform.’’ This
definition is discussed under paragraph
1400(b) in the explanation of this
proposed standard.
‘‘Audible signal’’ means ‘‘a signal
made by a distinct sound or series of
sounds. Examples include, but are not
limited to, sounds made by a bell, horn,
or whistle.’’
‘‘Blocking’’ (also referred to as
‘‘cribbing’’) ‘‘is wood or other material
used to support equipment or a
component and distribute loads to the
ground. Typically used to support
latticed boom sections during assembly/
disassembly and under outrigger floats.’’
‘‘Boatswain’s chair’’ is ‘‘a single-point
adjustable suspension scaffold
consisting of a seat or sling (which may
be incorporated into a full body harness)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
designed to support one employee in a
sitting position.’’
‘‘Bogie’’ is synonymous with ‘‘travel
bogie,’’ which is defined below.
‘‘Boom (equipment other than tower
crane)’’ means ‘‘an inclined spar, strut,
or other long structural member which
supports the upper hoisting tackle on a
crane or derrick. Typically, the length
and vertical angle of the boom can be
varied to achieve increased height or
height and reach when lifting loads.
Booms can usually be grouped into
general categories of hydraulically
extendible, cantilevered type, latticed
section, cable supported type or
articulating type.’’ This definition is
taken from the SC&RF Handbook.
‘‘Boom (tower cranes).’’ On tower
cranes: if the ‘‘boom’’ (i.e., principal
horizontal structure) is fixed, it is
referred to as a jib; if it is moveable up
and down, it is referred to as a boom.
‘‘Boom angle indicator’’ is ‘‘a device
which measures the angle of the boom
relative to horizontal.’’
‘‘Boom hoist limiting device’’
‘‘includes boom hoist disengaging
device, boom hoist shutoff, boom hoist
disconnect, boom hoist hydraulic relief,
boom hoist kick-outs, automatic boom
stop device, or derricking limiter. This
type of device disengages boom hoist
power when the boom reaches a
predetermined operating angle. It also
sets brakes or closes valves to prevent
the boom from lowering after power is
disengaged.’’
‘‘Boom length indicator’’ ‘‘indicates
the length of the permanent part of the
boom (such as ruled markings on the
boom) or, as in some computerized
systems, the length of the boom with
extensions/attachments.’’
‘‘Boom stop’’ ‘‘includes boom stops,
(belly straps with struts/standoff),
telescoping boom stops, attachment
boom stops, and backstops. These
devices restrict the boom from moving
above a certain maximum angle and
toppling over backward.’’
‘‘Boom suspension systems’’ are ‘‘a
system of pendants, running ropes,
sheaves, and other hardware which
supports the boom tip and controls the
boom angle.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 1926.1417(b)
§ 1926.1401
§ 1926.1424(a)(1)
§ 1926.1424(a)(1)
§ 1926.1413
‘‘Builder’’ means ‘‘an employer
builder/constructor of equipment.’’ This
definition is discussed under
§ 1926.1436(c)(1) in the explanation of
this proposed standard.
‘‘Calculate’’ ‘‘includes use of a
calculator.’’ The Committee included
this definition to make clear that
persons who performed calculations
under this standard may use any
method, including use of a calculator,
that yields accurate results.
‘‘Center of gravity.’’ ‘‘The center of
gravity of any object is the point in the
object around which its weight is evenly
distributed. If you could put a support
under that point, you could balance the
object on the support.’’
‘‘Certified welder’’ is ‘‘a welder that
meets the nationally recognized
certification requirements that are
applicable to the task being performed.’’
‘‘Climbing’’ is ‘‘the process in which
a tower crane is raised to a new working
height, either by adding additional
tower sections to the top of the crane
(top climbing), or by a system in which
the entire crane is raised inside the
structure (inside climbing).’’
‘‘Come-a-long’’ means ‘‘a mechanical
device typically consisting of a chain or
cable attached at each end that is used
to facilitate movement of materials
through leverage.’’
‘‘Competent person’’ is ‘‘a person who
is capable of identifying existing and
predictable hazards in the surroundings
or working conditions which are
unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to
employees, and who has authorization
to take prompt corrective measures to
eliminate them.’’ This definition is
taken from 29 CFR 1926.32(f), which
defines ‘‘competent person’’ under
OSHA’s construction standards. Those
standards assign duties to ‘‘competent
persons’’ that are similar to those
assigned under this proposed standard.
‘‘Controlled load lowering’’ means
‘‘lowering a load by means of a
mechanical hoist drum device that
allows a hoisted load to be lowered with
maximum control using the gear train or
hydraulic components of the hoist
mechanism. Controlled load lowering
requires the use of the hoist drive motor,
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59736
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rather than the load hoist brake, to
lower the load.’’
‘‘Controlling entity’’ is ‘‘a prime
contractor, general contractor,
construction manager or any other legal
entity which has the overall
responsibility for the construction of the
project—its planning, quality and
completion.’’
‘‘Counterweight’’ is a ‘‘weight used to
supplement the weight of equipment in
providing stability for lifting loads by
counterbalancing those loads.’’
‘‘Crane/derrick’’ includes ‘‘all
equipment covered by this Subpart.’’
‘‘Crawler crane’’ means ‘‘equipment
that has a type of base mounting which
incorporates a continuous belt of
sprocket driven track.’’ This definition
is based on the definition of ‘‘crawler’’
in the SC&RF Handbook. Current
industry terminology refers to crawler
cranes and truck cranes together as
‘‘mobile cranes.’’ See definition of
‘‘mobile crane’’ below.
‘‘Crossover points’’ are ‘‘locations on
a wire rope which is spooled on a drum
where one layer of rope climbs up on
and crosses over the previous layer.
This takes place at each flange of the
drum as the rope is spooled onto the
drum, reaches the flange, and begins to
wrap back in the opposite direction.’’
‘‘Dedicated channel’’ is ‘‘a line of
communication assigned by the
employer who controls the
communication system to only one
signal person and crane/derrick or to a
coordinated group of cranes/derrick/
signal person(s).’’
‘‘Dedicated pile-driver’’ is ‘‘a machine
that is designed to function exclusively
as a pile-driver. These machines
typically have the ability to both hoist
the material that will be pile-driven and
to pile-drive that material.’’
‘‘Dedicated spotter (power lines)’’ is
defined as follows: ‘‘In order to be
considered a dedicated spotter, the
requirements of § 1926.1428 (signal
person qualifications) must be met and
his/her sole responsibility is to watch
the separation between the power line
and: the equipment, load line and load
(including rigging and lifting
accessories), and ensure through
communication with the operator, that
the applicable minimum approach
distance is not breached.’’
‘‘Directly under the load’’ means ‘‘a
part or all of an employee is directly
beneath the load.’’
‘‘Dismantling’’ ‘‘includes partial
dismantling (such as dismantling to
shorten a boom or substitute a different
component).’’
‘‘Drum rotation indicator’’ is ‘‘a
device on a crane or hoist which
indicates in which direction and at what
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
relative speed a particular hoist drum is
turning.’’
‘‘Electrical contact’’ refers to ‘‘when a
person, object, or equipment makes
contact or comes in close proximity
with an energized conductor or
equipment that allows the passage of
current.’’
‘‘Employer-made equipment’’ means
‘‘floating cranes/derricks designed and
built by an employer for the employer’s
own use.’’
‘‘Encroachment’’ is ‘‘where any part of
the crane, load line or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories) breaches
a minimum clearance distance that this
subpart requires to be maintained from
a power line.’’
‘‘Equipment’’ means ‘‘equipment
covered by this subpart.’’
‘‘Equipment criteria’’ means
‘‘instructions, recommendations,
limitations and specifications.’’
‘‘Fall protection equipment’’ means
‘‘guardrail systems, safety net systems,
personal fall arrest systems, positioning
device systems or fall restraint
systems.’’
‘‘Fall restraint system’’ means ‘‘a fall
protection system that prevents the user
from falling any distance. The system is
comprised of either a body belt or body
harness, along with an anchorage,
connectors and other necessary
equipment. The other components
typically include a lanyard, and may
also include a lifeline and other
devices.’’
‘‘Fall zone’’ means ‘‘the area
(including but not limited to the area
directly beneath the load) in which it is
reasonably foreseeable that partially or
completely suspended materials could
fall in the event of an accident.’’
‘‘Flange point’’ is ‘‘a point of contact
between rope and drum flange where
the rope changes layers.’’
‘‘Floating cranes/derricks’’ means
‘‘equipment designed by the
manufacturer (or employer) for marine
use by permanent attachment to a barge,
pontoons, vessel or other means of
flotation.’’
‘‘For example’’ means ‘‘one example,
although there are others.’’ This
definition was included to demonstrate
and clarify the usage of the word.
‘‘Free fall (of the load line)’’ means
‘‘where only the brake is used to
regulate the descent of the load line (the
drive mechanism is not used to drive
the load down faster or retard its
lowering).’’
‘‘Free surface effect’’ is ‘‘the
uncontrolled transverse movement of
liquids in compartments which reduce
a vessel’s transverse stability.’’
‘‘Hoist’’ is ‘‘a mechanical device for
lifting and lowering loads by winding
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
rope onto or off a drum.’’ A hoist is the
primary lifting mechanism used by
cranes and derricks.
‘‘Hoisting’’ is ‘‘the act of raising,
lowering or otherwise moving a load in
the air with equipment covered by this
standard. As used in this standard,
‘hoisting’ can be done by means other
than wire rope/hoist drum equipment.’’
This definition makes clear that
‘‘hoisting’’ is broad enough to
encompass all movement of a load in
the air by cranes/derricks and is not
limited to movement caused by wire
rope/hoist drum equipment. For
example, movement resulting from
booming out a hydraulic boom that is
holding a load would be ‘‘hoisting.’’
‘‘Include/including’’ means
‘‘including, but not limited to.’’ This
definition demonstrates and clarifies the
usage of the word.
‘‘Insulating link/device’’ is ‘‘an
insulating device listed, labeled, or
accepted by a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory in accordance with
29 CFR 1910.7.’’
‘‘Jib stop,’’ which is also referred to as
a jib backstop, ‘‘is the same type of
device as a boom stop but is for a fixed
or luffing jib.’’
‘‘Land crane/derrick’’ is ‘‘Equipment
not originally designed by the
manufacturer for marine use by
permanent attachment to barges,
pontoons, vessels, or other means of
floatation.’’
‘‘List’’ is the ‘‘angle of inclination
about the longitudinal axis of a barge,
pontoon, vessel or other means of
flotation.’’
‘‘Load’’ refers to ‘‘the object(s) being
hoisted and/or the weight of the
object(s); both uses refer to the object(s)
and the load-attaching equipment, such
as, the load block, ropes, slings,
shackles, and any other ancillary
attachment.’’ This definition makes
clear that in calculating the weight of
the load for purposes such as making
sure that the lift is within the
equipment’s rated capacity, the weight
of all objects used to attach the load to
the equipment must be included. As
drafted by C–DAC, ‘‘load’’ referred to
the weight of the object being lifted but
not the object itself. However, ‘‘load’’ is
used throughout the proposed standard
to refer to the object being hoisted in
addition to the weight of the load.
OSHA has modified the C–DAC
definition accordingly.
‘‘Load moment (or rated capacity)
indicator’’ is ‘‘a system which aids the
equipment operator by sensing the
overturning moment on the equipment,
i.e., load multiplied by radius. It
compares this lifting condition to the
equipment’s rated capacity, and
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
indicates to the operator the percentage
of capacity at which the equipment is
working. Lights, bells, or buzzers may
be incorporated as a warning of an
approaching overload condition.’’
‘‘Load moment (or rated capacity)
limiter’’ is ‘‘a system which aids the
equipment operator by sensing the
overturning moment on the equipment,
i.e., load multiplied by radius. It
compares this lifting condition to the
equipment’s rated capacity, and when
the rated capacity is reached, it shuts off
power to those equipment functions
which can increase the severity of
loading on the equipment, e.g., hoisting,
telescoping out, or luffing out.
Typically, those functions which
decrease the severity of loading on the
equipment remain operational, e.g.,
lowering, telescoping in, or luffing in.’’
‘‘Locomotive crane’’ is ‘‘a crane
mounted on a base or car equipped for
travel on a railroad track.’’ OSHA
included this definition to remain
consistent with the industry’s use of the
term as indicated in the SC&RF
Handbook.
‘‘Luffing jib limiting device’’ ‘‘is
similar to a boom hoist limiting device,
except that it limits the movement of the
luffing jib.’’
‘‘Marine hoisted personnel transfer
device’’ is ‘‘a device, such as a ‘transfer
net,’ used to hoist an employee to or
from a marine worksite that is designed
to protect the employee during a marine
transfer and that allows for rapid entry/
exit from the device. Such devices do
not include a boatswain’s chair when
hoisted by equipment covered by this
standard.’’
‘‘Marine worksite’’ is ‘‘a construction
worksite that is located in, on or above
the water.’’
‘‘Mobile crane’’ is ‘‘a lifting device
incorporating a cable suspended latticed
boom or hydraulic telescopic boom
designed to be moved between
operating locations by transport over the
road.’’ This definition is derived from
the SC&RF Handbook. The term ‘‘mobile
crane,’’ as used in ASME B30.5–2004,
‘‘Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,’’
encompasses crawler cranes, truck
cranes, and other wheel-mounted
cranes. The 1968 version of ANSI B30.5,
which is incorporated by reference into
Subpart N, is entitled ‘‘Crawler,
Locomotive and Truck Cranes’’ and also
covered crawler cranes, truck cranes,
and other wheel-mounted cranes (in
addition to locomotive cranes). C–DAC
included its definition of ‘‘mobile
cranes’’ to reflect current industry
terminology, which now refers to
crawler cranes, truck cranes, and other
wheel-mounted cranes collectively as
‘‘mobile cranes.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
The SC&RF Handbook definition
states that in Europe, ‘‘mobile crane’’
refers to a crane mounted on a truck
carrier. The C–DAC draft of the
definition of ‘‘mobile crane’’ included
this reference to European terminology.
While the European terminology
describes a device that is included in
this proposed rule’s definition of mobile
crane, OSHA has deleted the reference
to the European terminology because it
could be read to mean, erroneously, that
only truck cranes fall within the
definition of ‘‘mobile cranes.’’ As noted
above, crawler cranes and wheelmounted cranes other than truck cranes
also qualify as ‘‘mobile cranes.’’
‘‘Moving point to point’’ means ‘‘the
times during which an employee is in
the process of going to or from a work
station.’’
‘‘Multi-purpose machine’’ means ‘‘a
machine that is designed to be
configured in various ways, at least one
of which allows it to hoist (by means of
a winch or hook) and horizontally move
a suspended load. For example, a
machine that can rotate and can be
configured with removable tongs (for
use as a forklift) or with a winch pack,
jib (with a hook at the end) or jib used
in conjunction with a winch. When
configured with the tongs, it is not
covered by this Subpart. When
configured with a winch pack, jib (with
a hook at the end) or jib used in
conjunction with a winch, it is covered
by this Subpart.’’
‘‘Nationally recognized accrediting
agency’’ is ‘‘an organization that, due to
its independence and expertise, is
widely recognized as competent to
accredit testing organizations.’’
‘‘Non-conductive’’ means that,
‘‘because of the nature and condition of
the materials used, and the conditions
of use (including environmental
conditions and condition of the
material), the object in question has the
property of not becoming energized
(that is, it has high dielectric properties
offering a high resistance to the passage
of current under the conditions of use).’’
‘‘Operational controls’’ are ‘‘levers,
switches, pedals and other devices for
controlling equipment operation.’’
‘‘Operational aids’’ are ‘‘devices that
assist the operator in the safe operation
of the crane by providing information or
automatically taking control of a crane
function. These include, but are not
limited to, the devices listed in
§ 1926.1416 (‘‘listed operational aids’’).’’
‘‘Operator’’ is ‘‘a person who is
operating the equipment.’’ The term is
therefore not restricted to job title but
includes any and all persons who
actually operate the equipment. The
Committee included this definition to
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59737
make clear that anyone operating
equipment must meet all of the
requirements of this subpart that apply
to ‘‘operators.’’
‘‘Overhead and gantry cranes’’ is
defined to include ‘‘overhead/bridge
cranes, semigantry, cantilever gantry,
wall cranes, storage bridge cranes,
launching gantry cranes, and similar
equipment, irrespective of whether it
travels on tracks, wheels, or other
means.’’
‘‘Paragraph’’ refers to ‘‘a paragraph in
the same section of this subpart that the
word ‘paragraph’ is used, unless
otherwise specified.’’ For example,
proposed paragraph 1423(a)(1) refers to
‘‘paragraphs (b), (c)(2), and (e).’’ Under
this definition, it is understood that
those are paragraphs in § 1423. By
contrast, paragraph 1439 refers to
certain paragraphs in other sections and
therefore includes the section
designation in the reference, for
example, ‘‘paragraph 1416(d)(3).’’
‘‘Pendants’’ are defined to ‘‘include
both wire and bar types. Wire type: A
fixed length of wire rope with
mechanical fittings at both ends for
pinning segments of wire rope together.
Bar type: Instead of wire rope, a bar is
used. Pendants are typically used in a
latticed boom crane system to easily
change the length of the boom
suspension system without completely
changing the rope on the drum when
the boom length is increased or
decreased.’’
‘‘Personal fall arrest system’’ means ‘‘a
system used to arrest an employee in a
fall from a working level. It consists of
an anchorage, connectors, a body
harness and may include a lanyard,
deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable
combination of these.’’
‘‘Portal cranes’’ are ‘‘a type of crane
consisting of a rotating upperstructure,
hoist machinery, and boom mounted on
top of a structural gantry which may be
fixed in one location or have travel
capability. The gantry legs or columns
usually have portal openings in between
to allow passage of traffic beneath the
gantry.’’
‘‘Power lines’’ are ‘‘electric
transmission and distribution lines.’’
‘‘Procedures’’ ‘‘include, but are not
limited to: instructions, diagrams,
recommendations, warnings,
specifications, protocols and
limitations.’’ Several paragraphs of this
proposed standard, such as
§ 1926.1417(a), require employers to
follow manufacturer procedures. C–
DAC developed this definition to make
clear that ‘‘procedures’’ in a provision
such as § 1926.1417(a) is to be
interpreted broadly to include all
recommendations by the manufacturer
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59738
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
regardless of the format of those
recommendations.
‘‘Proximity alarm’’ is ‘‘a device that
provides a warning of proximity to a
power line that has been listed, labeled,
or accepted by a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory in accordance with
29 CFR 1910.7.’’
‘‘Qualified evaluator (not a third
party)’’ means ‘‘a person employed by
the signal person’s employer who has
demonstrated that he/she is competent
in accurately assessing whether
individuals meet the qualification
requirements in this subpart for a signal
person.’’
‘‘Qualified evaluator (third party)’’ is
an ‘‘entity that, due to its independence
and expertise, has demonstrated that it
is competent in accurately assessing
whether individuals meet the
qualifications in this Subpart for a
signal person.’’ This definition is
discussed under § 1926.1428(a)(2) in the
explanation of this proposed standard.
‘‘Qualified person’’ means ‘‘a person
who, by possession of a recognized
degree, certificate, or professional
standing, or who by extensive
knowledge, training and experience,
successfully demonstrated the ability to
solve/resolve problems relating to the
subject matter, the work, or the project.’’
This definition corresponds to the
definition of ‘‘qualified’’ in 29 CFR
1926.32(m). Its use here reflects the fact
that the duties assigned to ‘‘qualified
persons’’ under this proposal are similar
to those assigned persons with
comparable qualifications under other
OSHA construction standards. By
defining this term in the same way it is
defined under other OSHA standards,
C–DAC sought to make clear that
construction industry employers could
continue to rely on their understanding
of the qualifications for a ‘‘qualified
person’’ that is applied under existing
standards.
‘‘Qualified rigger’’ is ‘‘a rigger who
meets the criteria for a qualified
person.’’
‘‘Range control warning device’’ is ‘‘a
device that can be set by the equipment
operator to warn that the boom or jib tip
is at a plane or multiple planes.’’
‘‘Rated capacity’’ is ‘‘the maximum
working load permitted by the
manufacturer under specified working
conditions. Such working conditions
typically include a specific combination
of factors such as equipment
configuration, radii, boom length, and
other parameters of use.’’ The first
sentence of this definition is taken from
the SC&RF Handbook. The second
sentence was added by C–DAC to clarify
the meaning of ‘‘working conditions.’’
Many crane/derrick accidents result
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
when the equipment’s ‘‘rated capacity’’
is exceeded, and the Committee sought
to provide an unambiguous definition of
the term to promote compliance with
provisions that use the term. In
reviewing the C–DAC consensus
document, OSHA noted that ‘‘rated
load’’ and ‘‘rated load capacity’’ were
used in various places to mean the same
thing as the Committee’s definition of
‘‘rated capacity.’’ For consistency and to
reflect the intention of the Committee,
all references to ‘‘rated load’’ and ‘‘rated
load capacity’’ in the consensus
document have been changed to ‘‘rated
capacity.’’
‘‘Rated capacity indicator’’ is an
alternative term for ‘‘load moment
indicator,’’ which is defined above.
‘‘Rated capacity limiter’’ is an
alternative term for ‘‘load moment
limiter,’’ which is defined above.
‘‘Repetitive pickup points’’ are ‘‘when
operating on a short cycle operation, the
rope being used on a single layer and
being spooled repetitively over a short
portion of the drum.’’
‘‘Running wire rope’’ is ‘‘a wire rope
that moves over sheaves or drums.’’
‘‘Runway’’ is ‘‘a firm, level surface
designed, prepared and designated as a
path of travel for the weight and
configuration of the crane being used to
lift and travel with the crane suspended
platform. This surface can be an existing
surface or created for purposes of the
work activity.’’
‘‘Section’’ means ‘‘a section of this
subpart, unless otherwise specified.’’
This definition is included to ensure
that the reader understands what
‘‘section’’ means in this standard.
‘‘Side-boom crane’’ is ‘‘a track-type or
wheel-type tractor having a boom
mounted on the side of the tractor, used
for lifting, lowering, or transporting a
load suspended on the load hook. The
boom or hook can be lifted or lowered
in a vertical direction only.’’
‘‘Special hazard warnings’’ are
‘‘warnings of site-specific hazards (for
example, proximity of power lines).’’
‘‘Stability (flotation device)’’ means
‘‘the tendency of a barge pontoon, vessel
or other means of flotation to return to
an upright position after having been
inclined by an external force.’’
‘‘Standard Method’’ means ‘‘the
protocol in Appendices for hand
signals.’’
‘‘Such as’’ means ‘‘such as, but not
limited to.’’ This definition was
included to demonstrate and clarify the
usage of the phrase.
‘‘Superstructure’’ is a synonym for
‘‘upperstructure’’ and ‘‘upperworks,’’
which is defined below.
‘‘Tag line’’ is a rope (usually fiber)
attached to a lifted load for purposes of
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
controlling load spinning and pendular
motions or used to stabilize a bucket or
magnet during material handling
operations. This definition is included
to ensure that the use of this term for the
application of this proposed standard is
consistent with how tag lines are
commonly used to control loads during
hoisting operations.
‘‘Tender’’ is ‘‘an individual
responsible for monitoring and
communicating with a diver.’’
‘‘Tilt-up or tilt-down operation’’ is the
‘‘raising/lowering of a load from the
horizontal to vertical or vertical to
horizontal.’’
‘‘Tower crane.’’ C–DAC defined a
tower crane as: A type of lifting
structure which utilizes a vertical mast
or tower to support a working boom (jib)
suspended from the working boom.
While the working boom may be fixed
horizontally or have luffing capability, it
can always rotate about the tower center
to swing loads. The tower base may be
fixed in one location or ballasted and
moveable between locations.’’
In reviewing this language, OSHA
believes that several changes are
needed. First, a characteristic of tower
cranes that is missing from the C–DAC
definition is that the working boom is in
an elevated position above the ground.
Second, the working boom on some
tower cranes, even of the non-luffing
type, may not be at a 90-degree angle to
the tower, and so the term ‘‘fixed
horizontally’’ may not always be
appropriate. Third, there are ‘‘top
slewing’’ tower cranes—those in which
the working boom rotates on the top of
a fixed tower, and ‘‘bottom slewing’’
tower cranes—those in which the tower
itself (with the working boom fixed to
it) rotates on its base. The definition
does not make clear that both types are
considered tower cranes for purposes of
this proposed standard.
Therefore, the Agency has modified
this language for the definition in the
proposed rule as follows:
A type of lifting structure which utilizes a
vertical mast or tower to support a working
boom (jib) in an elevated position. Loads are
suspended from the working boom. While
the working boom may be of the fixed type
(horizontal or angled) or have luffing
capability, it can always rotate to swing
loads, either by rotating on the top of the
tower (top slewing) or by the rotation of the
tower (bottom slewing). The tower base may
be fixed in one location or ballasted and
moveable between locations.
OSHA requests public comment on
these changes.
‘‘Travel bogie (tower cranes)’’ is ‘‘an
assembly of two or more axles arranged
to permit vertical wheel displacement
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
and equalize the loading on the
wheels.’’
‘‘Trim’’ is the ‘‘angle of inclination
about the transverse axis of a barge,
pontoon, vessel or other means of
flotation.’’
‘‘Two blocking’’ means ‘‘a condition
in which a component that is uppermost
on the hoist line such as the load block,
hook block, overhaul ball, or similar
component, comes in contact with the
boom tip, fixed upper block or similar
component. This binds the system and
continued application of power can
cause failure of the hoist rope or other
component.’’
‘‘Unavailable procedures’’ means
‘‘procedures that are no longer available
from the manufacturer, or have never
been available from the manufacturer.’’
‘‘Upperstructure’’ is a synonym for
‘‘superstructure’’ and ‘‘upperworks,’’
which is defined below.
‘‘Upperworks’’ means ‘‘the revolving
frame of equipment on which the engine
and operating machinery are mounted
along with the operator’s cab. The
counterweight is typically supported on
the rear of the upperworks and the
boom or other front end attachment is
mounted on the front.’’
‘‘Superstructure’’ and ‘‘upperstructure’’
are synonyms for ‘‘upperworks.’’
The second sentence of C–DAC’s
version of this definition stated: ‘‘The
counterweight is typically supported on
the rear of the upperstructure * * *.’’
OSHA has changed the word
‘‘upperstructure’’ to ‘‘upperworks’’ to
avoid any confusion that could be
caused by using one synonym in the
definition of another.
‘‘Up to’’ means ‘‘up to and including.’’
This definition is included to make the
meaning of the phrase clear.
‘‘Wire rope.’’ The C–DAC document
defined this term as ‘‘rope made of
wire,’’ the definition that is used in this
proposed rule. However, some wire rope
has a fiber core, which proposed
§ 1926.1414 permits to be used for
purposes other than boom hoist reeving.
However, the C–DAC definition
indicates that such rope would not be
considered ‘‘wire rope.’’ OSHA requests
public comment on whether a more
suitable definition would be the one
used by SC&RF, which is the following:
A flexible rope constructed by laying steel
wires into various patterns of multi-wired
strands around a core system to produce a
helically wound rope.
Section 1402 Ground Conditions
The Committee believed that the
failure to have adequate ground
conditions is a significant crane safety
problem. Adequate ground conditions
are essential for safe crane operations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
because the crane’s capacity and
stability depend on such conditions
being present.
In the Committee’s view, there have
been several key problems regarding
ground conditions. First, cranes are
commonly brought on site by a
subcontractor, who typically neither has
control over ground conditions nor
knowledge of hidden hazards. For
example, an HVAC subcontractor will
usually not have the contractual
authority to alter site conditions and
will not know about hidden conditions
such as sewer lines under the area
where the crane will be located.
Consequently, when ground conditions
are inadequate, the subcontractor is
typically unable to correct those
conditions itself. Attempts to get other
entities at the site to correct the
conditions are often unsuccessful,
which has led to cranes being set up on
inadequate ground conditions.
Another problem is that the entity
that usually does have such authority—
the controlling entity—may not have the
expertise to know what changes are
needed to make the ground conditions
suitable for crane operations. This
proposed section is designed to address
these problems so that ground
conditions will be made sufficient for
safe crane operations.
Paragraph 1402(a) Definitions
Proposed paragraph (a) provides
definitions of key terms used in this
proposed section.
The term ‘‘ground conditions’’ would
be defined as the ability of the ground
to support the equipment (including
slope, compaction and firmness). The
Committee believed that slope,
compaction and firmness are the key
factors that are involved in the ability of
the ground to support the equipment.
‘‘Supporting materials’’ would be
defined as meaning blocking, mats,
cribbing, marsh buggies (in marshes/
wetlands), or similar supporting
materials or devices. Such materials
typically help to distribute the load of
the crane over a broad area and/or assist
in leveling the equipment. The list in
the definition of examples of such
materials is nonexclusive—it includes
similar materials and devices that
would serve the same purpose(s).
Paragraph 1402(b)
Under proposed paragraph (b), the
equipment would be prohibited from
being assembled or used unless ground
conditions are firm, drained (except for
marshes/wetlands), and graded to a
sufficient extent so that, in conjunction
(if necessary) with the use of supporting
materials, the equipment manufacturer’s
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59739
specifications for adequate support and
degree of level of the equipment are
met. A crane’s stability depends (in
part) on the crane being level, and
‘‘degree of level’’ is a term used in the
industry to describe the manufacturer’s
specification for how level the crane
must be.
The Committee believed that crane
tip-over incidents caused by inadequate
ground conditions are a significant
cause of injuries and fatalities.
Conditions that enhance the chance of
such accidents include ground that is
wet or muddy, poorly graded, or that is
loose fill (or otherwise disturbed soil)
that has not been compacted. The
Committee believed that requiring
adequate ground conditions will
prevent many of these accidents.
This proposed provision would not
require the ground conditions alone to
be sufficient to support the equipment.
The Committee recognized that such a
requirement would be unnecessarily
restrictive, since adequate support can
often be achieved with the use of
supporting materials. However,
supporting materials cannot compensate
for all ground condition problems. As a
result, the Committee found that an
appropriate approach would be to
require that ground conditions be
sufficiently firm, drained (except for
marshes/wetlands) and graded to a
sufficient extent so that, in conjunction
(if necessary) with supporting materials,
the support and degree of level would
be adequate. ‘‘Adequate’’ in this context
would mean sufficient to meet the
equipment manufacturer’s
specifications for support and degree of
level of the equipment.
In practical terms, the ultimate test of
whether this criterion is met is whether
the equipment can be set up so that it
is within the manufacturer’s
specifications for the needed support for
the equipment and the degree of level of
the equipment and whether it can
remain within those specifications
while in use.
The Committee considered using
more specific criteria, such as
specifications for slope, compaction and
firmness. That approach was rejected by
the Committee for two reasons. First, in
its view, such specifications would be
unduly burdensome since employers
would need to conduct complex tests
with sophisticated instruments to
ensure compliance. Second, it believed
that such tests are unnecessary because
the person or persons supervising the
equipment assembly and the crane
operator would have sufficient expertise
to assess the adequacy of ground
conditions without the use of complex
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59740
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
ground assessment tests and related
instruments.
The individual (or team) supervising
the equipment assembly (referred to in
proposed § 1926.1404(a) as the ‘‘A/D
supervisor’’) would, under proposed
§ 1926.1404(a), individually or
collectively meet the definition of both
a competent and qualified person. Also,
under proposed § 1926.1427 (and
specifically proposed
§ 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(E)(1)), the crane
operator would have technical
knowledge applicable to the suitability
of the supporting ground and surface to
handle expected loads. In view of that
level of knowledge, the Committee
believed that both the A/D supervisor
and the crane operator would be able to
assess the adequacy of ground
conditions without the use of complex
ground assessment tests and related
instruments.
OSHA notes that proposed
§ 1926.1402(e) refers to the ‘‘individual’’
supervising the equipment assembly.
Since the individual or individuals
supervising the equipment assembly are
referred to throughout this proposed
rule as the ‘‘A/D supervisor,’’ 4 OSHA
has, for clarity, replaced the phrase
‘‘individual supervising the equipment
assembly’’ in § 1926.1402(e) with ‘‘A/D
supervisor.’’
Proposed paragraph 1402(b) would
require the ground to be drained except
for marshes/wetlands. This exception
was included because the Committee
was aware that, in many instances, the
draining of marshes/wetlands is
prohibited or restricted by
environmental laws. Since there are
devices available, such as marsh
buggies, that are designed to provide
adequate support to cranes in such areas
(a marsh buggy is a device designed to
support equipment such as a crane in
swampy terrain; it can cross such terrain
with that equipment on board), the
Committee believed that such an
exception would be appropriate.
Paragraph 1402(c)
Under proposed paragraph 1402(c),
the controlling entity would have
several specific duties regarding ground
conditions. ‘‘Controlling entity’’ is
defined in proposed § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a
prime contractor, general contractor,
construction manager or any other legal
entity which has the overall
responsibility for the construction of the
project—its planning, quality and
completion.’’ This definition, which
mirrors the definition of ‘‘controlling
contractor’’ in the steel erection
4 ‘‘A/D supervisor’’ is defined in proposed
§ 1926.1401, Definitions.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
standard, subpart R of 29 CFR part 1926,
reflects the core principle of general
supervisory control over the
construction site as the central theme of
the concept. The Committee believed
that ‘‘controlling entity’’ would be a
better term for this concept than
‘‘controlling contractor’’ because some
employers may mistakenly believe that
‘‘controlling contractor’’ refers only to
general contractors. Since in some
instances an entity other than a general
contractor has general supervisory
control of the worksite, such an entity
would meet the terms of the definition.
Proposed paragraph 1402(c)(1) would
require the controlling entity to ensure
that ground preparations necessary to
meet the requirements in proposed
paragraph (b) of this section are
provided.
Currently, Subpart N does not specify
who is responsible for providing for
such preparations. In effect, reliance is
placed on the various parties to work
out who would have such responsibility
through contractual arrangements. In
the experience of a number of
Committee members, in many instances
the parties are unable to agree on who
will have (or has) that contractual
responsibility, with the result that
inadequate ground conditions often do
not get corrected. Consequently, the
Committee believed that it is necessary
to specify who will have ground
condition responsibility.
In the Committee’s view, the crane
user and operator typically do not have
the equipment or authority to make
such preparations. In contrast, the
controlling entity, due to its control of
the worksite, has the requisite authority
and is in the best position to arrange for
adequate ground conditions. The
Committee considered the fact that
some controlling entities claim to not
know when a crane will arrive at the
site, and would therefore be unable to
timely arrange for the necessary ground
condition preparations. However, the
Committee found this unpersuasive. It
believed that the controlling entity, by
virtue of its control over the site and
normal business responsibilities for the
construction project itself, is fully able
to be cognizant of construction
schedules and information about crane
use by its subcontractors.
The Committee was concerned,
however, that some controlling entities
may lack the expertise to recognize
when ground conditions are inadequate.
To address this concern, the Committee
developed proposed § 1926.1402(e).
Under that proposed provision, if the
A/D supervisor or the operator
determines that ground conditions do
not meet the requirements in proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
paragraph (b) of this section, that
person’s employer would be required to
have a discussion with the controlling
entity.5 This discussion would concern
the ground preparations that are needed
so that, with the use of suitable
supporting materials/devices (if
necessary), the requirements in
proposed paragraph (b) of this section
can be met. This discussion would serve
as a mechanism for those with expertise
regarding the ground conditions needed
to meet proposed paragraph (b) of this
section to convey that information to the
entity responsible for making the
necessary preparations.
Proposed paragraph 1402(c)(2)
addresses the problem of hidden
hazards beneath the equipment set-up
area. Open spaces underground, such as
from voids, tanks, and utilities such as
sewer, water supply and drain pipes,
can greatly compromise the ability of
the ground above them to support the
equipment. At the set-up area, there are
often no readily apparent visual clues
above ground that such hazards exist
under the area. In the experience of
members of the Committee, because of
the hidden nature of these hazards,
accidents have occurred when cranes
have been set up above such hazards
and a portion of the ground has given
way.
Under proposed paragraph 1402(c)(2),
the controlling entity would be required
to inform the user of the equipment and
the equipment operator of the location
of hazards beneath the equipment set-up
area (such as voids, tanks, utilities) that
are identified in documents (such as site
drawings, as-built drawings, and soil
analyses) if they are available to the
controlling entity.
In developing this proposed
provision, the Committee was mindful
that the controlling entity often has
access to documents that may identify
the location of such hazards. For
example, a sewer line may be marked on
a site drawing, an as-built drawing, or
in a soil analysis. Under this proposed
provision, if the controlling entity has
such a document, whether at the site or
at an off-site location, it would be
required to inform the equipment user
and operator of the location of the
hazard as identified in it. If the
5 The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA
consider whether use of the words ‘‘determine’’ and
‘‘demonstrate’’ would require employers to make
and keep records to support such determinations
and demonstrations. OSHA notes that records
would not be required in these instances. Only
where this proposal explicitly requires the
employer to maintain records or documentation
(see, e.g., proposed § 1926.1412(e)(3) on
documentation of monthly inspections) is an
employer required to create and/or maintain
records.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
controlling entity does not possess such
a document, it would not be required to
obtain it from another source.
The proposed provision would not
require the controlling entity to identify
hazards that are not identified in such
documents. In other words, it would not
require the controlling entity to arrange
for tests to be done at the site to
determine if such hazards are present.
The Committee believed that such a
requirement would be unduly
burdensome on the controlling entity. In
its view the proposed provision would
be sufficient because such hazards are
typically identified in these documents
in the normal course of business.
The Committee also believed that the
duty to provide this information should
be limited to hazards identified in
documents that are available to the
controlling entity. Requiring the
controlling entity to obtain such
information from other sources would,
in effect, require it to arrange for testing.
As explained above, the Committee
believed such a duty would be unduly
burdensome and unnecessary.
During the SBREFA meeting an SER
commented on the difficulty and time
consumed in getting approval from the
controlling entity to make sure ground
conditions were adequate, especially
since many controlling entities were
resistant to checking the site themselves
for adequate ground conditions. The
commenter further stated that his
company relies on the steel erectors to
test ground conditions for the proper
support and that this system seems to
work fine. OSHA notes that while the
proposed rule would not preclude such
arrangements, the responsibility for
meeting the requirements of proposed
paragraph (c) would nonetheless rest
with controlling entity. Moreover,
OSHA believes that this comment is
illustrative of the need for the standard
to require the controlling entity’s
involvement in this phase of the project.
Another SER expressed concern that
the rule could not be properly
implemented due to the number of
communication channels a
subcontractor would have to juggle
before finally getting in contact with the
controlling entity. For example, a
subcontractor may have to go through
several other subcontractors before it
reaches the controlling entity. OSHA
believes that, if controlling entities had
the responsibilities set out in proposed
paragraph (c), controlling entities would
be more likely to facilitate such
communication.
Paragraph 1402(d)
In the event that no controlling entity
exists, proposed paragraph 1402(d)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
provides that the requirement in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be
met by the employer that has authority
at the site to make or arrange for ground
preparations needed to meet paragraph
(b) of this section. For example, if the
employer who hires the crane has the
authority to get the ground prepared in
the absence of a controlling entity, the
responsibility for complying with
proposed paragraph (b) would fall to
that employer. However, that employer
would not be required to comply with
proposed paragraph (c)(2) of this
section. This is because the information
required to be disclosed under proposed
paragraph (c)(2) is not likely to be
available to that employer.
Paragraph 1402(e)
Proposed paragraph 1402(e) would
establish a mechanism for a controlling
entity to obtain information from the A/
D supervisor or the equipment operator
about insufficient ground conditions
and the preparations needed to correct
the problem. Specifically (as discussed
above in the context of proposed
§ 1926.1402(c)(1)), if the A/D supervisor
or equipment operator determines that
ground conditions do not meet the
criteria in proposed paragraph (b) of this
section, that person’s employer would
be required to have a discussion with
the controlling entity regarding the
ground preparations needed so that,
with the use of suitable supporting
materials/devices (if necessary), the
requirements in proposed paragraph (b)
can be met.
The Committee believed that, in some
instances, the controlling entity may
lack the expertise needed to know what
ground preparations may be needed. In
such cases, it is necessary for the
information it needs to be provided by
the A/D supervisor or operator, who
have that expertise, so that the
preparations needed for safe crane
operations can be made.
For example, controlling entity C,
who has experience working with only
relatively light, low capacity cranes,
believes that the ground in set-up area
Q is suitable. However, the crane that is
going to be used is a high capacity
crane. Because of the substantially
greater weight of the high capacity
crane, a greater degree of compaction of
the soil in set-up area Q is needed.
When the operator of the high capacity
crane arrives at the site, the operator
recognizes the need for more
compaction. In this example, under this
proposed provision, the operator’s
employer would then be required to
have a discussion with controlling
entity C regarding the need for greater
compaction. As a result of the ensuing
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59741
discussion, controlling entity C would
have the additional information it needs
so that it could then comply with
proposed paragraph (c)(1) of this section
by ensuring that the additional
compaction needed to meet the criteria
in proposed paragraph (b) of this section
is performed.
Also, proposed § 1926.1402(e) would
place a duty on the employer of the A/
D supervisor or equipment operator
irrespective of a controlling entity’s lack
of expertise. For example, if the
controlling entity fails to ensure
necessary ground condition
preparations, action would be required
of the A/D supervisor’s or operator’s
employer. If either determined that
ground conditions were insufficient to
meet the proposed paragraph (b)
criteria, that employer would be
required to discuss the preparations that
needed to be made with the controlling
entity. The Committee believed that, in
such circumstances, such a discussion
would make it more likely that the
requirements in proposed paragraph (b)
would be met which, as discussed
above, is necessary for safe crane
operations.
Sections 1403–1406 Assembly and
Disassembly
Proposed §§ 1926.1403 through
1926.1406 set out requirements
designed to ensure the safety of
employees while equipment is
assembled and disassembled, which
includes the erecting and dismantling of
tower cranes. C–DAC members
indicated that, in their experience, the
failure to adequately address hazards
associated with these processes is a
significant cause of injuries and
fatalities. Two analyses of data support
their view.
A recent analysis of data published in
the Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, authored by J.E.
Beavers, J.R. Moore, R. Rinehart and
W.R. Schriver, found that being
‘‘crushed during assembly/disassembly’’
was the third highest proximate cause of
crane related fatalities during 1997 to
2003.6 (OSHA–2007–0066–0012).
Contributing physical factors included
improper assembly, improper
disassembly (specifically, pin removal),
and improper boom support. The study
indicates that these assembly/
disassembly fatalities occurred while
using lattice boom cranes.
A 1997 study by A. Suruda, M. Egger
and D. Liu analyzed crane related
6 This study found that being struck by a load was
the number one proximate cause of crane-related
fatalities, followed by electrocution. Crushed by
assembly and disassembly made up 12% of the total
number of crane related fatalities in this study.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59742
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
fatalities from 1984 to 1994.7 This study
determined that crane assembly and
disassembly was the second leading
cause of crane related fatalities,
comprising 12% (or 58 deaths) of the
total number of crane fatalities from
1984 to 1994. More specifically, a
majority of these fatalities involved
lattice boom cranes and a relatively
small number involved tower cranes.8
Almost 90 percent of the fatalities
involving lattice boom cranes resulted
when employees were removing boom
pins from underneath an unsupported
boom. (A. Suruda, et al., ‘‘Crane-Related
Deaths in the U.S. Construction
Industry, 1984–94’’ (1997) (OSHA–
2007–0066–0013).9
The Committee also concluded that
the most effective way to reduce these
injuries and fatalities would be to have
a standard that comprehensively
addresses these hazards.
Note that the term ‘‘procedures’’
which is used in the proposed
assembly/disassembly provisions is
defined (see § 1926.1401) to include (but
is not limited to) instructions, diagrams,
recommendations, warnings,
specifications, protocols and
limitations. The operation of an ‘‘assist’’
crane used to help in the assembly/
disassembly process is not covered by
the assembly/disassembly requirements
but is covered by the other sections of
this proposed standard.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Section 1403 Assembly/Disassembly—
Selection of Manufacturer or Employer
Procedures
In § 1926.1401, ‘‘assembly/
disassembly’’ is defined to mean ‘‘the
assembly and/or disassembly of
equipment covered under this standard.
With regard to tower cranes, ‘erecting
and climbing’ replaces the term
‘assembly,’ and ‘dismantling’ replaces
the term ‘disassembly.’ ’’ C–DAC did not
originally include a definition of
‘‘assembly/disassembly,’’ but OSHA
added this definition to avoid any
implication that §§ 1926.1403–1406 on
‘‘assembly/disassembly’’ do not apply to
tower cranes because the terms
‘‘assembly’’ and ‘‘disassembly’’ are not
commonly used in the industry in
referring to tower cranes. Instead, the
7 This study was limited to crane related fatalities
in the U.S. construction industry.
8 Out of the 58 fatalities, 93% involved lattice
boom cranes and 7% involved tower cranes.
9 In contrast, a 34-year study (1969–2002)
conducted by the Province of Ontario indicates that
dismantling the boom is not a leading cause of
mobile crane fatalities. This study concluded that
dismantling the boom ranked sixth out of eight
causes of mobile crane fatalities within the Province
of Ontario during 1969 through 2002. Dismantling
the boom comprised only 4% of the fatalities during
this time period. (OSHA–2007–0066–0009).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
words ‘‘erecting,’’ ‘‘climbing,’’ and
‘‘dismantling,’’ are used, and the
definition of ‘‘assembly/disassembly’’
makes it clear that §§ 1926.1403–1406
apply to tower cranes and, for that
purpose, use tower crane terminology.
Proposed § 1926.1403 would require
employers to choose among two
options: Assemble and disassemble
cranes and derricks by following the
manufacturer’s procedures, or use their
own assembly/disassembly procedures
(if they meet the proposed rule’s criteria
in § 1926.1406). Note, though, that the
assembly/disassembly requirements in
proposed §§ 1926.1404 and 1405 must
be met regardless of which option the
employer selects.
Committee members discussed
whether employers should be required
to comply with the manufacturer’s
procedures, or if deviations from those
procedures should be allowed. The
Committee determined, and OSHA
agrees, that deviations should be
allowed for two reasons. First,
manufacturers’ procedures are typically
designed for use in ‘‘ideal’’
environments: Large, flat, dry,
unencumbered open areas. However,
such conditions are not typical,
especially in urban areas. Consequently,
employers are currently unable to
implement those procedures in those
situations. Second, members were of the
view that there is often more than one
way to safely assemble and disassemble
a crane, and that it is unnecessary to
mandate that in every case the
manufacturer procedures be used.
The Committee also agreed that, while
use of methods other than those of the
manufacturer should be allowed, such
employer-developed procedures need to
meet certain benchmarks (see the
criteria in proposed § 1926.1406) to
ensure that they are adequate to protect
the employees during the assembly/
disassembly process.
Section 1404 Assembly/Disassembly—
General Requirements (Applies to All
Assembly and Disassembly Operations)
In examining the underlying causes of
fatalities and injuries from assembly/
disassembly accidents, the Committee
determined that a systematic, proactive
approach, designed to highlight the key
hazards involved, was needed. C–DAC
developed a list of those hazards and
then considered how to deal with each
one. It became apparent in that
discussion that the action needed to
address some of these hazards is
specific and straightforward. These are
addressed in paragraphs (a) through (g)
and (j) through (q) of this proposed
section. However, with regard to others,
the wide variety of circumstances and
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
methods that could be used to address
them made specifying particular,
detailed actions impractical and
needlessly inflexible. For those, C–DAC
decided to require that the hazard be
addressed but to have an Assembly/
Disassembly supervisory (A/D
supervisor) determine how to deal with
them; these are covered in paragraph
(h). Note that the requirements in
proposed § 1926.1404 would apply
irrespective of whether manufacturer or
employer procedures were used.
New Issue
The Agency has been investigating a
March 15, 2008 collapse of a tower
crane in New York City. One aspect of
that investigation has focused on the use
of synthetic slings in the process of
attaching a bracing collar to the tower
(the installation of such collars is part
of the crane assembly process). This
prompted the Agency to examine the
existing OSHA standards applicable to
the use of synthetic slings during crane
assembly/disassembly.
In the course of that examination,
OSHA has determined that neither
Subpart N nor 29 CFR 1926.251, Rigging
equipment for material handling,
specifically addresses the hazard posed
when a synthetic sling is used in a
manner that can cause compression or
distortion of the sling, or when the sling
is in contact with a sharp edge.
Consequently, the Agency is
considering adding a provision to
§ 1926.1404 to address these hazards.10
One way of addressing these hazards
would be to prohibit the use of synthetic
slings in the assembly/disassembly of
equipment covered by this proposed
standard. Another way that the Agency
is considering to address these hazards
is to require padding or similar
measures when needed to protect the
slings from being damaged such as from
being cut, compressed or distorted.
OSHA requests public comment on this
issue.
Paragraph 1404(a) Supervision—
Competent—Qualified Person
Proposed paragraph (a) would require
supervision of the assembly/
disassembly process by an ‘‘A/D
supervisor.’’ Section 1926.1401 defines
‘‘A/D supervisor’’ as ‘‘an individual who
meets this proposed paragraph’s criteria
for being an A/D supervisor, irrespective
of the person’s formal job title or
whether the person is non-management
or management personnel.’’ C–DAC
defined the term in this way to make
10 C–DAC did not consider hazards associated
with the use of synthetic slings during assembly/
disassembly.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
clear that it is the substance of the
individual’s qualifications, and not his
or her job title or position in the
company hierarchy, that determines
whether the person is qualified to act as
an A/D supervisor.
The A/D supervisor would have to
meet the definition of both a
‘‘competent’’ and ‘‘qualified’’ person as
OSHA defines those terms.11 The
Committee believed that having an A/D
supervisor overseeing the assembly/
disassembly process who had both the
authority to correct a hazard or stop the
process and who had the expertise of a
qualified person was necessary to
ensure the safety of the operation.
Many of the hazards involved in the
process are not obvious to those with
limited knowledge and experience in
assembly/disassembly. There are
numerous scenarios in which there is
stored kinetic energy in the equipment’s
component parts. The installation or
removal of components in the wrong
order, or using the wrong procedure,
can release that energy in ways that
would be unexpected to those with little
knowledge of the process.
For example, failure to place blocking
in the correct position under a boom can
lead to unexpected movement or
collapse of the boom when a pin that is
in tension is removed. Workers
unfamiliar with the concept of pins in
tension may not recognize the dangers
of removing it in that circumstance.
Having a person overseeing the process
that has the expertise needed to know
how the process is supposed to be done,
the ability to recognize dangerous
situations and how to remedy them, and
the authority to take corrective action, is
crucial to ensuring that the assembly/
disassembly process is completed
safely.
The Committee agreed that the A/D
supervisor did not have to be one
individual since two people (one with
the requisite expertise and the other
with the authority to take corrective
action), working as a team, would be as
effective in overseeing the process as
one individual.
11 Proposed § 1926.1401, Definitions, defines a
‘‘competent person’’ as: One who is capable of
identifying existing and predictable hazards in the
surroundings or working conditions which are
unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees,
and who has authorization to take prompt
corrective measures to eliminate them. Section 1401
defines a ‘‘qualified person’’ in this proposed
standard as: One who, by possession of a
recognized degree, certificate, or professional
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training,
and experience, has successfully demonstrated his
ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the
subject matter, the work, or the project. These
definitions are essentially the same as the
definitions in 29 CFR 1926.32(f) and 29 CFR
1926.32(m).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
The A/D supervisor would oversee
the implementation of the proposed
requirements in paragraphs (a) through
(g) and (j) through (q) of this proposed
section, and would also address the
hazards as described in paragraph (h) of
this proposed section.
Paragraphs 1404(b) Knowledge of the
Procedures, and 1404(c), Review of the
Procedures
Proposed paragraph (b) would require
that the A/D supervisor understand the
assembly/disassembly procedures. In
addition, proposed paragraph (c)
requires the A/D supervisor to review
them prior to starting the process unless
experience in having used them on the
same type and configuration of
equipment makes their review
unnecessary. One example would be an
A/D supervisor who has overseen the
erection of a tower crane with the same
configuration for numerous jobs in the
past year. If that A/D supervisor had,
through that repetitive experience,
developed a knowledge and
understanding of the assembly
procedures to the point where reviewing
them prior to beginning assembly was
no longer necessary, he/she would not
be required to review them.
Without a thorough knowledge of
these procedures, the A/D supervisor
would be unable to ensure that the
assembly/disassembly process is
conducted safely.
Paragraph 1404(d)
Crew Instructions
Under this proposed provision, before
beginning assembly/disassembly
operations, the A/D supervisor would
have to determine that the crew
members understand their tasks and the
associated hazards, as well as any
hazardous positions/locations that they
need to avoid.
The Committee was of the view that
accidents during assembly/disassembly
are often caused by misunderstandings
of the employees working in the
assembly/disassembly crew as to their
tasks and how they are to be performed,
as well as a failure to recognize
potentially dangerous areas in and
around the equipment. The details of
these tasks and, in particular, the
location of danger areas from which
workers need to keep themselves and
their extremities clear, often vary from
one machine to another. Having the
A/D supervisor check to make sure that
the crew members know this essential
information before starting the
assembly/disassembly process would
be, in the Committee’s view, an effective
and practical means of addressing this
aspect of the problem.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59743
Paragraph 1404(e) Protecting
Assembly/Disassembly Crew Members
Out of Operator View
One of the hazards identified by the
Committee is an operator swinging or
moving the crane/derrick when
assembly/disassembly personnel are in
a crush/caught-in-between zone and out
of the operator’s view. The Committee
believed that an effective and practical
means of preventing these accidents
would be through a communication
procedure that would provide key
information to, and coordination
between, the operator and these
workers.
This provision would therefore
require that the crew member inform the
operator that he/she is going to a
location in, on, under, or near the
equipment or load that is out of view of
the operator where the movement of the
equipment could injure the worker. The
operator would be prohibited from
moving any part of the crane/derrick or
load until the operator gives a warning
(the significance of which is understood
by the crew member) and sufficient time
for the crew member to move to a safe
location, or the operator is informed
through a pre-arranged means of
communication that the crew member
has moved to a safe location. Committee
members indicated that the use of the
(understood) warning coupled with
sufficient time to exit, and the use of a
pre-arranged means of communication,
are each currently used by many
employers and have proved to be
effective.
One Committee member suggested
that instead of requiring that the crew
member directly inform the operator of
his/her location, the rule should permit
the crew member to provide this
information to the operator through a
third person. For example, the crew
member would instruct his/her foreman
to radio the information to the operator.
Such a change could be made by
changing the last phrase in proposed
paragraph (e)(1) of this section to read,
‘‘the crew member shall inform the
operator directly or through someone
instructed by the crew member that the
crew member is going to that location.’’
OSHA is asking for public comment on
this suggestion. In particular, OSHA is
asking for comment on whether this
approach would be as protective of the
crew members as the proposal, given
that it would allow indirect
communication between the crew
members and the operator.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59744
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Paragraph 1404(f) Working Under the
Boom, Jib or Other Components
The proposed provision would
establish a general prohibition against
employees being under the component
when pins or similar devices are being
removed (note that this provision is
similar to section 5–3.1.3(l) of ASME
B30.5–2004). An exception is provided
for instances where the employer
demonstrates that site constraints
require being positioned under the
component and the employer takes
steps to minimize the risk of dangerous
movement and duration and extent of
exposure.
The Committee discussed the
inherently hazardous nature of
removing pins while being under the
boom (and jib or similar components). If
the wrong pins are removed while
employees are under the component, it
can move or collapse, posing a severe
hazard to the worker. Even when pins
are removed in the correct order, there
may be unexpected stresses in the
component which, as stored kinetic
energy that may not be apparent until
that energy is released upon the removal
of the pin—at which time unexpected
movement of the component may result.
While other proposed provisions in the
assembly/disassembly sections address
this same hazard in other ways, these
provisions in combination form a
layered approach to safety.
The Committee discussed whether
any exceptions should be allowed to the
prohibition against workers being under
the component during pin removal. It
determined, after considerable
discussion, that the only type of
situation where it may be inappropriate
to apply the prohibition involves site
constraints. For example, in some
circumstances there is no room to
assemble/disassemble the boom
horizontally using ground support, and
the boom has to be assembled/
disassembled ‘‘in the air’’ (that is, at an
angle well above horizontal, or over an
area, such as a large excavation, where
there is no ground available for
support). In some of those situations,
one or more employees may have to be
under the boom for certain periods of
time in the pin removal process.
Therefore, the proposed provision
includes an exception to cover such
instances. However, in those instances
the hazard of being under the
component is still present. Because of
that, the Committee believed it
important to limit the application of the
exception and, where it would apply, to
ensure that steps would be taken to
limit the risks involved. Therefore, the
exception would be applicable only
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
where the employer demonstrates that
site constraints require being positioned
under the component and the employer
takes steps to minimize the risk of
dangerous movement and duration and
extent of exposure.
An example of a method for
minimizing that risk and the exposure is
provided in proposed Non-Mandatory
Appendix D. The Committee considered
making that method mandatory, but
decided to include it only as an example
because there may be other effective
methods, which should not be
excluded.
Paragraph 1404(g) Capacity Limits
This proposed provision would
require that the rated capacity limits for
loads imposed on the equipment, each
of its components, (including rigging),
lifting lugs and equipment accessories
being assembled or disassembled not be
exceeded. The provision would apply
‘‘during all phases of assembly/
disassembly.’’ One example of the risk
created by not following capacity limits
is the process of installing
counterweights. In some cases the crane
being assembled is used to install its
own counterweights. Early in this
process, when few counterweights are
in place, the crane’s capacity will be so
limited that swinging beyond a certain
point, or booming out beyond a certain
point, may cause it to overturn.
It should be noted that where an assist
crane is being used during the
assembly/disassembly of another crane/
derrick, the requirements for rated
capacity during operations must be met
under proposed § 1926.1417(o),
Compliance with rated capacity, with
respect to the assist crane.
Paragraph 1404(h) Addressing Specific
Hazards
For assembly and disassembly, this
provision sets out specific hazard topics
which the A/D supervisor must address.
The Committee believed that requiring
specific means and methods for
protecting against these hazards (and,
where specified goals are stated, for
attaining those goals) would be too
limiting. Therefore, the A/D supervisor
must consider each listed hazard,
determine the appropriate means of
addressing it, and oversee the
implementation of that method.
Paragraph 1404(h)(1) Site and Ground
Bearing Conditions
This proposed provision would work
in conjunction with proposed
§ 1926.1402, which addresses ground
conditions for both assembly/
disassembly and use of the equipment,
including ground condition criteria.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Proposed § 1926.1404(h)(1) would
require the A/D supervisor to assess the
ground conditions for conformance with
those criteria, and to assess the site for
suitability for assembly and
disassembly.
Before beginning assembly/
disassembly, the A/D supervisor would
have to make the determination that
ground bearing conditions are adequate
to support the equipment during
assembly/disassembly (the concept of
adequate ground bearing conditions is
discussed in detail above regarding
proposed § 1926.1402). In addition, the
A/D supervisor would have to consider
the adequacy of site conditions which
might affect the safety of assembly or
disassembly. For example, at a
construction site in an industrial facility
with overhead piping carrying
hazardous materials, the A/D supervisor
would have to consider the potential for
the equipment contacting the piping in
determining where and how to conduct
the assembly/disassembly operations.
Paragraph 1404(h)(2) Blocking
Material and 1404(h)(3) Proper Location
of Blocking
These two provisions address the
hazards associated with inadequate
blocking. ‘‘Blocking’’ (also referred to as
‘‘cribbing’’) is defined in § 1926.1401 as
‘‘wood or other material used to support
equipment or a component and
distribute loads to the ground. Typically
used to support latticed boom sections
during assembly/disassembly and under
outrigger floats.’’ This definition is from
the SC&RF Handbook.
Proper blocking plays an important
role in assembly/disassembly safety.
Blocking is used in a variety of
circumstances to compensate for minor
ground sloping and/or to enhance
stability by spreading out the area over
which forces from the load are
transferred to the ground. It is used to
help support assembled equipment
(usually placed under outrigger pads)
and during assembly/disassembly to
support components. Blocking that is
undersized, insufficient in type or
number, in poor condition, and/or
stacked in an unstable manner could
lead to a failure of support and
consequent unplanned movement or
collapse of the equipment or
component.
When used to support lattice booms
or lattice components, the failure to
place blocking in the correct location
could have several dangerous
consequences. For example, incorrect
placement in some instances could
cause a part of the lattice boom/
component to bear too much force and
damage it. That damage could
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
compromise structural integrity and, in
some cases, may not be immediately
noticed. If the assembly process were to
continue nonetheless, the boom/
component could fail.
Improper blocking location may also
result in a failure to provide adequate
support of the boom/component. One
example is blocking used to provide
support to a boom section that will need
it later in the disassembly process, such
as after pins are removed. If the blocking
is in the wrong place, once the pins are
removed, unplanned movement or
collapse could result. Note that
proposed § 1926.1404(h)(3) on proper
blocking location is similar to section 5–
3.1.3(k) of ASME B30.5–2004 (blocking
to be appropriately placed to prevent
inadvertent dropping of the boom).
Proposed paragraph (h)(3) (Proper
location of blocking) is unchanged from
the C–DAC document and its
applicability is limited to lattice booms
and components. However, it is the
Agency’s understanding that other types
of booms and components (i.e., those for
hydraulic cranes) also are at times
assembled and disassembled in the field
and may similarly need blocking.
Consequently, it appears to the Agency
that it may be appropriate to broaden
the provision so that it would apply to
all booms and components, not just
lattice boom and components. OSHA is
soliciting comments from the public on
whether proposed paragraph (h)(3) of
this section should be broadened to
apply to all booms and components.
Paragraph 1404(h)(4) Verifying Assist
Crane Loads
This proposed paragraph requires
that, when using an assist crane, the
loads that will be imposed on the assist
crane at each phase of assembly/
disassembly must be verified in
accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1417(o)(3) to avoid exceeding the
assist crane’s rated capacity. ‘‘Assist
crane’’ is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a
crane used to assist in assembling or
disassembling a crane.’’ When used for
this purpose, an ‘‘assist crane’’ is subject
to all applicable provisions of this
standard, including the requirement of
proposed paragraph (o) of this section
that it not be used in a manner that
exceeds its rated capacity.
The Committee was concerned that, at
times, resulting loads on assist cranes
during the assembly/disassembly
process are not properly anticipated. For
example, when a boom is being
disassembled in a cantilevered position,
an assist crane is sometimes used to
help support the boom. In some
instances, the load prior to pin removal
is within the assist crane’s rated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
capacity, but exceeds its rated capacity
once the pins are removed, causing a
collapse.
The Committee discussed having one
section on capacity limits for
equipment, equipment components and
accessories as well as for any assist
equipment used while assembling or
disassembling. The Committee agreed
that having a separate section on
capacity limits for assist cranes was less
confusing and would help highlight the
hazard as it pertains to assembly/
disassembly.
Paragraph 1404(h)(5)
Pick Points
Boom and Jib
This proposed provision would
require the A/D supervisor to address
the hazard of using improper boom and
jib pick points. Specifically, the points
of attachment of rigging to a boom/jib or
boom/jib section(s) must be suitable for
preventing structural damage. Such
damage could compromise structural
integrity and, in some cases, may not be
immediately noticed. If that component
were nonetheless used, the boom/
component could fail.
The points of attachment also need to
facilitate the safe handling of these
components. Typically facilitating the
safe handling of the boom/jib or boom/
jib sections means using pick points that
will result in the boom/section being at
an intended angle (that is, 90 degrees to
the load line or some other intended
angle) when hoisted. For example, if the
boom/section is intended to be
horizontal, and only one pick point is
going to be used, the pick point must
coincide with the center of gravity. If
the boom/section is intended to be at
some other angle, a pick point would
need to be identified that would
generate that intended angle. Failure to
use an appropriate pick point in this
regard can create a situation in which
there is a greater likelihood of
unintended movement in connecting or
disconnecting the boom/section.
Paragraph 1404(h)(6)
Center of Gravity
In a variety of instances the method
used for maintaining stability during
assembly/disassembly depends on
supporting or rigging a component (or
set of components) so that it remains
balanced throughout the process. In
such instances the A/D supervisor
would be required to identify the center
of gravity of the load.
The ‘‘center of gravity’’ of an object is
defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘the point in
the object around which its weight is
evenly distributed. If you could put a
support under that point, you could
balance the object on the support.’’ This
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59745
definition is similar to the one in the
SC&RF Handbook.
One example of where it would be
necessary to identify the center of
gravity is where the assembly/
disassembly crew relies on an assist
crane to suspend a component in a
horizontal position. In such instances
the center of gravity must be identified
in order to correctly install the rigging.
If the center of gravity were not
identified, employees might try to
compensate by riding on the section/
component while it is being moved into
place, which is quite dangerous. Also,
in such a situation, if the component
gets ‘‘hung-up,’’ it can move
unexpectedly if it becomes freed.
In contrast, some methods for
maintaining stability do not depend on
rigging or supporting the component to
attain horizontal balance. For example,
if two adjoining sections of a boom are
being disconnected from each other, and
both sections are supported at all four
end points by blocking, identifying the
center of gravity of each section would
not normally be necessary.
The Committee anticipated that there
may be instances where the assembly/
disassembly method being used
necessitates the identification of the
center of gravity, but the employer is
unable to get sufficient information to
make that identification accurately. In
those instances, measures would be
required to be put in place that would
prevent unintended dangerous
movement resulting from an inaccurate
identification of the center of gravity.
An example of one such method is
described in the proposed NonMandatory Appendix D of proposed
subpart CC.
Paragraph 1404(h)(7) Stability Upon
Pin Removal
This proposed paragraph requires that
boom sections, boom suspension
systems (such as gantry A-frames and jib
struts) or components must be rigged or
supported to maintain stability upon the
removal of the pins. ‘‘Boom suspension
systems’’ are defined in § 1926.1401 as
‘‘a system of pendants, running ropes,
sheaves, and other hardware which
supports the boom tip and controls the
boom angle.’’ This definition is the same
as that for ‘‘boom suspension’’ in the
SC&RF Handbook.
The Committee identified the process
of pin removal as one that has proved
to be particularly hazardous. Potential
energy in these sections, systems and
components can be released suddenly
during this process, resulting in
unanticipated movement, ranging from
shifting to collapse. Even small
movements can result in injury,
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59746
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
including amputations; larger
movements and collapses can cause
fatal injuries.
The Committee determined that the
key to preventing these injuries and
fatalities is through ensuring that the
sections/components will remain stable
upon the removal of the pins. Instability
can have a variety of causes, including
improper assembly/disassembly
sequencing, improper rigging,
incorrectly designed support, blocking
failures and ground compression.
Therefore, under this proposed
provision, the A/D supervisor would be
required to make sure that the sections/
components are rigged or supported by
maintaining stability once the pins are
removed.
Paragraph 1404(h)(8)
Snagging
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
This proposed paragraph requires that
suspension ropes and pendants not be
allowed to catch on the boom or jib
connection pins or cotter pins
(including keepers and locking pins). In
§ 1926.1401, ‘‘pendants’’ are defined to
‘‘include both wire and bar types. Wire
type: a fixed length of wire rope with
mechanical fittings at both ends for
pinning segments of wire rope together.
Bar type: Instead of wire rope, a bar is
used. Pendants are typically used in a
latticed boom crane system to easily
change the length of the boom
suspension system without completely
changing the rope on the drum when
the boom length is increased or
decreased.’’ This definition is similar to
that in the SC&RF Handbook, but with
the addition of the reference to ‘‘bar
type’’ pendants.
Many times the pendant cables hang
alongside the boom and may get caught
(snagged) on the pins, bolts, or keepers
as the operator raises the boom. If this
were to occur the cables could be
damaged or the boom may rise then
drop suddenly as a snagged cable
releases from the pin. This can result in
shock loading and damaging cables and
components. For example, under this
proposed provision, once all the boom
sections are installed and the pendants
are pinned together, the A/D supervisor
must ensure that care is taken when
raising the boom so that pendant cables
and hoist cables do not snag on the pins
or any other component during the
boom raising process.
Paragraph 1404(h)(9)
Counterweights
Struck by
‘‘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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
definition is taken from the SC&RF
Handbook.
Counterweights are usually large,
heavy plates made of steel and/or
concrete. The A/D process typically
involves the installation and removal of
counterweights. This proposed
provision would require that the A/D
supervisor address the hazard of
employees being struck by them during
their installation/removal. During the
installation/removal process, employees
typically are in close proximity to them.
An employee could be struck by a
counterweight or crushed between it
and the crane structure if it were to
sway as it was being installed or
removed. The A/D supervisor would be
required to address this aspect of the
hazard, such as by taking steps to have
the operator minimize the amount of
sway and by positioning the employees
to minimize their hazard exposure.
Additionally, after the counterweights
are installed, the crane may have to
swing to complete the boom assembly.
The A/D supervisor would be required
to address this aspect of the hazard as
well, such as through the proper
positioning of the employees and
enhancing their awareness of the
counterweight swing zone so that they
will avoid being struck or crushed.
Paragraph 1404(h)(10) Boom Hoist
Brake Failure
This proposed provision addresses a
hazard that can occur both during
assembly and disassembly, although it
is more typically a hazard during
assembly. In many older cranes the
boom hoist brake mechanism has an
external or internal mechanical brake
band that operates by pressing against
the hoist drum. As the configuration of
the crane changes and, for example,
more boom is added, this type of boom
hoist brake may slip unless it has been
adjusted to hold the extra weight. The
Committee was concerned that the
inability of an unadjusted brake to hold
the increased load will not be evident
until the additional boom section(s) has
been added and the operator attempts to
rely on the brake in a subsequent phase
of the operation. If the operator does not
first raise the boom a small amount after
the section has been added (with the
crew clear of the boom) to test the brake,
employees could be injured later in the
process when the operator manipulates
the boom and finds that he/she is
unable to brake it.
To address this hazard, the employer
would be required to test the brake to
determine if it can hold the load. In
many cases, if it is insufficient, an
adjustment to the brake will correct the
problem. If it remains insufficient, the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
employer would be required to use a
boom hoist pawl, other locking device,
back-up braking device, or another
method of preventing dangerous boom
movement (such as blocking or using an
assist crane to support the load) from a
boom hoist brake failure.
The Agency is concerned that the text
of the proposed provision may not be
sufficiently clear regarding the timing of
this brake test. OSHA’s interpretation is
that the test would need to be done
immediately after each section (or group
of sections) is installed, and after all
sections are in place. OSHA is soliciting
public comment on this issue and if it
is necessary to revise the language of the
provision to clarify when the test must
be done.
Paragraph 1404(h)(11)
Backward Stability
Loss of
The Committee identified three points
during the assembly/disassembly
process at which there is a heightened
risk of loss of backward stability; these
are: when swinging the upperworks,
during travel, and when attaching or
removing equipment components.
Therefore, under this proposed
provision, before any of these occur, the
A/D supervisor would be required to
consider whether precautions need to be
instituted to ensure that backward
stability is maintained.
The illustration contained within the
proposed requirements for loss of
backward stability (§ 1926.1404(h)(11))
is taken from the ‘‘Mobile Crane
Manual,’’ published by the Construction
Safety Association of Ontario.
Paragraph 1404(h)(12)
and Weather
Wind Speed
Committee members believed that
wind velocity and weather must be
considered so that crane stability and
capacity are not compromised. The
Committee considered the option of
establishing a maximum wind speed, as
well as the option of incorporating
ANSI’s provisions regarding wind
speed. However, it believed that
selecting any one particular speed as a
maximum would be arbitrary because of
the variety of factors involved. For
example: different cranes and crane
types vary with respect to the ‘‘sail’’
area they present; an assembly process
involving use of an assist crane may
require lower wind speeds than one in
which no assist crane is used; and
assembly/disassembly operations done
‘‘in the air’’ (that is, with the boom
elevated in the air, without ground
support for the boom) may require lower
wind speeds than a boom assembled/
disassembled on the ground.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
The Committee ultimately decided
that a better approach would be to have
the A/D supervisor determine the
maximum safe wind speed under the
circumstances.
Other weather conditions that can
affect the safety of assembly/
disassembly would include, for
example, ice accumulation on crane
components. Ice can both add to the
weight of the components and create
slippery, dangerous surfaces on which
employees work. The A/D supervisor
must consider if weather conditions
affect the safety of the operation.
Paragraph 1404(i). [Reserved.] OSHA
is proposing to reserve this paragraph
because it can be difficult for readers to
distinguish (i) from (j).
Paragraph 1404(j)
Sections
Cantilevered Boom
Members of the Committee believed
that a common mistake in assembly/
disassembly is cantilevering too much
boom. When too much boom is
cantilevered structural failure can occur
in components such as the mast/gantry,
boom sections and lifting lugs.
Employees may be struck by falling
components from this type of failure. To
prevent accidents from cantilevering too
much boom during assembly/
disassembly, this provision would
require manufacturer’s limitations on
cantilevering not to be exceeded.
If the manufacturer’s limitations were
not available, the employer would be
required to have a registered
professional engineer (RPE) determine
the appropriate limitations, and to abide
by those limitations. The Committee
believed that in such cases there would
need to be a requirement that the RPE’s
determination be in writing to ensure
that the assessment has been done.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1404(k)
Components
Weight of
As with any load to be lifted by a
crane/derrick, the weight of the
components must be available to the
operator so that the operator can
determine if the lift can be performed
within the crane/derrick’s capacity. This
proposed requirement would apply
irrespective of whether the component
is being hoisted by the crane being
assembled/disassembled or by an assist
crane.
Paragraph 1404(l). [Reserved.] OSHA
is proposing to reserve this paragraph
because it is inconvenient for readers to
distinguish the letter ‘‘l’’ from the
Arabic number ‘‘1.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Paragraph 1404(m)
Configuration
Components and
This proposed provision deals with
the selection of components that will be
used to comprise the crane/derrick, the
configuration of the equipment, and its
inspection upon completion of
assembly. Proper selection of
components and proper configurations
are explained in the manufacturer’s
instructions, limitations, and
specifications. Regarding component
selection, the provision would address
the hazards associated with use of
components that the manufacturer had
neither intended nor planned for
incorporation into the equipment.
The Committee believes that the use
of such components could adversely
affect the capacity and performance of
the crane/derrick, cause the
manufacturer’s specifications (including
the load chart) and instructions to be
inapplicable, and adversely affect other
components on the crane/derrick.
Similar hazards are posed by
configuring the crane/derrick in a
manner that does not accord with the
manufacturer’s instructions, limitations
and specifications. An example given by
the Committee was trucks carrying
boom sections arriving out of sequence.
To save time, some employers assemble
the sections in the order in which they
arrive rather than waiting for the correct
section. This would result in a crane/
derrick configured differently than
intended by the manufacturer. Because
the crane/derrick is designed and tested
as a unit, the failure to configure the
crane/derrick as the manufacturer had
intended could present the same
hazards as those described above for
improper component selection.
The Committee recognized that,
especially in the case of very old
equipment where the manufacturer no
longer exists, there are instances where
the employer can no longer obtain the
manufacturer’s instructions, limitations
and specifications regarding the
selection of components and
configuration of the equipment. In such
instances the proposed provision would
require that a registered professional
engineer familiar with the type of
equipment involved approve, in writing,
the component selection and
configuration.
Another proposed section
(§ 1926.1434) would allow cranes/
derricks to be modified under certain
circumstances. To the extent a crane/
derrick were modified in accordance
with that section, the employer would
not be required to follow the
manufacturer’s original instructions,
limitations and specifications regarding
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59747
component selection and configuration
regarding those modifications. Instead,
under proposed paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of
this section, the employer would be
required to follow the component
selection and configuration
requirements approved in accordance
with proposed § 1926.1434.
Finally, this proposed provision
would require that the equipment be
inspected after assembly has been
completed to ensure that the component
selection and configuration are correct.
Paragraph 1404(n) Manufacturer
Prohibitions
As explained above regarding
proposed § 1926.1403, an employer
would be able to choose to use either
manufacturer assembly/disassembly
procedures or its own (as long as they
met the requirements in proposed
§ 1926.1406). However, in either case,
the Committee believed that
manufacturer prohibitions regarding
assembly or disassembly would need to
be met. In the Committee’s view, a
prohibition specified by the
manufacturer signals that, if not heeded,
a significant hazard would likely be
created.
Paragraph 1404(o) Shipping Pins
In order to properly address the
hazards the Committee was concerned
with, the Agency rewrote the language
that C–DAC had originally agreed upon
for this proposed provision. The original
(C–DAC) language read as follows:
(o) Shipping pins. Reusable shipping pins,
straps, links and similar equipment must be
removed and stowed in accordance with
manufacturer instructions.
In studying the regulatory text as it
was originally drafted it appeared the
language did not accurately reflect the
intentions of the Committee. The
provision was intended to address two
hazards. The first hazard is the failure
to remove items such as shipping pins,
which if left in place during operation
could damage the equipment. For
example, if shipping pins are not
removed and the boom is raised up, the
boom could be damaged. The second
hazard is injury to employees where
items such as shipping pins are
removed but not properly stowed (i.e.,
placed in a special hole or bracket
designed to keep the item from being
dislodged) or stored on the equipment
(such as in an equipment box in the cab)
after assembly. Where these items are
left lying on the equipment and not
properly stowed or stored they present
a falling object hazard to employees. To
better reflect the Committee’s intentions
the Agency has altered the C–DAC
language. The proposed provision reads:
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59748
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(o) Shipping pins. Reusable shipping pins,
straps, links and similar equipment must be
removed. Once they are removed they must
either be stowed or otherwise stored so that
they do not present a falling object hazard.
The Agency welcomes any comments
with respect to this change.
Paragraph 1404(p) Pile Driving
This proposed provision would
prohibit equipment used in pile driving
operations from having a jib attached.
The constant pounding of the pile
driving hammer and the sometimes
rapid descent of the pile causes the
boom to bounce. If a jib were installed
on the tip, as the boom bounces the jib
could be thrown backward against its
stops, which would likely cause
structural damage to the boom. The
damage could cause the boom to
immediately fail or could diminish its
capacity.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1404(q) Outriggers
This proposed paragraph specifies
requirements regarding outrigger
deployment. These requirements reflect
current industry best practices in the
use of outriggers. Failure to use
outriggers in accordance with these
practices could result in the overturning
of the crane.
Section 1926.1405 Disassembly—
Additional Requirements for
Disassembly of Booms and Jibs (Applies
to Both the Use of Manufacturer
Procedures and Employer Procedures)
The Committee believed that many of
the accidents associated with cranes
occur during the removal of pendant,
boom and jib pins. These accidents
typically occur because of a failure to
recognize that, in certain situations,
particular pins are ‘‘in tension.’’ If
removed while in that state the result
will be unplanned movement of a
component or the collapse of the boom
or jib.
Consequently, the Committee
believed that the removal of pendant,
boom section and jib pins warrants
heightened attention. This proposed
section focuses on protecting employees
from these hazards during the
dismantling of booms and jibs, either
when disassembling the crane/derrick
or when changing the length of a boom
or jib. To make clear that ‘‘dismantling’’
includes activities such as shortening a
boom, proposed § 1926.1401 defines
‘‘dismantling’’ to include ‘‘partial
dismantling (such as dismantling to
shorten a boom or substitute a different
component).’’
In this proposed section the
Committee identified particular
scenarios that, in the experience of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
many of the Committee members, pose
specific hazards in disassembly if the
wrong pins (that is, pins that are in
tension) are partly or completely
removed. The failure to follow the
provisions would very likely result in
unintended movement and or collapse
of the components. OSHA believes that
these requirements will help to prevent
unintended movement or collapse of
booms or jibs as they are being
disassembled.
While discussing the hazards
associated with disassembly, the
Committee reviewed particular
illustrations from the ‘‘Mobile Crane
Manual’’ by Construction Safety
Association of Ontario. It was agreed
that including these illustrations would
be an effective way of communicating
the dangers and the precautions
specified in this proposed section.
Section 1406 Assembly/Disassembly—
Employer Procedures—General
Requirements
Under proposed § 1926.1403,
employers would be permitted to follow
their own procedures for assembling
and disassembling a crane/derrick
instead of those of the manufacturer.
When doing so, the employer would
have to ensure that its procedures met
the general requirements in proposed
§ 1926.1406.
The proposed general requirements
would focus on a ‘‘layered’’ strategy for
preventing injuries and fatalities during
this process: maintaining stability of the
equipment and its components and
positioning employees so that their
exposure to unintended dangerous
movement is minimized. This reflects
the Committee members’ experience
that maintaining stability and avoiding
dangerous positions are the key
elements to preventing these accidents.
In addition, under proposed
paragraph (b) of this section, the
employer would be required to have its
procedures developed by a qualified
person. The Committee believed that,
due to the complexity of the factors
involved and the resultant expertise
needed to develop such procedures, it
would be necessary for them to be
developed by a qualified person.
Note that the Agency wording in
proposed § 1926.1406(a)(1) includes a
modification of the language in the C–
DAC document. The C–DAC document
stated:
(1) Prevent unintended dangerous
movement, and to prevent collapse, of part or
all of the equipment.
Read literally, this would mean that
the employer could choose to design the
procedures to prevent collapse either of
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
part or of all of the equipment. The
intent of the Committee was that the
procedures must not allow unintended
dangerous movement of any part of the
equipment. Therefore, the Agency
modified this language so that the
proposed provision reads as follows:
(1) Prevent unintended dangerous
movement, and to prevent collapse, of all
parts of the equipment.
Sections 1407–1411
Power Lines
Introduction
Proposed §§ 1926.1407 through
1926.1411 set out proposed
requirements designed to help ensure
the safety of employees while cranes/
derricks are being assembled,
disassembled, operated, or while they
travel under power lines. Section 1401
defines ‘‘power lines’’ as ‘‘electric
transmission and distribution lines.’’
This definition makes it clear that these
sections apply to all electric
transmission and distribution lines. C–
DAC defined ‘‘power lines’’ as
‘‘electrical distribution and electric
transmission lines,’’ but OSHA changed
the definition to make the terminology
consistent with Subpart V of 29 CFR
part 1926, which applies to the
construction of ‘‘electric transmission
and distribution lines and equipment.’’
29 CFR 1926.950(a).
The Committee believed that there is
a need to reduce the number of fatalities
resulting from electrical contact with
power lines. In its experience, the
presence of power lines at construction
sites poses a significant hazard to
employees at the site. Power lines can
be a hazard not only during the
operation of cranes and derricks, such
as lifting operations, but also during
assembling and disassembling the
equipment and traveling with such
equipment under power lines.
Employees are at risk of serious injury
or death if the equipment they are in, on
or near is at a construction site where
there are power lines.
The Committee’s perception of the
significance of this problem is
confirmed by data that indicate that
electrocution is one of the leading
causes of crane-related fatalities on
construction sites. During the years
1992 to 2005, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) reported 1,153 cranerelated fatalities. These statistics
include fatalities across all industries
and are not exclusive to construction
crane-related fatalities. Of those total
crane-related fatalities the second
highest cause is attributed to cranes
contacting overhead power lines (19%
or 219 fatalities). Specifically for the
year 2005, BLS reported 85 crane-
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
related fatalities and 12 (or 14%) of
those fatalities resulted from cranes
contacting overhead power lines.
(OSHA–2007–0066–0026).
In addition, a recent analysis of data
published by the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE), authored by J.E.
Beavers, J.R. Moore, R. Rinehart and
W.R. Schriver, found that electric shock
caused by cranes and other lifting
equipment contacting a power source
was the second highest proximate cause
(after being struck by a load) of cranerelated fatalities in the construction
industry from 1997 to 2003. These
fatalities all involved the failure to
maintain the minimum approach
distances set out in the existing Subpart
N, § 1926.550 provisions.12 J.E. Beavers
et al., ‘‘Crane-Related Fatalities in the
Construction Industry,’’ 132 Journal of
Construction Engineering and
Management 901, 903–04 (2006)
(OSHA–2007–0066–0012).
The Construction Safety Association
of Ontario conducted an extensive study
which reviewed crane fatalities from
1969 through 2002 in the Province of
Ontario. (OSHA–2007–0066–0009). This
study showed that the number one
cause of mobile crane fatalities in the
Province of Ontario construction
industry during these 34 years was due
to power line contact, with 50 of the
115, or 43%, of the mobile crane
fatalities caused by power line contact.
A 1997 study by A. Suruda, M. Egger
and D. Lui, analyzed crane related
fatalities in the U.S. construction
industry from 1984 to 1994. This study
determined that electrocution by power
line contact was the leading cause of
crane related fatalities in the U.S.
construction industry, with 39% of the
502 fatalities caused by electrocution
from power lines. In addition, the
findings of this study further confirmed
previous studies which indicated that
power line contact contributes to a
significant number of crane related
fatalities.13 A. Suruda et al., ‘‘CraneRelated Deaths in the U.S. Construction
Industry, 1984–94,’’ The Center to
Protect Workers’ Rights (Oct. 1997)
(OSHA–2007–0066–0013).
Proposed § 1926.1401 defines
‘‘electrical contact’’ as follows:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
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.
12 The authors determined that a crane’s boom
was generally the component which made contact
with the power line.
13 These studies include: D. MacCollum, ‘‘Critical
Hazard Analysis and Crane Design,’’ Professional
Safety (1980); D. Dickie, ‘‘Crane Study Confirms
Downward Trend, Underlines Importance of
Training,’’ The Crane Report (1993).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
The Committee decided that it was
necessary to define the term ‘‘electrical
contact’’ to clarify that the term is not
limited to a person, object, or equipment
making physical contact with a power
line but includes situations in which the
object comes close enough to a power
line for current to arc between the
power line and the object and thereby
energize the object.
Currently Subpart N, in 29 CFR
1926.550(a)(15)(i) and (ii), addresses
power line hazards by specifying the
minimum distance that must be
maintained between a crane and an
energized power line. For lines rated 50
kilovolts (kV) or below, the minimum
distance is 10 feet; for lines over 50 kV,
the minimum distance is 10 feet plus
0.4 inches for each 1 kV over 50 kV (we
will refer to this Subpart N requirement
in this preamble as the ‘‘10 foot rule’’).
However, the existing Subpart N
provisions, which instruct employers to
maintain a minimum clearance
distance, do little by way of requiring
employers to implement measures to
help prevent operators from
inadvertently breaching that distance.
The only preventative measure in
Subpart N is a requirement, in
paragraph 1926.550(a)(15)(iv), to use a
spotter ‘‘where it is difficult for the
operator to maintain the desired
clearance by visual means.’’ In
discussing how to reduce power line
fatalities, the Committee determined
that a systematic, proactive approach to
preventing power line contact is
needed.
First, in the Committee’s experience,
it is difficult for the operator, from his/
her position in the crane’s cab, to
determine if the crane or load is 10 feet
(or other applicable minimum distance)
from a power line. According to C–DAC,
generally operators know the 10 foot
rule but they have problems being able
to perceive or visually determine when
the part of the equipment or load closest
to the power line has reached the 10
foot rule’s distance. The operator might
think he/she is maintaining the required
minimum distance when in fact the
crane or load is closer than that to the
line. Except for the limited requirement
to use a spotter mentioned above, the
existing Subpart N standard does not
require any methodology or aids to be
provided in each case to help the
operator identify the location of this
invisible boundary or otherwise avoid
it.
Second, the Committee believed that
operators sometimes breach the
minimum clearance distance when they
forget about the presence of a power
line. For example, an operator might
conclude at the beginning of a shift that
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59749
he/she can pick and set all necessary
loads while maintaining the required
minimum distance but may thereafter be
called upon to pick or set a load closer
to the power line than normal. Having
once concluded that the power line
presents no problem, the operator might
not recognize that the situation has
changed and that there is now a danger
of breaching the minimum distance.
Another scenario is when an operator
concentrates so strongly on tasks related
to moving the load, particularly if the
load is one that requires the crane to be
operated near its capacity, that he/she
forgets about the power line. By not
providing encroachment prevention
measures, the current standard does not
help the operator maintain the 10 foot
rule and therefore does not address
scenarios where operators forget about
the presence of a power line.
Further, the current standard’s
provision for a spotter does not
adequately address these scenarios. By
requiring a spotter only ‘‘where it is
difficult for the operator to maintain the
desired clearance by visual means,’’ the
provision implies that typically it is not
difficult for the operator to accurately
judge the distance and the equipment’s
or load’s distance from the boundary.
However, a crane operator, no matter
how experienced, is normally not wellpositioned to judge either the boundary
distance or the distance the equipment
or load is from it. In most cases the
power line is thin, high up, and poorly
contrasted against the sky.
Adding to the operator’s difficulty is
a confusion of angles posed by the
power lines, load line, boom, and
position of the operator away from the
boundary. These factors are
compounded by the distorting effects of
distance on depth perception. Despite
these factors, the operator must be able
to accurately ascertain the location of an
invisible boundary and judge relatively
small distances with a high degree of
precision.
Even a small misjudgment can result
in the minimum clearance distance
being breached. In short, the current
standard assumes a degree of visual
acuity that experience has shown is
unrealistic. The high number of
fatalities that continue to result from
electrocution by power lines
demonstrates that the current, limited
provision regarding a spotter is not
effective.
Third, the Committee discussed the
reality that many employers
intentionally perform work closer than
the 10 foot rule to energized power
lines. In only two circumstances does
the current standard allow the operation
of cranes closer than the 10 foot rule.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59750
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
The first instance is where the power
lines have been deenergized and visibly
grounded and the second is where
insulating barriers (separate from the
equipment) have been erected to
prevent physical contact.
Committee members noted that
typically neither of these measures is
implemented. Specifically, the
Committee believed that most
employers elect not to use the option to
deenergize and ground because of the
time, expense and difficulty in making
those arrangements. In addition, the
Committee determined that an
‘‘insulating barrier’’ of the type that is
currently available does not, by itself,
adequately protect employees because
these barriers are only effective for
‘‘brush’’ contact. If there is more than
brush contact, they will not protect
employees from electrocution because
the equipment will pierce the device. In
order to address the lack of compliance
and the insufficient protections
provided to employees who work closer
than the 10 foot rule, the Committee
developed new provisions that it
believed would be both realistic and
effective for safely working in such
circumstances.
To summarize, the Committee found
that the existing Subpart N provisions
are inadequate. They fail to require
employers to implement measures that
would help prevent operators from
inadvertently breaching the minimum
clearance distance. The Committee
determined that a systematic, proactive
approach to preventing power line
contact is needed. It recognized that
while such an approach is necessarily
more complex than the current 10 foot
rule, it is essential to accomplishing the
goal of reducing power line related
fatalities and injuries.
encroachment/electrocution prevention
measures would have to be
implemented to prevent the crane from
breaching a minimum clearance
distance and protect against
electrocution. The employer would be
allowed to choose among several
minimum clearance distance options.
For example, for lines up to 350kV,
the minimum clearance distance
options would be: (1) 20 feet; or (2) the
distance specified in Table A for the
line’s voltage (Table A is the ‘‘10 foot
rule’’; see discussion of Table A below);
or (3) a distance closer than what is
specified in Table A.
However, there are limitations to the
availability of some of these options,
and the number of mandatory
encroachment prevention (and other)
measures increases when using a
clearance distance closer than Table A.
The proposed standard uses the word
‘‘encroachment’’ to describe a situation
in which equipment gets closer than the
minimum allowed clearance distance to
a power line. Under § 1926.1401,
Definitions, encroachment ‘‘is where
any part of the crane, load line or load
(including rigging and lifting
accessories) breaches a minimum
clearance distance that this Subpart
requires to be maintained from a power
line.’’ Encroachment prevention
measures are critical to compliance with
this proposed standard’s minimum
distance requirements.
A similar approach to power line
safety was developed for preventing
electrocutions during the assembly and
disassembly of equipment. This is
addressed in a separate proposed
section because the assembly/
disassembly process involves some
different circumstances than are present
during operation.
Therefore, use of the assist crane would
be required to comply with proposed
§ 1926.1408 during the assembly/
disassembly process rather than with
proposed § 1926.1407.
In contrast, a crane that is not yet
fully assembled is often used to
complete its own assembly. For
example, a crane is often used to load
its own counterweights. Similarly, it
may unload its counterweights in its
own disassembly process. Such
activities would be covered under
proposed § 1926.1407 since it is being
assembled/disassembled.
Brief Overview of Proposed
Requirements
The proposed standard would require
the implementation of a systematic,
proactive approach to dealing with the
hazard of power lines. This approach
would be comprised of the following
steps: (1) Identify the work zone and
assess it for power lines—determine
how close the crane could get to them.
The employer would have the option of
doing this assessment for the area 360
degrees around the crane or for a more
limited, demarcated area; (2) If the
assessment showed that the crane could
get closer than a trigger distance—20
feet for lines rated up to 350 kV (50 feet
for lines rated over 350 kV)—then
requirements for additional action
would be triggered.
Specifically, unless the power lines
were deenergized and grounded,
Section 1407 Power Line Safety (Up to
350 kV)—Assembly and Disassembly
The proposed requirements in
§ 1926.1407 address the hazards of
assembling and disassembling
equipment near power lines up to 350
kV. The requirements in proposed 1407
are similar in most respects to the
requirements in proposed § 1926.1408,
which address operations of equipment
near power lines.
OSHA notes that when an assist crane
is used during the assembly or
disassembly of another crane/derrick,
the use of the assist crane, with respect
to power line safety, would be
considered ‘‘operations’’ and therefore
covered by proposed § 1926.1408 (or, for
power lines over 350 kV, proposed
§ 1926.1409). This is because the assist
crane has already been assembled and is
being used for a crane operation.
(a) Before assembling or disassembling a
crane, the employer must determine if any
part of the crane, load, or load line (including
rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in
the direction or area of ‘‘assembly,’’ within
20 feet of a power line during the assembly/
disassembly process.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Paragraph 1407(a)
Under this proposed paragraph,
before beginning assembly or
disassembly, the employer would be
required to determine if any part of the
crane, load or load line (including
rigging and lifting accessories) could
get, in the direction or area of assembly,
closer than 20 feet to a power line. In
other words, the employer would use
the direction or area of assembly or
disassembly in evaluating whether any
such part could come closer than 20
feet. If this 20 foot ‘‘trigger’’
determination is positive, then the
employer would be required to take
additional steps. Specifically, the
employer would be required to meet the
proposed requirements under either,
Option (1), Option (2) or Option (3) of
§ 1926.1407(a). If any part of the crane,
load or load line could not come within
more than 20 feet of a power line the
employer would not be required to take
any further action under this proposed
section.
Upon further review of C–DAC’s
§ 1926.1407(a), OSHA realized there
was an inadvertent omission. The C–
DAC regulatory text read:
These provisions were intended to
apply to both assembly and
disassembly. The employer needs to
evaluate power lines with respect to the
direction or area of assembly when
preparing to assemble the crane, and the
direction or area of disassembly when
preparing to disassemble the crane. A
reference to ‘‘disassembly’’ in this
regard was inadvertently omitted.
Therefore, OSHA has changed the
regulatory text to read:
(a) Before assembling or disassembling a
crane, the employer must determine if any
part of the crane, load, or load line (including
rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the direction or area of ‘‘assembly/
disassembly,’’ closer than 20 feet to a power
line during the assembly/disassembly
process.14
The phrase ‘‘direction or area of
assembly/disassembly’’ is designed to
address the fact that, in some cases, the
assembly or disassembly of a crane takes
place not just in an ‘‘area,’’ that is, a
fixed portion of the work site, but also
in a ‘‘direction.’’ For example, when
disassembling a crane, the disassembly
process takes place in an area that
includes the area under and around the
boom’s path as it is lowered to the
ground (in most, but not all cases, the
boom is lowered to the ground for the
disassembly process). Under this
provision, the employer would be
required to assess the promixity that the
boom will be in to the power line in its
path of travel to (and on) the ground.
In another example, when assembling
a lattice boom crane, the ‘‘area’’
involved will expand as boom sections
are added.15 This area expands in the
‘‘direction’’ in which the boom sections
are added. The power line assessment
has to be made for the portion of the site
that will be involved as these boom
sections are added.
In addition, ‘‘direction’’ includes the
direction that, for example, the boom
will move as it rises into the air after the
boom has been assembled on the
ground. For example, the boom, when
fully assembled on the ground, may be
more than 20 feet from a power line.
However, when raising it from the
ground, it may get closer than 20 feet.
Accordingly, under this language, the
‘‘direction’’ that the boom will travel as
it is raised must also be evaluated for
proximity to power lines.
Another example is the assembly of a
tower crane. As tower sections are
added, the assembly process may get
closer to power lines than when the
process began on the ground. That
‘‘direction’’ of assembly upwards must
also be evaluated.
Paragraph (a)(1)
Option (1)
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
An employer choosing Option 1
would protect against electrocution by
having the power lines deenergized and
visibly grounded. Where the employer
elects this option, it would not have to
implement any of the encroachment/
electrocution prevention measures
14 As explained below, OSHA is changing ‘‘within
20 feet of a power line’’ wherever it appears in the
C–DAC document to ‘‘closer than 20 feet to a power
line’’ to avoid potential confusion over whether
‘‘within’’ means breaching or not breaching the 20
foot distance.
15 This also occurs with telescopic extensible
boom cranes when a ‘‘dead man section’’ is added
to the boom.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
listed in proposed § 1926.1407(b). This
option helps to eliminate the electrical
hazards which are present with power
lines.
However, some amount of time is
needed to arrange for the utility owner/
operator 16 to deenergize and ground the
line. Also, in some instances, especially
where the construction project is small,
the cost of deenergizing and grounding
may be a substantial portion of the cost
of the project. The Committee
recognized that, in practice, largely
because of these factors, deenergizing
and grounding has not been routinely
done.
Therefore, the Committee believed
that providing other safe and practical
options would help to reduce unsafe
practices in the industry. Those other
options (Options 2 and 3 in proposed
§ 1926.1407(a)) combined with
proposed § 1926.1407(b) are designed to
be effective protection against the
hazards of electrocution.
Paragraph (a)(2) Option (2)
Under Option 2 (proposed
§ 1926.1407(a)(2)), the employer would
be required to maintain a minimum
clearance distance of 20 feet. To help
ensure that this distance is not
breached, the employer would have to
implement the encroachment
prevention measures in proposed
§ 1926.1407(b). Under this proposed
option, no part of the crane, load or load
line, including rigging and lifting
accessories, would be permitted closer
than 20 feet to the power line.
Employers using this proposed option
would, in most cases, have to stay
further away from the power line than
under the existing Subpart N’s 10 foot
rule (employers wanting to use the 10
foot rule would have to use proposed
Option 3, discussed below).17 However,
an advantage of this proposed option to
many employers is that they would not
have to determine the exact voltage of
the power line as they would if they
were to apply Subpart N’s 10 foot rule.
They would only have to determine that
the line voltage is equal to or less than
16 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. In addition, in various
places in the original C–DAC document, the
Committee had used the terms ‘‘power line owner,’’
‘‘power line owner/operator’’ or a variation of those
terms. The Agency has changed those terms to
‘‘utility owner/operator’’ or a variation of those
terms. The Agency has changed those terms to
‘‘utility owner/operator’’ to be consistent
throughout the proposed regulatory text.
17 As discussed above, the 10 foot rule is a scale
of voltages and distances that begins at 10 feet.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59751
350 kV. As a practical matter, since
many employers rely on the utility
owner/operator to provide voltage
information, this option would save
them that step.
The Committee believed that, since
the minimum clearance distance would
be 20 feet, there would be no
diminution of safety under this option
since the maximum possible clearance
distance under the current Subpart N’s
formula is 20 feet. In fact, in the
Committee’s experience, most power
lines encountered by most employers
have voltages that, under the current
Subpart N formula, require a minimum
clearance distance of 10 feet. Therefore,
use of this option would, in most cases,
result in a higher margin of safety.
Employers who do not need to get closer
than 20 feet in order to assemble/
disassemble the crane could use this
option and would be saved the step of
obtaining the exact line voltage.
As noted above, in addition to
maintaining a minimum clearance
distance of 20 feet, employers using this
option would be required to implement
the encroachment prevention and other
measures specified in proposed
§ 1926.1407(b).
Paragraph (a)(3)
Option (3)
Under Option 3 (proposed paragraph
§ 1926.1407(a)(3)), the employer would
be required to maintain a minimum
clearance distance in accordance with
Table A (of proposed § 1926.1408).
Under Table A, depending on the
voltage of the power line, the minimum
approach distance ranges from 10 feet to
20 feet for lines up to 350 kV. Therefore,
the minimum clearance distance would
be essentially the same under Option 3
as under Subpart N’s 10 foot rule. Under
this option the employer would be
required to determine the line’s voltage.
As a practical matter, in the
Committee’s experience, the power lines
most typically encountered by most
employers would require a minimum
clearance distance of 10 feet under
Table A. As a result, employers could
usually assemble/disassemble
equipment closer to the lines under this
option than under Option 2.
Table A in essence is based upon the
same formula as is currently used in
existing Subpart N (the 10 foot rule) and
is similar to Table 1 in ASME B30.5–
2004. Unlike Subpart N, which requires
employers to calculate the minimum
clearance distance from a formula, Table
A sets forth specified clearance
distances in a readily understood table
and requires no calculations. The
Committee believed that a table with
specified clearance distances is more
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59752
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
readily applied than the formula set out
in the existing Subpart N requirements.
The enhanced safety that would result
under this option would stem from the
fact that, first, there would be an
affirmative obligation on the employer
to determine the power line voltage so
that the correct Table A minimum
clearance distance could be determined.
Second, in addition to maintaining the
minimum clearance distance specified
in the Table, employers using this
option would be required to implement
the encroachment prevention and other
measures specified in proposed
§ 1926.1407(b).
In reviewing C–DAC’s draft of this
provision, the Agency realized that C–
DAC inadvertently failed to explicitly
state that the Table A minimum
clearance distance must not be
breached. OSHA has modified proposed
paragraph § 1926.1407(a)(3)(ii) to correct
this error. Therefore, the last sentence of
the C–DAC language has been expanded
to read as follows:
If so, then the employer must follow the
requirements in paragraph (b) to ensure that
no part of the crane, load line, or load
(including rigging and lifting accessories),
gets closer to the line than the minimum
clearance distance.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1407(b) Preventing
Encroachment/Electrocution
Once an employer has determined
that some part of the crane, load or load
line could come within the trigger
distance of 20 feet of a power line (see
§ 1926.1407(a)), if it chooses either
Option (2) or (3) of § 1926.1407(a) it
would be required to implement
encroachment prevention measures to
help ensure that the applicable
minimum clearance distance (20 feet
under Option 2 or the Table A distance
under Option 3) is not breached.18
Most of the measures in this proposed
paragraph are designed to help the
employer maintain the appropriate
clearance distance and thereby prevent
electrical contact while in the process of
assembling or disassembling equipment.
Some of the measures are designed to
prevent electrocution in the event of
electrical contact. The committee
believed these proposed requirements
would add layers of protection to help
keep employees safe from power lines
during the assembly or disassembly of
the equipment.
Paragraph 1407(b)(1)
Under proposed paragraph (b)(1), the
employer would be required to conduct
18 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
a planning meeting with the Assembly/
Disassembly Supervisor (A/D
Supervisor), operator, assembly/
disassembly crew and other workers
who will be in the assembly/
disassembly area (including the area of
the load). This planning meeting must
include reviewing the location of the
power line(s) and the steps that will be
implemented to prevent encroachment
and electrocution.
As discussed below, under this
proposed paragraph, certain
encroachment/electrocution prevention
measures would be required (they are
listed in proposed paragraph (b)(1) and
(2) of this section). In addition, the
employer would be required to select at
least one additional measure from the
list in proposed § 1926.1407(b)(3). In the
planning meeting, the employer would
be required to make that selection and
review all the measures that will be
used to comply with this section.
The purpose of this proposed
requirement is to ensure that the
operator and other workers who will be
in the area understand these measures
and how they will be implemented.
That understanding is important to their
successful implementation. Because of
the critical nature of these measures,
and the seriousness of the consequences
to the safety of the employees if they are
not implemented correctly, the
Committee believed that it is necessary
for there to be a structured process by
which the employer communicates this
information.
Paragraph 1407(b)(2)
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would
require that where tag lines are used
they must be non-conductive. This
provision uses two terms that are
defined in § 1401. ‘‘Tag lines’’ is defined
as ‘‘a rope (usually fiber) attached to a
lifted load for purposes of controlling
load spinning and pendular motions or
used to stabilize a bucket or magnet
during material handling operations.’’
Thus, one end of a tag line is attached
to the load and the other end is held by
an employee who controls the load’s
motion by exerting force on the line.
If the equipment or load were to make
electrical contact with a power line
while an employee was holding a tag
line that was able to conduct electricity,
the employee could be electrocuted. The
requirement that the tag line be nonconductive is designed to protect
against such an event. Section
1926.1401 defines ‘‘non-conductive’’ as
meaning that, ‘‘because of the nature
and conditions of the materials used,
and the conditions of use (including
environmental conditions and condition
of the material), the object in question
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
has the property of not becoming
energized (that is, it has high dielectric
properties offering a high resistance to
the passage of current under the
conditions of use).’’
This definition recognizes that it is
not only the inherent property of the tag
line material that results in it being nonconductive but also the conditions of
use. For example, if an otherwise nonconductive material were to become wet
and therefore able to conduct electricity,
it would no longer qualify as nonconductive under this proposed
paragraph.
Paragraph 1407(b)(3)
Under this proposed paragraph the
employer would be required to choose
one of five encroachment prevention
measures (§ 1926.1407(b)(3)(i) through
(v)) to implement. The Committee
concluded that the use of any one of
these measures, in combination with the
required measures listed elsewhere in
proposed § 1926.1407(b), would be
feasible and effective in protecting
against encroachment. Specifically, the
employer would be required to choose
either: (i) The use of a dedicated spotter;
(ii) a proximity alarm; (iii) a device that
automatically warns the operator when
to stop (i.e., a range control warning
device); (iv) a device that automatically
limits the range of movement of the
equipment; or (v) an elevated: Warning
line, barricade, or line of signs, in view
of the operator, equipped with flags or
similar high-visibility markings.
Providing the ability to choose among
these options would give the employer
flexibility so that it could pick one that
was well suited and efficient in the
circumstances.
A definition of ‘‘dedicated spotter
(power lines)’’ is included in proposed
§ 1926.1401, Definitions. That definition
provides:
In order to be considered a dedicated
spotter, the requirements of § 1926.1428
(signal person qualifications) must be met
and his/her sole responsibility is to watch the
separation between the power line and: the
equipment, load line and load (including
rigging and lifting accessories), and ensure
through communication with the operator
that the applicable minimum distance is not
breached.
When the employer uses a dedicated
spotter to prevent encroachment under
this section, that person has the critical
responsibility of ensuring, through
communication with the operator, that
the equipment maintains a specified
minimum clearance distance from a
power line. This definition makes clear
that the dedicated spotter cannot have
any other responsibilities that detract
him/her from this task. Also, the
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
dedicated spotter must have the
qualifications required of a signal
person under proposed § 1926.1428,
discussed below. Those qualifications
will ensure that the signal person can
communicate effectively with the
operator. They also ensure that the
signal person is knowledgeable about
crane dynamics and therefore is able to
recognize situations in which the
minimum clearance distance may
inadvertently be breached if, for
example, the load is stopped quickly
while it is being moved near a power
line.
The devices listed in proposed
§§ 1926.1407(b)(3)(ii) and (iii) are also
defined in § 1401. ‘‘Proximity alarm,’’ is
defined as ‘‘a device that provides a
warning of proximity to a power line
that has been listed, labeled, or accepted
by a Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.7.’’ 19 A Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory is an organization
that has been recognized by OSHA
pursuant to 29 CFR 1910.7 as competent
to evaluate equipment for conformance
to appropriate safety test standards for
that type of equipment. Thus, approval
of a proximity alarm by a nationally
recognized testing laboratory provides
assurance that the device will work as
intended. ‘‘Range control warning
device,’’ is defined as ‘‘a device that can
be set by an equipment operator to warn
that the boom or jib tip is at a plane or
multiple planes.’’
In reviewing this proposed provision,
OSHA realized that some of the devices
listed in proposed § 1926.1407(b)(3)
would not be operational or effective
against electrocution during certain
phases of the assembly or disassembly
process of certain types of cranes. For
example, for lattice boom cranes,
proximity alarm devices may not be able
to be used when the boom is not yet
fully assembled; at that point the
proximity alarm typically cannot be
connected and functioning. Therefore,
during certain phases of assembly/
disassembly, one of the other options
would need to be used (such as a
dedicated spotter) in order to provide
the needed protection.
However, the regulatory text, as
currently drafted, would permit an
employer to select an option
19 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 29 CFR 1910.7,
the OSHA rule governing nationally recognized
testing laboratories, and to explicitly refer to
§ 1910.7 to make clear that the listing, labeling, or
acceptance of a device under this rule must be in
accord with § 1910.7.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
irrespective of whether it would be
effective under the circumstances. In
order to address this concern, OSHA
requests public comment on whether
proposed § 1926.1407(b)(3) should be
revised to preclude the employer from
selecting an option that, in the
employer’s situation, would be
ineffective, such as by revising the
provision to read:
(3) At least one of the additional measures
listed in this paragraph must be in place. The
measure selected from this list must be
effective in preventing encroachment. The
additional measures are: * * *
In situations where an employer
chooses the option of using a dedicated
spotter, the employer would be required
to meet the proposed requirements for
spotters in proposed
§ 1926.1407(b)(3)(i). As specified in
proposed paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this
section, the spotter would have to be
equipped with a visual aid to assist in
identifying the minimum clearance
distance. The Committee concluded that
a visual aid is needed for the spotter
because of the difficulty in visualizing
the minimum clearance distance
boundary in the air (as discussed
above).
In the C–DAC version of this
paragraph, examples of visual aids
included a line painted on the ground,
a clearly visible line of stanchions or a
set of line-of-sight landmarks. An
example of a clearly visible set of lineof-sight landmarks would be a fence
post and a building corner.
In reviewing C–DAC’s draft of this
provision, the Agency noted that the
stanchions and landmarks would have
to be ‘‘clearly visible,’’ but that this
language was not used with respect to
the example of a painted line on the
ground. Since all such visual aids
would have to be clearly visible to be
effective, and that was the evident
intent of C–DAC, the Agency has
modified the C–DAC language so that,
in the proposed provision, all the listed
examples would have to be ‘‘clearly
visible.’’ This revision was also made in
proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(A).
Under proposed paragraphs
(b)(3)(i)(B)–(D), the spotter would have
to be positioned so that he/she can
effectively gauge the clearance distance
from the power line; the spotter, where
necessary, would have to use equipment
that enables him/her to communicate
directly with the equipment operator;
and the spotter would have to give
timely information to the operator so
that the required clearance distance can
be maintained. C–DAC believed that
each criterion is needed for the spotter
to be able to be effective.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59753
Paragraph 1407(c) Assembly/
Disassembly Below Power Lines
Prohibited
This proposed paragraph would
preclude employers from assembling or
disassembling cranes/derricks beneath
energized power lines. The Committee
agreed that assembly/disassembly below
energized power lines presents an
extreme risk and needs to be prohibited.
The assembly/disassembly process
necessarily involves moving and
hoisting parts of the equipment into
place. If some of this work took place
beneath a power line, the risk that a
part, load, load line, or other equipment
would make electrical contact is very
high. Also, in both assembly and
disassembly, maneuvering an assembled
crane out from under the power lines,
or maneuvering a crane that is about to
be disassembled under them, itself
poses a high risk of such contact.
C–DAC’s agreement on this provision
indicates a belief by the Committee that,
in almost all cases, the employer can
plan the assembly/disassembly so that
there will be no need to be beneath
power lines. The Committee also
concluded that, in the very few
instances where this is not possible, in
light of the extreme risk involved, it is
essential that the lines be deenergized
and visibly grounded.
Paragraph 1407(d) Assembly/
Disassembly Closer Than Table A
Clearance Prohibited
Assembly and disassembly of cranes/
derricks closer than the minimum
clearance distance in proposed Table A
(of proposed § 1926.1408) to an
energized power line would be
prohibited. If assembly or disassembly
needed to take place closer than that
distance, the employer would be
required to have the line deenergized
and visibly grounded. The rationale for
this proposed provision is similar to
that discussed above for assembly/
disassembly beneath power lines.
Engaging in assembly/disassembly
activity closer to an energized power
line than the Table A distance was
considered by the Committee to be too
hazardous to be permitted under any
circumstances.
This reflects certain inherent
characteristics of the assembly/
disassembly process that preclude the
employer from being able to reliably
maintain clearance distances closer than
Table A (of proposed § 1926.1408). For
example, when disassembling a lattice
boom, pins that hold boom sections
together are removed. Even when done
properly, this can release stored kinetic
energy and cause the boom section
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59754
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
being removed, as well as the remaining
sections, to move. It is too difficult to
estimate the amount of such potential
movement with the precision that
would be necessary when working
closer than the Table A distances.
Another example is when assembling
a boom, an error in the assembly process
may similarly cause unanticipated
movement. Using clearances closer than
those in Table A would not allow
sufficient room in light of the difficulty
of predicting the amount such
movement.20
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1407(e) Voltage Information
This proposed section operates in
conjunction with proposed
§ 1926.1407(a)(3). Under proposed
§ 1926.1407(a)(3), employers who elect
to use Option (3) of § 1926.1407(b) must
determine the line’s voltage. Under
proposed § 1926.1407(e), where the
employer asks the utility owner/
operator for that voltage information,
the utility owner/operator of the line
would be required to provide the
voltage information within two working
days of the request.
This reflects a belief of the Committee
that, in the absence of such a time
limitation on the utility owner/operator,
in many instances Option (3) (proposed
§ 1926.1407(b)) would not be useful
because the employer would not be able
to get the voltage information in
sufficient time to be able to use it. Many
employers would rely on the utility
owner/operator to get this information.
The Committee was concerned that an
extended delay in getting it would result
in employers, to some extent, doing the
work anyway without the information.
Therefore, for Option (3) (proposed
§ 1926.1407(b)) to be viable, the
Committee believed that a reasonable
time limitation for the utility owner/
operator to respond is needed.21
The Committee believed that two
business days would be a reasonable
amount of time to allow the utility
owners/operator to respond and be
sufficiently short to be useful to the
employer requesting the information.
In reviewing this provision, the
Agency noted that the C–DAC provision
reads:
20 In this respect this proposed provision differs
from proposed § 1926.1408. As discussed below,
§ 1926.1408 would allow use of minimum clearance
distances closer than Table A in some
circumstances for crane ‘‘operations.’’ In contrast,
proposed § 1926.1407(d) reflects a determination by
the Committee that there are no circumstances for
‘‘assembly/disassembly’’ when it would be safe for
any part of the crane, load or load line (including
rigging and lifting accessories) to get closer than the
Table A minimum clearance distance.
21 As noted in the introduction, C–DAC included
two members from the electric utility industry.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Voltage information. Where Option (3) is
used, owner/operators of power lines must
provide the requested voltage information
within two working days of the employer’s
request.
In a different context—determining
the timeliness of notices of contest to
OSHA citations—OSHA defines
‘‘working days’’ to mean ‘‘Mondays
through Fridays but shall not include
Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal
holidays.’’ 29 CFR 1903.22(c). Since the
term is already defined in an OSHA
regulation, the Agency would apply the
same definition here unless this rule
were to specify a different definition.
Therefore, OSHA solicits comments on
whether the phrase ‘‘working days’’
should be defined differently for
purposes of this rule than it is in 29 CFR
1903.22(c).
Paragraph 1407(f) Power Lines
Presumed Energized
This proposed paragraph would
require that employers always assume
that all power lines are energized unless
the utility owner/operator confirms that
the power line has been and continues
to be deenergized and visibly grounded
at the worksite. This fundamental
precaution is essentially the same as
currently in Subpart N at
§ 1926.550(a)(15)(vi).
Paragraph 1407(g) Posting of
Electrocution Warnings
This proposed paragraph would
require the posting of electrocution
warnings as follows: One inside the cab
in view of the operator and (except for
overhead gantry and tower cranes) at
least two on the outside of the
equipment. The Committee believes that
these electrocution warnings are
necessary to protect the operator as well
as any employees working in the area
around the crane by increasing their
awareness of the hazard. This provision
is similar to section 5–3.4.5.2(d) of
ASME B30.5–2004.
Section 1408 Power Line Safety (Up to
350 kV)—Operations
As discussed above with respect to
power line safety in assembly/
disassembly, the proposed standard
would require the implementation of a
systematic approach to power line
safety for crane/derrick operations. This
approach would consist of two basic
steps. First, the employer would need to
identify the work zone, assess it for
power lines, and determine how close
the crane could get to them. The
employer would have the option of
doing this assessment for the area 360
degrees around the crane or for a more
limited, demarcated area. Second, if the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
assessment showed that the crane could
get closer than a trigger distance—20
feet for lines rated up to 350 kV (50 feet
for lines rated over 350 kV)—then
requirements for additional action
would be triggered.
Specifically, unless the power lines
were deenergized and grounded,
encroachment prevention measures
would have to be implemented to
prevent the crane from breaching a
minimum clearance distance. The
employer would be allowed to choose
among three minimum clearance
distance options. For example, for lines
up to 350kV, the minimum clearance
distance options would be 20 feet, or the
distance specified in Table A (of
proposed § 1926.1408) for the line’s
voltage (Table A is the ‘‘10 foot rule’’;
see discussion of Table A below), or a
distance closer than what is specified in
Table A.
However, there are limitations to the
availability of some of these options,
and the number of mandatory
encroachment prevention (and other)
measures increases when using a
clearance distance closer than Table
A.22
Paragraph 1408(a) Hazard Assessments
and Precautions Inside the Work Zone
Before beginning crane/derrick
operations, the employer would be
required to determine if power lines
would pose a hazard. The first step in
this process would be to identify the
work zone for which this hazard
assessment will be made (proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(1)). The employer would
have two options for defining the work
zone.
Under the first option (proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(1)(i)), the employer
would be required to define the work
zone by marking boundaries and
prohibiting the operator from operating
the equipment past those boundaries.
Examples of how to demarcate the
boundaries include using flags or
devices such as a range limit device or
range control warning device. ‘‘Range
control warning device’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a device that can be set
by an equipment operator to warn that
the boom or jib tip is at a plane or
multiple planes.’’ See the explanation
22 An employer engaged in subpart V (of 29 CFR
part 1926) work (power transmission and
distribution) would also have to comply with most
of these provisions. However, when certain
prerequisites are met, it would be permitted to use
the minimum clearance distances in Subpart V’s
Table V–1. In addition, where additional
prerequisites are met, it would be permitted to work
closer than the Table V–1 distances. These are
explained in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1410.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
below of ‘‘range limit device’’ at the end
of the discussion of this section.
Employers would not be permitted to
use existing landmarks to demarcate
boundaries unless they are marked. For
example, a line of trees would be
insufficient. Without anything more the
trees would not signal a reminder to the
operator of there being a boundary that
must be maintained. However, adding
flags to those trees would be sufficient
because the flags would serve as a
reminder that the trees are located along
a boundary that the operator must not
breach.
The boundaries must mark the limits
of all crane movement. For example, a
work zone could be defined by
demarcating boundaries: (1) To the left
and right of the operator, to limit the
lateral movement of the boom, and (2)
in front of the operator, in a line
connecting the side boundaries, limiting
the boom’s radius.
In identifying the work zone, the
employer must consider the entire area
in which the crane will need to operate.
If the crane will need to be positioned
in more than one spot to accomplish its
work, or to travel with a load, the
employer would be required to consider
the total area in which it will need to
operate and set the boundaries
accordingly.
The second option for identifying the
work zone (proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(1)(ii)) would be to define
the work zone as the area 360 degrees
around the crane, up to the crane’s
maximum working radius. In other
words, under this option, the work zone
would be the area within a circle, with
the crane at the center, and the radius
defined by the maximum working
radius of the crane. No boundaries
would have to be marked under this
option since the crane would be
permitted to operate in the entire area
that it could reach.
Paragraph 1408(a)(2)
Once the employer has identified the
work zone according to proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(1), it would then be
required to make the power line hazard
assessment. Specifically, it must
determine if any part of the crane, load
or load line (including rigging and
lifting accessories) could come within a
‘‘trigger’’ distance—20 feet of a power
line. This determination must be made
based upon the assumption that the
crane would be operated up to its
maximum working radius (or, if a
demarcated boundary is closer than the
maximum working radius, the
assessment must be made with the
assumption that the crane would be
operated up to that boundary).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Even if the employer has no intention
of working up to the crane’s maximum
radius in the work zone, the assessment
must still be made using this
assumption. The Committee believed
that this is crucial since, even if the
employer’s original intention was not to
operate in that part of the work zone,
unexpected events may occur that may
lead the operator to operate the
equipment there.
If this 20 foot ‘‘trigger’’ determination
is positive, then the employer would be
required to take additional steps.
Specifically, the employer would be
required to meet the proposed
requirements under either, Option (1),
Option (2), or Option (3) of proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(2).23
Paragraph 1408(a)(2)(i)
Option (1)
An employer choosing Option (1)
would protect against electrocution by
having the power lines deenergized and
visibly grounded at the worksite. This
option would prevent equipment that
contacts the power line from becoming
energized. The power line must be
‘‘visibly grounded at the worksite’’ so
that the employer can verify, through
observation, that the protection
provided by this option remains in
place for as long as the employer
continues to rely on it.
Where the employer elects this
option, it would not have to implement
any of the encroachment/electrocution
prevention measures listed in proposed
§ 1926.1408(b). However, some amount
of time is needed to arrange for the
utility owner/operator to deenergize and
ground the line. Also, in some
instances, especially where the
construction project is small, the cost of
deenergizing and grounding may be a
substantial portion of the cost of the
project. The Committee recognized that,
in practice, largely because of these
factors, deenergizing and grounding has
not been routinely done.
Therefore, the committee believed
that providing other safe and practical
options would help to reduce unsafe
practices in the industry. Those other
options (Options 2 and 3 in proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) and (iii), discussed
23 If any part of the crane, load or load line could
not come closer than 20 feet to a power line the
employer would not be required to take any further
action under this proposed section. However, the
employer may encounter a situation where it
unexpectedly needs to increase the size of the work
zone. This may occur, for example, as a result of
an unanticipated need to change the crane’s
position or to have the crane operate beyond the
original work zone boundaries. In such a case the
employer would be required to go back to the first
step under proposed § 1926.1408(a)(1), re-identify a
work zone and conduct a new 20 foot ‘‘trigger’’
assessment.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59755
below) combined with proposed
§ 1926.1408(b) are designed to afford
effective protection against the hazards
of electrocution.
Paragraph 1408(a)(2)(ii)
Option (2)
Under Option 2 (proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)), the employer
would be required to maintain a
minimum clearance distance of 20 feet.
To help ensure that this distance is not
breached, the employer would have to
implement the encroachment
prevention measures in proposed
§ 1926.1407(b). Under this proposed
option, no part of the crane, load or load
line, including rigging and lifting
accessories, would be permitted closer
than 20 feet to the power line.
Employers using this proposed option
would, in most cases, have to stay
further away from the power line than
under the existing Subpart N’s 10 foot
rule (employers wanting to use the 10
foot rule would have to use proposed
Option 3 (in § 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)).
However, proper application of the 10
foot rule, as a practical matter,
necessitates determining the exact
voltage of the power line.24 An
advantage of this proposed option to
many employers is that they would not
have to determine the exact voltage of
the power line (they would only have to
determine that the line is equal to or
less than 350 kV). As a practical matter,
since many employers rely on the utility
owner/operator to provide voltage
information, this option would save
them that step.
The Committee believed that, since
the minimum clearance distance would
be 20 feet, there would be no
diminution of safety under this option
since the maximum possible clearance
distance under the current Subpart N’s
formula is 20 feet. In fact, in the
Committee’s experience, most power
lines encountered by most employers
have voltages that, under the current
Subpart N’s formula, require a
minimum clearance distance of 10 feet.
Therefore, use of this option would, in
most cases, result in a higher margin of
safety. Employers who do not need to
get closer than 20 feet in order to do
their work could use this option and
would be saved the step of obtaining the
exact line voltage.
As noted above, in addition to
maintaining a minimum clearance
distance of 20 feet, employers using this
option would be required to implement
the encroachment prevention and other
24 As discussed above, the 10 foot rule is a scale
of voltages and distances that begins at 10 feet and
increases to 20 feet (for line voltages up to 350kV).
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59756
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
measures specified in proposed
§ 1926.1408(b).
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1408(a)(2)(iii)
Option (3)
Under Option 3 (proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)), the employer
would be required to maintain a
minimum clearance distance in
accordance with Table A (of proposed
§ 1926.1408). Under Table A, depending
on the voltage of the power line, the
minimum approach distance ranges
from 10 feet to 20 feet.25 Under this
option the employer would be required
to determine the line’s voltage.
As a practical matter, in the
Committee’s experience, the power lines
most typically encountered by most
employers have a minimum clearance
distance of 10 feet under Table A. As a
result, employers could usually work
closer to the lines under this option
than under Option 2 (proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)). Table A in essence
is based upon the same formula as is
currently used in existing Subpart N.
Therefore, the minimum clearance
distance would be similar under Option
3 (in proposed § 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)) as
under the existing requirements.
The information in Table A (of
proposed § 1926.1408) of the proposed
rule is similar to information in Table 1
of ASME B30.5–2004. The Committee
believed that a table with specified
clearance distances is more
understandable than the formula set out
in the existing Subpart N requirements.
Proposed Table A is intended to be a
clear way of conveying the minimum
clearance distances.
The enhanced safety that would result
under this option would stem from the
fact that, first, there would be an
affirmative obligation on the employer
to determine the power line voltage so
that the correct Table A minimum
clearance distance could be determined.
Second, in addition to maintaining the
minimum clearance distance specified
in the Table, employers using this
option would be required to implement
the encroachment prevention and other
measures specified in proposed
§ 1926.1408(b).
In reviewing C–DAC’s draft of this
provision, the Agency realized that C–
DAC inadvertently failed to explicitly
state that the Table A minimum
clearance distance must not be
breached. Therefore, OSHA has
modified proposed § 1926.1408(a)(2) to
correct this error. The last sentence of
the C–DAC language has been expanded
to read as follows:
25 The range referred to here is the range in the
part of the table that is applicable up to 350kV.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
If so, then the employer must follow the
requirements in paragraph (b) to ensure that
no part of the crane, load line, or load
(including rigging and lifting accessories),
gets closer to the line than the minimum
clearance distance.
Paragraph 1408(b) Preventing
Encroachment/Electrocution
Once the employer has determined
that some part of the crane, load or load
line could come within the work zone
assessment trigger distance of 20 feet of
a power line (see proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)), if it chooses either
Option (2) or (3) (of proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) and (iii)), it would
be required to implement encroachment
prevention measures to help ensure that
the applicable minimum approach
distance (20 feet under Option 2 or the
Table A (of proposed § 1926.1408)
distance under Option 3 is not
breached.26 Most of the measures in this
proposed paragraph are designed to
help the employer maintain the
appropriate distance and thereby
prevent electrical contact while
operating the equipment. Some of the
measures are designed to prevent
electrocution in the event of electrical
contact. The committee believed these
proposed requirements would add
layers of protection to help keep
employees safe from energized power
lines.
Paragraph 1408(b)(1)
Under proposed 1408(b)(1) the
employer would be required to conduct
a planning meeting with the operator
and other workers who will be in the
area of the crane or load. This planning
meeting must include reviewing the
location of the power line(s) and the
steps that will be implemented to
prevent encroachment and
electrocution.
As discussed below, under this
proposed paragraph, certain
encroachment/electrocution prevention
measures would be required (they are
listed in proposed § 1926.1408(b)(1)
through (3)). In addition, the employer
would be required to select at least one
additional measure from the list in
proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4). In the
planning meeting, the employer would
be required to make that selection and
review all the measures that will be
used to comply with this section. The
purpose of this proposed requirement is
to ensure that the operator and other
workers who will be in the area
26 Alternatively, under Option (1) of proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(i), the employer could have the lines
deenergized and grounded. If Option (1) were
selected, no further action under this section would
be required.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
understand these measures and how
they will be implemented. That
understanding is important to their
successful implementation. Because of
the critical nature of these measures,
and the seriousness of the consequences
to the safety of the employees if they are
not implemented correctly, the
Committee believed that it is necessary
for there to be a structured process by
which the employer communicates this
information.
Paragraph 1408(b)(2)
Proposed § 1926.1408(b)(2) would
require that where tag lines are used
they must be non-conductive. This
provision would provide additional
protection to those employees who
would be exposed to electrical hazards
in the event that the equipment, load
line, tag line or load contacts a power
line and the tag line they are holding
becomes energized.
Paragraph 1408(b)(3)
Proposed § 1926.1408(b)(3) would
require elevated: Warning lines,
barricades or line of signs, in view of the
crane operator equipped with flags or
similar high-visibility markings, at 20
feet from the power line (if using Option
(2) (of proposed § 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)) or
at the minimum approach distance
under Table A (if using Option (3) (of
proposed § 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)). This
provision is designed to serve as a
reminder to the operator that there are
power lines with associated minimum
clearance distances that must be met.
Warning lines, barricades or a line of
signs in the operator’s view equipped
with high-visibility markings would
also indicate to the operator where the
minimum approach distance boundary
is located. This would serve as one of
two layers of protection (the second
layer would consist of an additional
means selected by the employer under
proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4), discussed
below).
C–DAC discussed and ultimately
rejected the idea of permitting a visual
line on the ground which would mark
the minimum approach distance
because an operator would generally not
notice or see a line on the ground and
because, from where the operator sits, it
would be particularly difficult for the
operator to extrapolate from that line the
location of the boundary in the air. The
committee decided that these visual
reminders need to be elevated, or as the
proposed definition states, sufficiently
elevated from the ground level to
accurately enable the operator to judge
the distance between the load, load line
(including rigging and lifting
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
accessories) or crane and the boundary
marked by the elevated warning line.
In reviewing the C–DAC draft of this
provision, OSHA realized that there
may be situations where the employer
would not be able to place such a line
so that it would be visible to the
operator. In such a case, in order to have
two layers of protection, it would be
necessary to require that a dedicated
spotter be used in addition to one of the
other (non-spotter) methods described
below in proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4).
Therefore, OSHA is planning on
modifying this proposed provision by
adding the following after the last
sentence in proposed § 1926.1408(b)(3):
If the operator is unable to see the elevated
warning line, a dedicated spotter must be
used as described in § 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii) in
addition to implementing either the measure
described in § 1926.1408(b)(4)(i), (iii), (iv) or
(v).
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
The Agency requests public comment
on this issue.
Paragraph 1408(b)(4)
This proposed section sets out a list
of five prevention measures, from which
the employer would be required to
select at least one, when the employer
elects to use either Option (2) or Option
(3) under § 1926.1408(a)(2). In the
Committee’s experience, the use of any
one of these measures, in combination
with the required measures listed
elsewhere in proposed § 1926.1408(b),
would be feasible and effective in
protecting against encroachment/
electrocution. The first four measures
are methods for encroachment
prevention. The fifth measure is a
method of electrocution prevention in
the event of electrical contact with a
power line. Specifically, the employer
would be required to choose either: (i)
A proximity alarm; (ii) the use of a
dedicated spotter; (iii) a device that
automatically warns the operator when
to stop (i.e., a range control warning
device); (iv) a device that automatically
limits the range of movement of the
equipment; or (v) an insulating link/
device.
C–DAC believed that allowing the
employer to choose from a variety of
options for this second layer of
protection would allow the employer to
select a method that it believed would
be suitable, would increase the
likelihood of employer compliance and
would be an effective approach to
reducing power line related injuries and
fatalities.
In situations where an employer
chooses the option of using a dedicated
spotter, the employer would be required
to meet the proposed requirements for
spotters in proposed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii). As specified in
proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(A), the
spotter would have to be equipped with
a visual aid to assist in identifying the
minimum clearance distance. The
Committee concluded that a visual aid
is needed for the spotter because of the
difficulty in visualizing the minimum
clearance distance boundary in the air
(as discussed above).
In the C–DAC version of this
paragraph, examples of visual aids
included a line painted on the ground,
a clearly visible line of stanchions or a
set of line-of-sight landmarks. An
example of a clearly visible set of lineof-sight landmarks would be a fence
post positioned behind the dedicated
spotter and a building corner ahead of
the spotter.
In reviewing C–DAC’s draft of this
provision, the Agency noted that that
the stanchions and landmarks would
have to be ‘‘clearly visible,’’ but that this
language was not used with respect to
the example of a painted line on the
ground. Since all such visual aids
would have to be clearly visible to be
effective, and that was the evident
intent of C–DAC, the Agency has
modified the C–DAC language so that,
in the proposed provision, all the listed
examples would have to be ‘‘clearly
visible.’’ This revision was also made in
proposed § 1926.1407(b)(3)(i)(A).
Under proposed
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(B)–(D), the spotter
would have to be positioned so that he/
she can effectively gauge the clearance
distance from the power line; the
spotter, where necessary, must use
equipment that enables him/her to
communicate directly with the
equipment operator; and the spotter
must give timely information to the
operator so that the required clearance
distance can be maintained. C–DAC
believed that each criterion is needed
for the spotter to be able to be effective.
Proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4)(iii) would
give the employer the option of using a
device that automatically warns the
operator when to stop movement, such
as a range control warning device. Such
a device must be set to give the operator
sufficient warning to prevent
encroachment. ‘‘Range control warning
device’’defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a
device that can be set by an equipment
operator to warn that the boom or jib tip
is at a plane or multiple planes.’’ For
example: an employer has chosen the
option of maintaining a 20 foot distance
from the power line. Under proposed
§ 1926.1408(b)(4), it has chosen to use a
range control warning device to help
maintain that distance. The device
would have to be set to alert the
operator in time to prevent the boom,
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59757
load line or load (which ever is closest
to the line) from breaching that 20 foot
distance. As a practical matter, the
device would have to be set to sound
the warning more than 20 feet from the
line, since the operator will need some
time to react and to account for the
momentum of the equipment, load line
and load.
Proposed § 1926.1408 (b)(4)(iv) would
give the employer the option of using a
device that automatically limits the
equipment’s range of motion and is set
to prevent encroachment. Such a device
could be particularly suitable for tower
cranes, for which the swing angle can be
programmed so that the operator cannot
move the boom or jib past a certain
range. The Committee recognized that it
may be more technically difficult to
apply swing limitation devices for use
in mobile cranes but believed that the
technology may develop so that they
could be used in such cranes.
As noted above, the insulating link
option that would be available under
proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4)(v) would not
protect against encroachment but would
provide protection to employees
handling the load against electrocution
in the event encroachment did occur.
Such a device would have to be
installed between the end of the load
line and the load. When so installed, it
prevents the load from becoming
energized in the event the load line or
other part of the equipment makes
electrical contact with a power line.
Preventing the load from becoming
energized helps protect riggers, who
often guide crane loads manually and
who are therefore at high risk of being
electrocuted if a load becomes
energized.
As stated in proposed § 1926.1401,
‘‘Insulating link/device’’ would be
defined as ‘‘an insulating device that
has been listed, labeled, or accepted by
a Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.7.’’ This proposed definition
reflects the Committee’s concern that
there be some assurance that the
insulating link/device would work as
intended. That assurance would be
accomplished by requiring that such
link/device be approved by a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory.
Paragraph 1408(b)(5)
Employers engaged in construction of
electric transmission and distribution
lines, which is regulated by 29 CFR part
1926 subpart V (§§ 1926.950 through
960), would also have to meet the
requirements in proposed § 1926.1408,
with several exceptions. First, in
accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1408(b)(5), work involving
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59758
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
cranes/derricks that is covered by
Subpart V would not be required to
comply with the proposed requirements
in § 1926.1408(b)(4). Subpart V applies
to the construction of electric
transmission and distribution lines and
equipment, which includes the
alteration, conversion, and
improvement of existing lines and
equipment. Thus, when employees are
engaged in Subpart V work near
energized lines, by the nature of the job,
their full attention is on the power lines.
Subpart V contains additional
requirements to protect those employees
against making electrical contact with
the lines. These include requirements in
§ 1926.950(c) for guarding the line or
using insulation (such as insulating
gloves) to prevent electrical contact.
Non-Subpart V workers, by contrast, do
not work directly with the lines, and
their attention is primarily directed
elsewhere. In view of these differences,
the Committee believed that the
protective measures listed in proposed
§ 1926.1408(b)(4) were not necessary for
Subpart V work.
Second, as explained below in the
discussion of proposed § 1926.1410,
when certain prerequisites are met, the
employer would be permitted to use the
minimum clearance distances in
Subpart V’s Table V–1. Also explained
in that discussion is that where
additional prerequisites are met, work
would be permitted closer than the
Table V–1 distances.
Third, an employer engaged in
Subpart V work would not be subject to
the restrictions regarding operations
below power lines, as explained in the
discussion below of proposed
§ 1926.1408(d).
Paragraph 1408(c) Voltage Information
This proposed section operates in
conjunction with proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii) (Option 3—Table
A clearance). Where an employer elects
to use Option (3) (of proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)), it would be
required under proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)(A) to determine
the voltage of the power lines. Under
proposed § 1926.1408(c), utility owners/
operators of these lines must provide
the requested voltage information
within two working days of the request.
The Committee believed that for
Option (3) (of proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)) to be viable, a
reasonable time limit for the utility
owner/operator to respond is needed.
Employers must generally rely on the
utility owner/operator to provide the
voltage of the power line. The
Committee was concerned that an
extended delay in obtaining the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
information would lead some employers
to do the work anyway without the
information. The committee believed
that two business days would be a
reasonable amount of time to allow the
utility owners/operator to respond and
be sufficiently short to be useful to the
employer requesting the information.27
As discussed above with respect to
proposed § 1926.1407(e), the Agency
would interpret ‘‘working days’’ to
mean Monday through Friday,
excluding federal holidays, unless this
rule contains a different definition, and
is asking for comment on whether a
different definition should be included
in the rule.
Paragraph 1408(d) Operations Below
Power Lines
The Committee believed that there is
a substantially enhanced likelihood of
breaching the applicable minimum
clearance distance when a crane
operates below a power line. This is due
to several factors, including the greater
difficulty of judging the distance to the
line when the line is above the
equipment and the fact that in most
such situations the operator has to
purposely look up to see the line (and
therefore is more likely to forget its
location or that it is there).
This proposed section addresses this
problem by prohibiting any part of a
crane, load or load line (including
rigging and lifting accessories) from
being below a power line unless the
employer has confirmed with the utility
owner/operator that the power line is
deenergized and visibly grounded at the
worksite or unless the employer can
demonstrate that it meets one of the four
exceptions in proposed
§ 1926.1408(d)(2).
The first exception,
§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(i), is that the work the
employer is doing is covered by 29 CFR
part 1926 subpart V. Subpart V work
involves work on the power line itself
and commonly requires equipment to
operate below a power line. As
explained above with respect to
proposed paragraph § 1926.1408(b)(5),
Subpart V work does not require all of
the precautions required of other work
because the full attention of the workers
is directed at the power line. The
Committee believed that the other
precautions required during Subpart V
work would provide adequate
protection when equipment operates
below power lines during Subpart V
work.
The second exception,
§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(ii), would be for
27 As noted in the introduction, C–DAC included
a member from the electric utility industry.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
equipment with non-extensible booms
and the third exception,
§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(iii), would be for
equipment with articulating or
extensible booms. These exceptions
would apply when the boom, either at
its most vertical point (for nonextensible booms) or at its fullest
extension (for extensible booms), will be
more than 20 feet below the plane of the
power line or more than the Table A (of
proposed § 1926.1408) minimum
clearance distance below the plane of
the power line. Where this criterion is
met, it is not possible for the minimum
clearance distance to be breached.
The last exception,
§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(iv), is where the
employer can demonstrate that it is
infeasible to comply with proposed
§ 1926.1408(d)(1), which prohibits any
part of a crane, load or load line from
being below a power line unless the line
is deenergized and visibly grounded.
Under this proposed exception, the
employer must not only show that
compliance with § 1926.1408(d)(1) is
infeasible, it must also comply with the
requirements in proposed § 1926.1410.
Proposed § 1926.1410 governs
equipment operations closer than the
Table A (of proposed § 1926.1408)
minimum approach distances. The
Committee believed that in such
instances those additional protective
measures are needed to prevent the
minimum clearance distance
established under proposed
§ 1926.1410(c) from being breached and
to protect the employees in the event of
electrical contact with the power line.
Paragraph 1408(e) Power Lines
Presumed Energized
This proposed paragraph would
require employers to assume that all
power lines are energized unless the
utility owner/operator confirms that the
power line has been and continues to be
deenergized and visibly grounded at the
worksite. This fundamental precaution
is essentially the same as currently in
Subpart N at § 1926.550(a)(15)(vi).
Paragraph 1408(f)
Proposed paragraph (f) addresses the
danger that employees could receive
electrical shock from equipment that is
operating near a transmission or
communication tower. During such
operation, the equipment could act as
an antenna and become energized by the
electromagnetic signal emitted by the
tower. When the equipment is close
enough for an electrical charge to be
induced in the equipment or load,
proposed § 1926.1408(f) would require
the transmitter to be deenergized or the
following precautions taken: the
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
equipment must be grounded, and nonconductive rigging or an insulating link/
device must be used.
Currently, Subpart N, at
§ 1926.550(a)(15)(vii), requires that
when equipment is close enough to a
transmission tower for an electrical
charge to be induced, the equipment
must be grounded and a ground jumper
cable must connect the load to the
equipment. In addition, nonconductive
poles having large alligator clips or
other similar protection must be used to
connect the ground jumper cable to the
load. By connecting the load to the
grounded equipment, any electrical
charge induced in the load will be
dissipated. In the Committee’s
experience, this precaution is neither
necessary nor commonly taken. The
Committee believed that the proposal’s
requirement for nonconductive rigging
or an insulating link reflects current safe
industry practice.
OSHA notes that the requirement for
nonconductive rigging or an insulating
link in proposed § 1926.1408(f) is a
fundamentally different approach than
requiring a ground jumper cable to be
used as specified in current
§ 1926.550(a)(15)(vii). The latter
connects the load to the equipment and
grounds the load, while proposed
paragraph (f) would insulate the load
from the equipment. It appears that only
an employee who is contacting the load
would be affected by this provision. The
Agency requests public comment on the
following questions: (1) Is it necessary
to take special precautions to ground the
equipment to protect an employee who
contacts the equipment? (2) Are
employees best protected by proposed
paragraph (f), by current Subpart N, or
by some other means, such as requiring
that they only handle the load with an
insulated tag line or other means of
insulation?
Paragraph 1408(g) Training
During C–DAC discussions, members
stressed the importance of providing
appropriate training to operators and
their crew regarding power line safety.
The Committee believed that training is
a necessary component in reducing
crane related fatalities.
The training topics listed are designed
to ensure that both the operator and the
other crew members have the
information they need to protect
themselves from power line hazards.
The Committee believed that training
for power line safety should not be
limited to operators because any crew
member who is near the equipment is
potentially at risk of electrocution.
The Agency notes that proposed
§ 1926.1408(g) does not address the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
timing and frequency of this training.
OSHA requests public comment on
whether and, if so, how the standard
should address training timing and
frequency.
In addition, proposed
§ 1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(E) would requiring
training in the need to avoid
approaching or touching ‘‘the
equipment.’’ OSHA believes that C–
DAC inadvertently failed to add the
phrase ‘‘and the load’’ to this provision,
since whenever the equipment is in
electrical contact with a power line, the
load may also be energized. OSHA
requests public comment on whether
this provision should be modified to
correct this omission.
Paragraph 1408(h)
This proposed provision would
require that where devices originally
designed by the manufacturer for use as
safety devices, operational aids, or a
means to prevent power line contact or
electrocution are used to comply with
proposed § 1926.1408, they must meet
the manufacturer’s procedures for use
and conditions of use. The Committee
believed that this provision is necessary
to ensure that the devices will work as
intended.
OSHA notes that § 1926.1408 uses the
term ‘‘range limit device’’ in
§ 1926.1408(a)(1)(i) but that no
definition of this term is provided in
§ 1926.1401. OSHA believes that C–DAC
understood a range limit device to be a
device that physically limits how far a
crane can boom out and the angle
within which the boom can swing.
OSHA requests public comment on
whether a definition of ‘‘range limit
device’’ should be added to § 1926.1401
and, if so, whether the definition in this
paragraph is appropriate.
Section 1409
350 kV)
Power Line Safety (Over
Under this proposed section, the
requirements in proposed §§ 1926.1407
and 1926.1408 would apply to power
lines rated over 350 kV in all respects
except one: wherever the regulatory text
states ‘‘20 feet,’’ ‘‘50 feet’’ is substituted.
Therefore, the ‘‘trigger’’ distance that
would be used when assessing the work
zone would be 50 feet. In addition, an
employer engaged in assembly/
disassembly that is using Option 2 of
proposed § 1926.1407 (a)(2), or an
employer engaged in crane operations
that is using Option 2 of proposed
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii), would be required
to maintain a minimum clearance
distance of 50 feet. This would apply to
all power lines rated over 350 kV,
including power lines over 1,000 kV.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59759
For power lines over 1,000 kilovolts,
employers electing to use Table A (of
proposed § 1926.1408 in either
assembly/disassembly (Option 3 in
proposed § 1926.1407(a)(3)) or crane
operations (Option 3 in proposed
§ 1926.1408 (a)(2)(iii) would be
required, pursuant to instructions in the
Table, to maintain a minimum clearance
distance determined by the utility
owner/operator or a registered
professional engineer who is a qualified
person with respect to electrical power
transmission and distribution.
In reviewing this regulatory language,
OSHA recognized that a minimum
clearance distance of 50 feet may be
inadequate for the open-ended category
of ‘‘over 1,000 kV.’’ In fact, at some
point in that range, a utility owner/
operator or a registered professional
engineer may well specify a minimum
clearance distance of more than 50 feet.
However, as currently drafted,
employers using Option 2 (in both
proposed § 1926.1407(a)(2) and
§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)) would only have to
maintain a minimum clearance distance
of 50 feet. OSHA requests public
comment on whether Option 2 is
insufficiently protective for power lines
rated over 1,000 kV.
Section 1410 Power Line Safety (All
Voltages)—Crane Operations Closer
Than the Table A Zone
The existing Subpart N requirements
do not permit work closer than the 10
foot rule.28 The only exceptions to the
10 foot rule are where the lines are
deenergized and visibly grounded or
where insulating barriers, separate from
the equipment, have been erected.
However, the Committee recognized
that many employers, without meeting
the exceptions, nonetheless work closer
than the 10 foot rule.
Specifically, the Committee believed
that most employers do not use the
option to deenergize and ground
because of the time, expense and
difficulty in making those arrangements.
In addition, the Committee concluded
that an ‘‘insulating barrier’’ of the type
that is currently available does not, by
itself, adequately protect employees
because these barriers are only effective
for ‘‘brush’’ contact. If there is more
than brush contact, they will not protect
employees from electrocution because
the equipment will pierce the device.
28 As described earlier, the ‘‘10 foot rule’’ is
shorthand for the formula in existing 29 CFR 1926,
Subpart N for minimum clearance distances. Under
the 10 foot rule, for lines rated 50 kV or less, work
is not permitted closer than 10 feet to an energized
power line. For lines rated more than 50 kV, a
clearance of 10 feet plus .4 inch for each 1 kV over
50 kV is required.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59760
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
In order to address the insufficient
protections provided to employees who
work closer than the 10 foot rule, the
Committee developed a new approach,
which is contained in proposed
§ 1926.1410. It consists of prerequisites
and criteria that would apply when
work must be conducted closer than the
minimum clearance distance specified
in Table A (of proposed § 1926.1408).
The Committee believed that these
provisions would be both realistic and
effective for safely working in these
circumstances.
This proposed section starts out by
explicitly prohibiting equipment from
operating closer than the distances
specified in Table A (of proposed
§ 1926.1408) of an energized power line
except where the employer
demonstrates compliance with the
requirements in proposed § 1926.1410.
Note that, in the discussion below of
proposed § 1926.1410, references to a
‘‘registered professional engineer’’ are,
in accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1410(c)(1), references to a
registered professional engineer who is
a qualified person with respect to
electrical power transmission and
distribution.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraphs 1410(a) and (b)
These proposed paragraphs set forth
prerequisites that must be met for the
employer to be permitted to operate
equipment closer to a power line than
the applicable Table A (of proposed
§ 1926.1408) distance. Proposed
§ 1926.1410(a) would require the
employer to determine that it is
infeasible to do the work without
breaching the minimum approach
distance under Table A. If the employer
determines it is infeasible to maintain
the Table A distance, under proposed
§ 1926.1410(b) it would also have to
determine, after consulting with the
utility owner/operator, that
deenergizing and grounding the power
line, as well as relocating the line, are
infeasible.
Paragraph 1410(c) Minimum Clearance
Distance
After the employer makes the
infeasibility determinations required by
proposed § 1926.1410(a) and (b), a
minimum clearance distance would
have to be established. Under proposed
§ 1926.1410(c)(1), the employer can
establish this distance by either having
the utility owner/operator determine the
minimum clearance distance that must
be maintained or by having a registered
professional engineer who is a qualified
person with respect to electrical
transmission and distribution determine
the minimum clearance distance that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
must be maintained. The Committee
believed that either of these sources of
this information has sufficient expertise
to accurately apply the factors discussed
below in setting an appropriate
minimum clearance distance.
Under proposed § 1926.1410(c)(1),
regardless of whether it is the utility
owner/operator or a registered
professional engineer that makes this
determination, several factors must be
considered when establishing the
minimum clearance distance. These
factors include, but are not limited to:
Conditions affecting atmospheric
conductivity; time necessary to bring
the equipment, load and load line
(including rigging and lifting
accessories) to a complete stop; wind
conditions; degree of sway in the power
line; lighting conditions, and other
conditions affecting the ability to
prevent electrical contact.
Under proposed § 1926.1410(c)(2), the
proposed requirement in
§ 1926.1410(c)(1) described above
would not apply to work covered by
part 1926 subpart V. Instead, the
minimum clearance distance specified
in § 1926.950 Table V–1 would apply.
This proposed paragraph, along with the
other proposed provisions affecting
work covered by Subpart V, are
discussed below at the end of the
portion of this preamble addressing
proposed § 1926.1410.
Paragraph 1410(d)
Once a minimum clearance distance
has been established, under proposed
§ 1926.1410(b) the employer would be
required to have a planning meeting
with either the owner/operator of the
power line or the registered professional
engineer to determine what procedures
will be implemented to prevent
electrical contact and electrocution. In
accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1410(e), these procedures would
have to be documented and
immediately available on-site. In
addition, in accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1410(f) and (g), these procedures
would have to be reviewed with the
operator and other workers who will be
in the area of the equipment and the
procedures must be implemented
(proposed § 1926.1410(e)–(g) are
discussed below).
Proposed § 1926.1410(d) sets out the
minimum protective measures which
would have to be included in the
procedures set by the employer and
utility owner/operator (or registered
professional engineer). The committee
believed that these procedures need to
include more stringent protective
measures than those set out in proposed
§ 1926.1408, because equipment will be
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
in closer proximity to power lines and
there would otherwise be a greater risk
of contacting a power line and causing
electrocution. Therefore, these
procedures would have to include, at
the minimum, the following:
Paragraph 1410(d)(1)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(1), for
power lines that are equipped with a
device that automatically reenergizes
the circuit in the event of a power line
contact, the automatic reclosing feature
of the circuit interrupting device must
be made inoperative prior to beginning
work. This would help ensure that, in
the event of a power line contact and
activation of the automatic reclosing
feature, the line would not be
automatically re-energized.
Paragraph 1410(d)(2)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(2), a
dedicated spotter who is in continuous
contact with the operator would have to
be used. In addition, the dedicated
spotter must be equipped with a visual
aid to assist in identifying the minimum
clearance distance, must be positioned
to effectively gauge the clearance
distance, where necessary must use
equipment that enables him or her to
communicate directly with the operator,
and the spotter must give timely
information to the operator so the
required clearance distance can be
maintained. The need for a spotter
meeting this criteria is explained above
in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii).
Paragraph 1410(d)(3)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(3), an
elevated warning line, or barricade that
is not attached to the equipment,
positioned to prevent electrical contact,
would have to be used. This warning
line or barricade must be in view of the
operator either directly or by use of
video equipment and must be equipped
with flags or similar high-visibility
markings. The need for an elevated
warning line or barricade is explained
above in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1408(b)(3).
As discussed above in relation to
proposed § 1926.1408(b)(3), there may
be situations where the operator is not
able to see an elevated warning line or
barricade. To address such situations,
under proposed § 1926.1408 or
§ 1926.1409, OSHA is planning to
change the regulatory text so that the
employer would be required to use both
a dedicated spotter and one of the other
(non-spotter) measures listed in
proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4). Here, when
working closer than the Table A (of
proposed § 1926.1408) clearance
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
distance, C–DAC believed it is necessary
to provide an additional layer of
protection by requiring the use of video
equipment to enable the operator to see
the warning line or barricade. Therefore,
in all cases when working closer than
the Table A clearance distance, the
operator will have ‘‘two sets of eyes’’ (in
addition to other protection required
under this proposed section) to ensure
that the equipment maintains the
minimum clearance distance
established under proposed
§ 1926.1410(c).
As explained in, Subpart V-working
closer than Table A, that follows the
discussion of § 1926.1410(k), this
provision would not apply to subpart V
work.
Paragraph 1410(d)(4)
Device
Insulating Link/
Under proposed paragraph (d)(4), an
insulating link/device would have to be
installed at a point between the end of
the load line (or below) and the load. An
insulating link is a barrier to the passage
of electrical current. When used on a
crane, it prevents the load from
becoming energized if the boom or the
load line makes electrical contact with
a power line. In such situations it
protects employees who make contact
with the load or are holding a tag line.
As explained in, Subpart V-working
closer than Table A, that follows the
discussion of § 1926.1410(k), this
requirement to install an insulating
link/device would only apply when
working closer than the § 1926.950
Table V–1 clearance distances.
Paragraph 1410(d)(5)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(5), if
the rigging may be closer than the Table
A (of proposed § 1926.1408) distance
during the operation, it would be
required to be non-conductive rigging.
This would provide protection to those
employees who would be exposed to
electrical hazards in the event that the
rigging contacts a power line, which
otherwise could energize the rigging and
the load.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1410(d)(6)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(6), if
the crane is equipped with a device that
automatically limits range of movement,
it would have to be used and set to
prevent any part of the crane, load or
load line (including rigging and lifting
accessories) from breaching the
minimum approach distance established
under proposed paragraph (c) of
§ 1926.1410.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Paragraph 1410(d)(7)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(7), if a
tag line is used it would have to be nonconductive. This requirement would
provide additional protection to those
employees who would be exposed to
electrical hazards in the event that the
equipment contacts a power line and
the tag line they are holding becomes
energized, or in the event that the tag
line makes contact with the power line.
Paragraph 1410(d)(8)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(8),
barricades would have to be used to
form a perimeter at least 10 feet away
from the equipment to prevent
unauthorized personnel from entering
the work area. In areas where obstacles
prevent the barricade from being at least
10 feet away, the barricade would be
required to be as far from the equipment
as feasible. This provision, along with
proposed § 1926.1410(d)(9) and (d)(10),
would minimize the likelihood that any
more employees than are absolutely
necessary to the operation would be
near the equipment in the event the
equipment, load or load line makes
electrical contact with the power line.
Paragraph 1410(d)(9)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(9),
employees other than the operator
would be prohibited from touching the
load line above the insulating link/
device and equipment. It is the Agency’s
understanding that the Committee’s
rationale for not extending this
prohibition to the operator is that the
operator, by being in the cab, is going
to be in electrical contact with both the
equipment and load line. However, this
assumes that the operator is in fact
standing or sitting on the equipment.
There may be some situations where
this is not the case. For example, some
equipment may be operated by pendant
control or wireless control; in such
cases the operator need not be on the
equipment to control it. OSHA requests
public comment on this issue.
Paragraph 1410(d)(10)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(10),
only personnel essential to the
operation would be permitted to be in
the area of the equipment and the load.
In conjunction with proposed
§ 1926.1410(d)(8) and (d)(9), this would
minimize the likelihood that any more
employees than are absolutely necessary
to the operation would be near the
equipment in the event the equipment,
load or load line makes electrical
contact with the power line.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59761
Paragraph 1410(d)(11)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(11), the
equipment would be required to be
properly grounded. In the event the
equipment inadvertently makes
electrical contact with the power line,
proper grounding would protect
employees in two ways. First, if the line
is equipped with a circuit interrupting
device, the grounding will result in a
current surge that will trip the device
and deenergize the line. Second, in the
event an employee on the ground is
touching the equipment when it
contacts the power line, proper
grounding will reduce the danger to the
employee by providing an alternative,
low resistance path to ground for the
electric current.
In reviewing this proposed paragraph,
OSHA has identified what appears to be
a conflict between this proposed
provision and a provision in Subpart V’s
§ 1926.952(c)(2)(iii) regarding grounding
of equipment. This issue is explained
under the heading, Subpart V work—
working closer than Table V–1, that
follows the discussion of § 1926.1410(k).
Paragraph 1410(d)(12)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(12),
insulating line hoses or cover-ups
would be required to be installed by the
utility owner/operator except where
such devices are unavailable for the line
voltages involved. The Committee noted
that Subpart N, at § 1926.550(a)(15),
currently allows such insulating barriers
to be used as a complete alternative to
deenergizing and grounding or to
maintaining the applicable minimum
clearance distance from the power line.
However, the Committee believed that
such insulating devices do not provide
complete protection because they can be
pierced if the equipment makes more
than brushing contact with the device.
However, the Committee believed that
these insulating devices do provide
protection if there is brushing contact
and that such devices are useful to
supplement the other protective
measures provided by the requirements
of this proposed § 1926.1410(d).
Paragraph 1410(e)
Under proposed paragraph (e), the
procedures that are developed to
comply with proposed § 1926.1410(d)
would have to be documented and
immediately available on-site. This
would ensure that these procedures are
available to be used as a reference while
the work is in progress.
Paragraph 1410(f)
Under proposed paragraph (f), the
equipment user and utility owner/
operator would be required to meet with
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59762
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the equipment operator and the other
employees who will be in the area of the
equipment or load to review the
procedures that are developed under
proposed § 1926.1410(d) to prevent a
breach of the minimum clearance
distance established under proposed
§ 1926.1410(c). The Committee believed
that it is important that this review take
place so that the operator and other
employees understand this critical
information and have the opportunity to
discuss the procedures with the utility
owner/operator, who has a high level of
expertise regarding the power lines.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraphs 1410(g) and (h)
Under proposed paragraphs (g) and
(h), the employer would be required to
implement the procedures developed in
accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1410(d). The utility owner/
operator and all employers of the
employees involved in the work would
have to identify one person who will
direct the implementation of the
procedures. This person would have to
direct the implementation of the
procedures and have the authority to
stop work at any time to ensure safety.
The Committee believed that, in view
of the fact that more than one employer
is typically involved in these situations,
coordination among the employers of
these employees is needed for the
protective measures to be effectively
implemented. Once the operation is
underway, safety-related orders
typically need to be given and followed
without delay. Since an employee of
one employer typically would not
immediately follow an instruction from
another employer, it is necessary that,
before these operations begin, all
employees understand that the one
designated person will have this
authority. For these reasons, the
Committee believed that there needs to
be one person who all involved in the
operation recognize as having this role
and authority.
Paragraph 1410(i). [Reserved.] This
paragraph would be reserved because it
is inconvenient for readers to determine
whether ‘‘(i)’’ is being used as a letter or
a roman numeral.
Paragraph 1410(j)
This proposed provision would
require the employer to safely stop
operations if a problem occurs with
implementing the procedures in
paragraph (d) or if there is an indication
that those procedures are inadequate to
prevent electrocution. In addition, this
proposed provision would require that
the employer either develop new
procedures which comply with
paragraph (d) or contact the utility
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
owner/operator and have them
deenergize and visibly ground or
relocate the power line(s) before
resuming operations.
Paragraph 1410(k)
This proposed provision would
require that where a device originally
designed by the manufacturer for use as
a safety device, operational aid, or a
means to prevent power line contact or
electrocution is used to comply with
proposed § 1926.1410 it must meet the
manufacturer’s procedures for use and
conditions of use. The Committee
believed that this provision is necessary
to ensure that the devices will work as
intended.
Subpart V Work—Working Closer Than
Table A
In considering the circumstances
under which work closer than the Table
A (of proposed § 1926.1408) distances
would be permitted, C–DAC recognized
that it was necessary to address the
special circumstances of power line
work covered by 29 CFR 1926 subpart
V. That subpart applies to the erection
of new electric transmission and
distribution lines and equipment, and
the alteration, conversion, and
improvement of existing transmission
and distribution lines and equipment.
Currently, under subparts V and N of
part 1926, employers engaged in subpart
V work are not required to comply with
the ‘‘10 foot rule.’’ Instead, with some
exceptions, they are required to
maintain the minimum clearance
distances specified in subpart V’s Table
V–1.29 Table V–1 has minimum
clearance distances that are less than the
‘‘10 foot rule’’ (and, therefore, less than
the proposed rule’s Table A distances).
As discussed below, under this
proposed standard, employers engaged
in subpart V work would continue to be
permitted to use the Table V–1
minimum clearance distances. However,
C–DAC believed that additional
protection is needed for these workers.
Therefore, this proposed rule includes
new prerequisites and criteria that must
be met before the Table V–1 minimum
clearance distances could be used.30
29 Since C–DAC developed its consensus
document, OSHA has proposed t amend part 1926
subpart V by, among other things, replacing Table
V–1. 70 FR 34821 (June 15, 2005). If OSHA issues
a final rule modifying Subpart V before issuing a
final rule based on this proposal, OSHA will take
into account any modifications to Subpart V,
including Table V–1, in drafting this final rule.
30 The only exceptions to the application of this
proposed rule to subpart V of part 1926 V of part
1926 work are those contained in §§ 1926.1407–
1411; all other aspects of the proposed rule would
apply. This is consistent with the current Subpart
V, for § 1926.952(c) of Subpart V requires
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The Committee believed that it is
appropriate for employers using
equipment for subpart V of part 1926
activities to work closer than the Table
A (of proposed § 1926.1408) distances
only where the prerequisites and criteria
for doing so set out in proposed
§ 1926.1410, which are applicable to all
employers, are met. Therefore, for
subpart V work, the employer would be
required to maintain the clearance
distances in Table A except where the
employer demonstrates infeasibility.
In addition, it would be required to
implement most of the protective
measures required by this proposed
standard. As discussed above, Subpart V
work would not be subject to the
requirement for an additional protective
measure from the list in proposed
§ 1926.1408(b)(4). The Committee
believed that, with certain exceptions
explained below, such additional
measure would not be necessary for
such work. Also, subpart V work would
not be subject to the prohibition in
proposed § 1926.1408(d)(1) against
equipment operating under power lines
(see discussion above of proposed
paragraph 1408(d)(2)(i)).
However, when, as will often be the
case, it is not feasible to maintain the
Table A (of proposed § 1926.1408)
distances for subpart V work, under
proposed § 1926.1410(c)(2), the
clearance distances in Table V–1 would
normally apply. The Committee
concluded that it was not necessary to
require employers engaged in subpart V
work to undertake the process in
proposed § 1926.1410(c)(1) for
establishing a minimum clearance
distance when it is infeasible to comply
with the Table A (of proposed
§ 1926.1408) clearances. The existing
clearance distances for subpart V work
found in Table V–1 recognize that such
work often requires that equipment get
closer to the lines than the clearance
distances specified in Table A and were
specifically drafted to address subpart V
work. Therefore, proposed § 1926.1410
(c)(2) would exempt subpart V work
from proposed § 1926.1410(c)(1) and
would state instead that the minimum
clearance distances specified in
§ 1926.950 Table V–1 would apply.
Furthermore, under proposed
§ 1926.1410(d)(3), an employer engaged
in subpart V work closer than the Table
A distance would not be required to use
an elevated warning line or barricade. It
is the Agency’s understanding that the
equipment operating near power lines to comply
with the current cranes and derricks standard in
Subpart N. Therefore, the portion of the current
§ 1926.952(c) that requires equipment operating
near power lines to comply with the cranes and
derricks standard would be retained.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Committee’s rationale for this exclusion
was that when subpart V work takes
place closer than the Table A distances,
a warning line would interfere with the
tools, cables, and other material used in
subpart V work. However, it is unclear
to the Agency why this would also be
the case if a barricade were used. The
Agency requests public comment on
this issue.
The provisions of this proposed
standard would necessitate certain
conforming amendments to the subpart
V provisions dealing with lifting
equipment to eliminate obsolete
requirements and promote clarity.
Currently, § 1926.952(c)(1) reads as
follows
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
(c) Derrick trucks, cranes and other lifting
equipment. (1) All derrick trucks, cranes, and
other lifting equipment shall comply with
subpart N and O of this part except:
(i) As stated in § 1926.550(a)(15)(i) and (ii)
relating to clearance (for clearances in this
subpart see Table V–1) and
(ii) Derrick truck (electric line trucks) shall
not be required to comply with
§ 1926.550(a)(7)(vi), (a)(17), (b)(2), and (e).
These subpart V provisions would
need to be modified in several respects.
First, service trucks with mobile lifting
devices designed specifically for use in
the power line and electric service
industries, such as digger derricks
(radial boom derricks), when used in
these industries for auguring holes to set
power and utility poles, or handling
associated materials to be installed or
removed from utility poles, are
excluded from the scope of this
proposed standard. They would,
however, continue to be covered by
subpart V when used in this manner.
Specifically, subpart V’s current
requirement that the minimum
clearance distances of Table V–1 be met
when using such equipment would be
retained when such equipment is used
outside the coverage of the new cranes
and derricks standard.
Since these trucks, when used in the
manner described, would be outside the
scope of the new cranes and derricks
standard, subpart V’s provision in
§ 1926.952(c)(1)(ii) stating that derrick
trucks need not comply with
§§ 1926.550(a)(7)(vi), (a)(17), (b)(2), and
(e), which incorporate the requirements
of certain industry consensus standards,
would no longer be necessary.
Second, the subpart V provisions
would be changed to reflect the
terminology used in the scope section of
this proposed standard and its new
subpart designation (Subpart CC). With
respect to ‘‘cranes and other lifting
equipment,’’ § 1926.952(c)(1)(i) would
be unnecessary since proposed
§§ 1926.1407 through 1926.1411 of this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
proposed standard address the
applicable minimum clearance
distances, including the circumstances
under which the clearance distances in
Table V–1 would apply.
Accordingly, § 1926.952(c)(1) would
be amended to read:
(c) Cranes and other lifting equipment. (1)
All equipment covered by Subpart CC that is
used for work covered by this standard
[Subpart V], including cranes and other
lifting equipment, shall comply with
subparts CC and O of this part.
(2) Service trucks with mobile lifting
devices designed specifically for use in the
power line and electric service industries,
such as digger derricks (radial boom
derricks), when used in these industries for
auguring holes to set power and utility poles,
or handling associated materials to be
installed or removed from utility poles, must
meet the applicable minimum clearance
distance in Table V–1.
Subpart V Work—Working Closer Than
Table V–1
Currently, § 1926.952(c)(2) recognizes
that there are circumstances when the
Table V–1 clearance distances cannot be
maintained during Subpart V work and
lists requirements that must be met
when this is the case. OSHA believes
that C–DAC intended to permit Subpart
V work closer than the Table V–1
clearances when the precautions in
§ 1926.952(c)(2), as well as additional
precautions contained in proposed
§ 1926.1410(d), are followed.
To make this clear, OSHA is
proposing to add the following language
to proposed § 1926.1410(c)(2):
‘‘Employers engaged in Subpart V work
are permitted to work closer than the
distances in § 1926.950 Table V–1
where both the requirements of this
section and § 1926.950(c)(2)(i) and (ii)
are met.’’ [Note that subsections (i) and
(ii) are currently subsections (iii) and
(iv) but would be renumbered under the
proposed amended language of
§ 1926.950(c)(2) discussed below].
OSHA requests public comment on this
proposed addition.
This proposed change would require
conforming amendments to
§ 1926.952(c)(2), which currently reads
as follows:
(2) With the exception of equipment
certified for work on the proper voltage,
mechanical equipment shall not be operated
closer to any energized line or equipment
than the clearances set forth in § 1926.950(c)
unless:
(i) An insulated barrier is installed between
the energized part and the mechanical
equipment, or
(ii) The mechanical equipment is
grounded, or
(iii) The mechanical equipment is
insulated, or
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59763
(iv) The mechanical equipment is
considered as energized.
Under this proposed section, the
precautions specified in paragraphs
§ 1926.952(c)(2)(i) and (ii) would be
required under proposed § 1926.1410(d)
when equipment used in Subpart V
work is operated closer than the Table
V–1 clearances. Since these precautions
would now be required by proposed
§ 1926.1410(d), OSHA is proposing to
delete them from Subpart V as
redundant. OSHA is therefore proposing
to amend § 1926.952(c)(2) to read as
follows:
(2) With the exception of equipment
certified for work on the proper voltage,
mechanical equipment shall not be operated
closer to any energized line or equipment
than the clearances set forth in § 1926.950(c)
unless, in addition to the requirements in
§ 1926.1410:
(i) The mechanical equipment is insulated,
or
(ii) The mechanical equipment is
considered as energized.
OSHA requests public comment on
the proposed amendments to
§ 1926.950(c)(1) and (2) of Subpart V
described above.
In addition, OSHA notes that, under
the current 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart V
requirement in § 1926.952(c)(2), when
doing Subpart V work closer than the
Table V–1 distances, the equipment
must be insulated or considered
energized.31 However, proposed
§ 1926.1410 does not have a similar
requirement. Therefore, an employer
engaged in Subpart V work that was
closer than the Table V–1 distances
would continue to be required (under
§ 1926.952(c)(2)) to insulate or consider
the equipment energized, but an
employer engaged in non-Subpart V
work at the same distance would not.
The Agency requests public comment
on whether such requirements should
also apply to non-Subpart V work when
working closer than the Table V–1
distances.
Finally, OSHA notes that in this zone,
one of the options that an employer
engaged in Subpart V currently has
under § 1926.952(c)(2)(iii) is to insulate
the equipment. Under proposed
§ 1926.1410(d)(11), that employer would
also have to ground the equipment. The
Agency’s understanding of how
equipment can be simultaneously
31 In Subpart V, when equipment is considered
energized, a number of Subpart V requirements are
triggered. See, for example, § 1926.951(c)(1)
(restricting use of metal or conductive ladders near
energized equipment); § 1926.951(f)(3) (hydraulic
tools used on or around energized equipment shall
use nonconducting hoses); § 1926.953(c) (materials
or equipment shall not be stored near energized
equipment if it is practical to store them elsewhere).
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59764
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
insulated and grounded is illustrated by
the following example: Equipment that
has a boom constructed of an insulating
material (such as fiberglass) is typically
mounted on a carrier (the ‘‘truck’’
portion of the equipment), which is
constructed mostly of conductive
material (i.e., steel). Because the boom
(and the linkages, pneumatic and
hydraulic lines, and other associated
parts on the boom) is insulated, the
equipment is considered insulated
under (§ 1926.952(c)(2)(iii)). If the
employer were to ground the carrier, the
parts of the equipment that could form
an electrical path to ground (the carrier
and the conducting parts of the
equipment forming an electrical path to
the carrier, such as the load line and
hoist) would be grounded. Therefore,
the equipment would meet both the
insulating option in § 1926.952(c)(2)(iii)
and the proposed grounding
Non-Subpart V Work
requirement in proposed
§ 1926.1410(d)(11).
Subpart V Work—Summary
The differences between how the
proposed requirements for power line
safety would apply generally to crane
operations and how they would apply to
an employer engaged in work covered
by Subpart V are summarized in the
following table:
Subpart V Work
When Using Table A Distances
§ 1926.1408:
Must pick one additional prevention measure from list in Additional measure not required (§ 1926.1408(b)(5)).
§ 1926.1408(b)(4).
§ 1926.1408(d): Operations below power lines generally precluded. Operations below power lines permitted (§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(i)).
(All other requirements in § 1926.1408 would apply equally to both Non-Subpart V work and Subpart V)
Working Closer Than Table A Distances
§ 1926.1410:
§ 1926.1410(c)(1) (utility or registered professional engineer sets
minimum clearance distance).
§ 1926.1410(d)(3) (warning line or barricade) ...................................
§ 1926.1410(d)(4) (insulating link) .....................................................
Instead, use Subpart V’s Table V–1 minimum clearance distance
(§ 1926.1410(c)(2)).
Not required.
Only required if working closer than Table V–1 (§ 1926.1410(d)(4)(ii));
see below.
Working Closer Than Table V–1
[The proposed § 1926.1410 requirements would apply to all distances
closer than those specified in Table A; there are no additional proposed requirements for working closer than the Table V–1 distances
for non-Subpart V work].
(Insulating link required under § 1926.1410(d)(4)) ...................................
Not required .......................................................................................
(Under both § 1926.1410 and current § 1926.952(c)(2)).
Must use insulating link (§ 1926.1410(d)(4)(ii)).
Equipment
must
be
insulated
or
considered
(§ 1926.952(c)(2)).
(All other requirements in § 1926.1410 would apply equally to both Non-Subpart V work and Subpart V work)
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Section 1411
Traveling
Power Line Safety -While
This proposed section is designed to
protect against electrical hazards while
equipment is traveling with no load
under power lines on construction sites.
These proposed requirements would
apply only to cranes/derricks while
traveling on a construction site under
power lines; they would not apply to
equipment while traveling on roads (or
in areas) that are not part of a
construction site.
The following scenario is an example
of the parameters of the scope of this
provision: A crane travels on a public
road to the entrance of a new residential
tract development. While traveling on
the public road it passes under
powerlines. No construction is taking
place on the public road. The tract,
including a road that runs through the
development, is open to construction
traffic but is otherwise closed to the
public. In the development, homes are
in various stages of construction. The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
crane enters the development and
travels along the development road to
the area where the crane is going to be
operated. The crane will pass under
power lines as it travels along this
development road.
In this scenario, proposed § 1926.1411
would not apply with respect to the
crane traveling along the public road to
the entrance of the development, since
that road is not part of a construction
site. However, it would apply with
respect to traveling under power lines
on the development road since the
development road is part of a
construction site.
It was the intention of the Committee
that the requirements of proposed
§ 1926.1411 apply only with respect to
such equipment when traveling with no
load. Power line hazards regarding
equipment traveling on a construction
site with a load would be governed by
the proposed provisions in
§§ 1926.1408, 1926.1409 and 1926.1410.
The C–DAC draft of § 1926.1411(a)
stated:
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
energized
(a) This section applies to equipment while
traveling under a power line on the
construction site with no load and the boom/
mast and boom/mast support system lowered
sufficiently to meet the requirements of
paragraph (b).
In reviewing that draft, the Agency
realized that it could be misconstrued to
mean that the requirements of
§ 1926.1411 would only apply once the
crane was traveling under a power line;
in other words, that no action would be
required of an employer prior to the
equipment being under the power line.
To make it clear that there are certain
proposed provisions in this section that
would require the employer to make
determinations and take action before
the equipment is actually under the
power line, the Agency has revised the
Committee’s original language in
§ 1926.1411(a) to read:
(a) This section establishes procedures and
criteria that must be met for equipment
traveling under a power line on the
construction site with no load.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
This change clarifies that the
employer would be required to make
determinations and take certain actions
prior to the equipment traveling under
the power line. For example, under
proposed § 1926.1411(b)(4), if any part
of the equipment while traveling would
get closer than 20 feet to the power line,
the employer would be required to have
a dedicated spotter who is in
continuous contact with the operator. If
this requirement were to only apply at
the moment the equipment was under
the power line, it would not serve the
purpose of providing the operator with
someone to assist in gauging the
clearance distance while the equipment
is traveling under the power line.
In addition, the C–DAC draft of
§ 1926.1411(a) included a reference to
the boom/mast and boom/mast support
system being lowered to meet the
criteria specified in proposed
§ 1926.1411(b). The Agency was
concerned that inclusion of that
reference could be misconstrued as
meaning that the section is inapplicable
where the boom/mast and boom/mast
support system had not been
sufficiently lowered. Therefore, the
Agency has modified the paragraph by
moving that reference to proposed
1926.1411(b) to explicitly make it part
of the required criteria for traveling
under powerlines without a load. The
C–DAC’s draft of 1926.1411(b)(1) stated:
(b) The employer shall ensure that:
(1) The clearances specified in paragraph
(c), Table T, are maintained.
This has been changed so that the
proposed § 1926.1411(b)(1) and (b)(2)
now state:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
(b) The employer shall ensure that:
(1) The boom/mast and boom/mast support
system are lowered sufficiently to meet the
requirements of this paragraph.
(2) The clearances specified in Table T of
this section are maintained.
Therefore, under these proposed
provisions, the employer would be
required to ensure that equipment
traveling with no load on a construction
site under a power line has the boom/
mast and boom/mast support system
lowered sufficiently so that the
clearances specified in Table T are
maintained.
In addition to maintaining the Table
T minimum clearance distances,
proposed § 1926. § 1926.1411(b)(3)
would require the employer to ensure
that the effects of speed and terrain are
considered so that those effects do not
cause the minimum clearance distances
specified in Table T to be breached.
OSHA is modifying the C–DAC
language as follows to clarify this
requirement.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
(b)(3) The effects of speed and terrain on
equipment movement (including movement
of the boom/mast) are considered so that
those effects do not cause the minimum
clearance distances specified in Table T of
this section to be breached.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would
require the employer to use a dedicated
spotter if any part of the equipment
while traveling will get closer than 20
feet to a power line. This provision
would also require that the dedicated
spotter be in continuous contact with
the crane operator; be positioned to
effectively gauge the clearance distance;
where necessary, use equipment that
enables the spotter to communicate
directly with the crane operator; and
give timely information to the crane
operator so that the required clearance
distance can be maintained. The
Committee believed that each of these
measures is necessary for the spotter to
be effective.
In reviewing proposed
§ 1926.1411(b)(4), OSHA noted that the
language ‘‘crane operator’’ was used
rather than ‘‘driver.’’ For example,
proposed § 1926.1411(b)(4) reads:
(4) Dedicated spotter. If any part of the
equipment while traveling will get within 20
feet of the power line, the employer shall
ensure that a dedicated spotter who is in
continuous contact with the crane operator is
used * * *
Because proposed § 1926.1411 deals
with power line safety while equipment
is traveling without a load, OSHA
recognizes that the language ‘‘crane
operator’’ may not be appropriate in all
situations. In some cases a crane
operator may not be the driver of such
equipment on the construction site.
Therefore, OSHA is soliciting comments
on whether the language ‘‘crane
operator’’ used in proposed
§ 1926.1411(b)(4) should be changed to
‘‘driver’’ or ‘‘driver/operator.’’
The Committee members were also
concerned about equipment traveling
underneath power lines in low visibility
situations, such as at night, in the rain
or fog. The electrical hazards posed by
power lines are exacerbated when the
driver’s ability to see the power line is
reduced. The Committee believed that
additional precautions are necessary in
light of this heightened danger.
Therefore, proposed § 1926.1411(b)(5)
would require the employer to ensure
the power lines are either illuminated or
another means of identifying them is
used and a safe path of travel is
identified.
In reviewing the C–DAC draft of this
provision, OSHA recognized that
§ 1926.1411(b)(5)(ii) did not clearly state
the Committee’s intentions. The
committee intended for employers to
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59765
both identify a safe path of travel and
also use the identified safe path of
travel. However, the C–DAC draft stated
only that a safe path be ‘‘identified,’’
which only implicitly means that it be
used. Therefore OSHA has revised the
language in § 1926.1411(b)(5)(ii) from:
(ii) A safe path of travel is identified.
to read:
(ii) A safe path of travel is identified and
used.
The proposed requirements of this
section are similar to section 5–3.4.5.5
of ASME B30.5–2004. The values in
proposed Table T of proposed
§ 1926.1411, which provides the
minimum clearance distances while
traveling with no load and a lowered
boom, are substantially similar to the
values used by ASME. The distinction
between these proposed requirements
and those requirements in ASME are
that the proposed requirements govern
equipment while traveling under a
power line and the ASME provisions
govern mobile cranes while in transit.
ASME defined ‘‘transit’’ as the moving
or transporting of a crane from one
jobsite to another.
The Agency notes that ASME B30.5–
2004 calls for equipment in transit to
maintain a specific clearance distance to
power lines in accordance with Table 1
of ASME B30.5. While proposed
§ 1926.1411 governs equipment
traveling without a load directly under
power lines, it does not otherwise
address the potential hazards associated
with equipment traveling without a load
near power lines. Further, as stated
earlier, equipment traveling with a load,
whether or not under a power line,
would be considered ‘‘operations’’ and
employers would have to comply with
the proposed requirements in
§ 1926.1408, 1926.1409, or 1926.1410 in
such instances.
However, equipment traveling
without a load is not covered by either
proposed § 1926.1410 (operations) or
§ 1926.1411 (traveling under power
lines). Therefore, OSHA requests public
comment on whether it is necessary to
establish requirements for equipment
traveling on a construction site without
a load near power lines.
Additional Changes to the Regulatory
Text In Proposed §§ 1926.1407–1411
In the C–DAC draft of provisions
dealing with the ‘‘trigger’’ distance for
further action, the draft referred to
situations in which the crane, load or
load line could get ‘‘within’’ the trigger
distance. Because of the potential for
confusion as to whether ‘‘within’’ means
breaching or not breaching that
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59766
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
distance, the Agency has changed
‘‘within’’ to ‘‘closer than.’’ For example,
the C–DAC draft of 1926.1407(a) read:
Before assembling or disassembling a
crane, the employer must determine if any
part of the crane, load line or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in
the direction or area of assembly, within 20
feet of a power line during the assembly/
disassembly process. If so, the employer must
meet the requirements in Option (1), Option
(2), or Option (3) of, as follows: * * *
This provision now reads:
Before assembling or disassembling a
crane, the employer must determine if any
part of the crane, load line or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in
the direction or area of assembly, closer than
20 feet to a power line during the assembly/
disassembly process. If so, the employer must
meet the requirements in Option (1), Option
(2), or Option (3) of § 1926.1407(a), as
follows:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Section 1412 Inspections
The purpose of this proposed section
is to prevent injuries and fatalities
caused by equipment failures. A key
method of accomplishing this goal is
through the use of an inspection process
that identifies and addresses safety
concerns.
Currently, Subpart N requires the
employer to designate a competent
person to inspect all machinery and
equipment prior to each use, and during
use, to make sure it is in safe operating
condition. Any deficiencies shall be
repaired, or defective parts replaced,
before continued use. 29 CFR
1926.550(a)(5). In addition, Subpart N
requires a thorough annual inspection of
the hoisting machinery by a competent
person or by a government or private
agency recognized by the U.S.
Department of Labor. 29 CFR
1926.550(a)(6).
Subpart N also contains inspection
requirements for specific types of
equipment that incorporate national
consensus standards or manufacturer
recommendations by reference. Section
1926.550(b)(2) requires crawler,
locomotive, and truck cranes to meet the
inspection requirements of ANSI B30.5–
1968, ‘‘Crawler, Locomotive and Truck
Cranes’’ (with a modified version of the
ANSI standard’s monthly inspection
documentation requirement). Overhead
and gantry cranes, under
§ 1926.550(d)(4), must be inspected
pursuant to ANSI B30.2.0–1967,
‘‘Overhead and Gantry Cranes.’’ For
derricks, § 1926.550(e) requires
compliance with the inspection
requirements of ANSI B30.6–1969,
‘‘Derricks.’’ Hammerhead tower cranes
must be inspected (§ 1926.550(c)(5)) and
floating cranes and derricks must be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
tested (§ 1926.550(f)(2)(iii)) in
accordance with manufacturer
specifications.
The Committee believed it would
avoid confusion and promote
compliance to establish, as far as
possible, uniform inspection schedules
and requirements applicable to all types
of equipment. At the same time, it
recognized that the wide variety of
equipment covered by this proposed
standard necessitated some equipmentspecific inspection provisions. Thus,
proposed paragraphs (a) through (j) of
this section would set inspection
requirements for all covered equipment
that would be supplemented by other
sections of this proposed standard
relative to specific equipment. The
proposed section is structured so that
the inspection requirements would be
triggered by activity (e.g., equipment
modification, repair/adjustment,
assembly, severe service or equipment
not in regular use) and the passage of
time (e.g., shift, monthly and annual/
comprehensive).
Note that for each of these
inspections, as discussed in detail
below, this proposed standard specifies
a requisite level of qualification of the
person conducting the inspection (for
certain inspections, a competent person;
for others a qualified person). However,
like Subpart N, the proposed rule does
not include a testing/evaluation
requirement for such employees for
assessing their ability to conduct the
inspections.
Since the C–DAC document was
completed, crane accidents have
occurred that have raised concerns
regarding the level of expertise needed
by those who inspect the equipment
covered by this proposed standard. In
§ 1926.1428, this proposed rule specifies
a protocol for ensuring that signal
persons have adequate expertise to
perform their duties. The Agency
requests public comment on whether a
similar approach is needed for those
who inspect equipment as required by
this proposed standard.
Paragraph 1412(a) Modified
Equipment
Proposed paragraph (a) would require
an inspection (that includes functional
testing) to be performed by a qualified
person for equipment that has been
modified or has additions that affect the
safe operation of the equipment prior to
initial use after that modification/
addition. In essence, the proposed
provision would require assurance that
such modifications or additions are
performed in accordance with the
approval obtained in proposed
§ 1926.1434, Equipment modifications.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Proposed § 1926.1412(a)(2) would
prohibit the use of the equipment until
that requirement was met. The purpose
is to prevent modification-related
equipment failure.
This proposed paragraph is generally
similar to consensus and government
standards, including ANSI B30.5–1968,
ASME B30.5–2004, COE (Corps of
Engineers)—EM 385–1–1 (3–Nov–03),
and DOE (Department of Energy)—STD–
1090–2004 in that each require an
inspection and some degree of
functional testing prior to using
equipment that has been modified/
altered. However, the inspection in the
proposed paragraph differs from these
in that it is limited to equipment that
has modifications/additions that affect
the safe operation of the equipment and
is limited to confirming compliance
with modifications or additions that are
approved by the manufacturer or a
registered professional engineer
pursuant to § 1434. Further, this
proposed paragraph does not contain a
documentation requirement.
The Committee was of the view that
many changes made to equipment do
not implicate safe operation, and
application of an inspection
requirement to such changes would be
unnecessary and unduly burdensome.
The proposed paragraph reflects this
concern and is tailored to require this
inspection only when the modification
is of the type that could affect safety. As
such, the inspection would only be
required for modifications that affect
‘‘safe operation’’ as illustrated by a nonexclusive list of examples
(‘‘modifications or additions involving a
safety device or operator aid, critical
part of a control system, power plant,
braking system, load sustaining
structural components, load hook, or inuse operating mechanisms’’).
The first criterion to be used in
conducting the inspection (proposed
§ 1926.1412(a)(1)(i)) is the modification
approval obtained under proposed
§ 1926.1434. This would ensure that the
modification was accomplished as
intended under that approval.
The second criterion (proposed
§ 1926.1412(a)(1)(ii)) is functional
testing. This reflects the Committee’s
view that functional testing is essential
to ensuring that the modification was
completed correctly. Such testing can
reveal faults that often would not
otherwise be apparent.
As drafted, § 1926.1412(a)(1)(ii)
would not limit the functional testing
requirement to only those components
that are or may be affected by the
modification or addition but would
require testing of the entire equipment.
OSHA requests public comment on
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
whether the provision should be
modified to limit the functional testing
requirement to those components that
are or may be affected by the
modification or addition.
During the SBREFA process, a Small
Entity Representative suggested adding
an exception to proposed § 1926.1412(a)
for ‘‘transportation systems,’’ by which
the SER meant any system dispersing
the weight of the crane for movement on
the highways. The Panel recommended
that OSHA solicit public comment on
whether to include such an exception
and, if so, what the appropriate
terminology for such an exception
would be. OSHA welcomes public
comment on whether an explicit
exception for such transportation
systems should be included in
§ 1926.1412(a).
Paragraph 1412(b) Repaired/Adjusted
Equipment
Proposed paragraph (b) provides that
equipment that has had a repair or
adjustment that affects the safe
operation of the equipment must be
inspected (including functional testing)
by a qualified person prior to initial use
after the repair/adjustment. In summary,
the qualified person would be required
to determine if such repairs and
adjustments have been performed in
accordance with manufacturer
equipment criteria.
As defined in § 1926.1401,
‘‘equipment criteria’’ include
‘‘instructions, recommendations,
limitations and specifications.’’ This
definition is included to make clear that
‘‘equipment criteria’’ is to be broadly
construed to include the full range of
information regarding the equipment’s
functions and operation provided by the
manufacturer. If those criteria were
unavailable or inapplicable, the
qualified person would be required to
determine whether a registered
professional engineer (RPE) is needed to
develop criteria. If an RPE were not
needed, a qualified person would be
required to develop them. Use of the
equipment would be prohibited until
the inspection demonstrates that the
repairs and adjustments met the criteria.
The purpose of this provision is to avoid
the failure of equipment due to
improper repairs and adjustments.
The Committee was of the view that
many repairs and adjustments made to
equipment do not implicate safe
operation, and application of an
inspection requirement to all repairs
and adjustments would be unnecessary
and unduly burdensome. The proposed
paragraph reflects this concern by
limiting this proposed inspection
requirement to those repairs and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
adjustments that are of the type that
could affect safety. A non-exclusive list
of examples of repairs and adjustments
that would trigger the inspection is
included in the provision.
The Committee believed that
functional testing is essential to
ensuring that a repair or adjustment has
been completed correctly. Such testing
can reveal faults that may not otherwise
be apparent.
As discussed above in relation to
proposed § 1926.1412(a)(1)(ii), the
functional testing requirement is not
limited to those components that are or
may be affected by the repair or
adjustment. OSHA requests public
comment on whether the provision
should be modified to add such a
limitation.
The Agency believes that this
inspection provision is needed to
prevent injuries and fatalities from
accidents caused by faulty repairs and
adjustments. As evidenced by similar
provisions in other standards (see
COE—EM 385–1–1 (3–Nov–03), and
DOE—STD–1090–2004; see also the
consensus standard ASME B30.5–2004),
the industry has recognized the hazards
associated with improperly repaired and
adjusted equipment and the importance
of this type of inspection.
Paragraph 1412(c) Post-Assembly
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
a post-assembly inspection of
equipment by a qualified person prior to
its use. In sum, the provision would
require the qualified person to assure
that the equipment is configured in
accordance with the manufacturer’s
equipment criteria. Where those criteria
are unavailable, the equipment would
have to meet criteria developed by
either the qualified person or an RPE
familiar with the equipment (if the
qualified person decides that an RPE is
needed). Equipment use would be
prohibited until the inspection
demonstrates that the criteria have been
met.
ANSI B30.5–1968, and ASME B30.5–
2004 do not call for this type of
inspection. COE in EM 385–1–1 (3 Nov
03), Appendix H, does include a postassembly inspection.
The Committee was of the view that
a post-assembly inspection is needed
because of the dangers associated with
incorrectly assembled equipment. For
example, the equipment’s load chart
may overstate the equipment’s capacity
if the equipment has been incorrectly
assembled. Also, a component may be
stressed beyond its design capacity if
incorrectly assembled.
The Committee considered whether to
recommend requiring that this
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59767
inspection be conducted by a person
who is not only qualified but is also a
‘‘competent person,’’ i.e., a person with
the authority to take corrective action.
The Committee ultimately decided that
this would not be necessary because
proposed § 1926.1412(c)(3) would
prohibit the use of equipment until the
post-assembly inspection demonstrates
that the equipment is configured in
accordance with the applicable criteria.
Therefore, if the qualified person were
to find that the equipment was
incorrectly assembled, it could not be
used until the error was corrected.
Also discussed was whether a
registered professional engineer (RPE),
as opposed to a qualified person, is
needed to develop the criteria for the
equipment configuration where the
manufacturer criteria are unavailable.
The Committee agreed that an RPE
would typically not be needed for, as
one member stated, ‘‘a basic machine
that goes together in a basic manner,’’
but that an RPE would be needed for
some of the more complex types of
equipment. As a result, the Committee
found that it would be appropriate to
have the qualified person determine if
an RPE were needed to develop the
criteria.
Paragraph 1412(d) Each Shift
Proposed paragraph (d) would require
a shift inspection, the first of three
regularly scheduled equipment
inspections that would be required.
Specifically, 1926.1412(d)(1) sets forth
the frequency of this inspection, the
degree of scrutiny required and the level
of expertise required of the person
performing this inspection. The
proposed paragraph lists the items that
would be required to be included in this
inspection and specifies the corrective
action that would be required. The
purpose of this provision is to identify
and address safety hazards before they
cause accidents.
This inspection (which would begin
prior to each shift and be completed
before or during that shift) is broadly
similar to the current requirement in 29
CFR 1926.550(a)(5) of Subpart N to
conduct an inspection ‘‘prior to each
use, and during use * * *’’ Similarly,
several other current standards,
including 29 CFR part 1926 subpart R
(Steel Erection) and COE—EM 385–1–1
(3–Nov–03) require some type of shift
inspection for cranes. In contrast, ANSI
B30.5–1968 as well as the more current
ASME B30.5–2004, call for a ‘‘Frequent
Inspection’’ at ‘‘daily to monthly’’
intervals. The ‘‘Frequent Inspection’’ in
the ANSI/ASME standards, though,
includes a reference to ‘‘observation
during operation.’’
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59768
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
The ‘‘each shift’’ inspection in the
proposed rule is designed to ensure that
the equipment will be removed from
service if there is a visually apparent
deficiency that constitutes a safety
hazard. The Committee considered
adopting the ‘‘daily to monthly’’
inspection interval that is in the ANSI/
ASME B30.5 consensus standard, but
determined that that approach was too
vague for use as a mandatory OSHA
requirement. Instead, the Committee
found that, in accordance with longstanding, common industry practice, an
inspection of the items listed in the
proposed paragraph each shift is an
appropriate means of ensuring that the
equipment’s condition will be sufficient
for safe operation.
The Committee also discussed
whether the shift inspection should be
required to be completed before a shift’s
crane operations begin. It determined
that it is not necessary to complete the
inspection in that short of a time frame.
The Agency believes that this
determination is reasonable for several
reasons. First, this would be an
inspection that would be done for every
shift, and therefore would be done quite
frequently. This would substantially
diminish the likelihood that a critical
problem would suddenly occur, since
symptoms of such a problem developing
would likely have been detected in prior
shift inspections.
Second, as discussed below, one of
the purposes of the annual/
comprehensive inspection is to detect
developing deficiencies that, while not
yet safety hazards, need to be
monitored. In such cases the employer
under the annual/comprehensive
requirements in proposed
§ 1926.1412(f)(4) would be required to
monitor them in the monthly
inspections. Finally, the competent
person that conducts the shift
inspection would be required to reassess
his or her determinations in light of
observations made during the
equipment’s operation. The Committee
designed these proposed requirements
to work together, and in light of that
combined approach, the Agency
believes that it would be sufficient for
the shift inspection to be completed
during the shift.
The Committee also discussed the
degree of scrutiny that would be
required during the shift inspection.
Specifically, it considered whether the
shift inspection should involve any
disassembly of the equipment. It
determined that disassembly should not
normally be needed for this type of
inspection since its purpose is not to
duplicate the annual/comprehensive
inspection (which is where the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
equipment would be subjected to a level
of scrutiny that would necessarily
involve disassembly). Instead,
disassembly would only be required
where ‘‘the results of the visual
inspection or trial operation indicate
that further inspection necessitating
disassembly is needed.’’
Finally, a competent person would be
required to perform the shift inspection.
The Committee believed that a person
that meets the definition of a competent
person (see the definition discussion
above) is needed to perform the shift
inspection for two reasons. First, such a
person would have the capability to
identify apparent deficiencies,
determine if any disassembly was
needed, and determine if the deficiency
constitutes a safety hazard. Second, a
competent person would have the
authority necessary to take corrective
action in the event a deficiency was
such a hazard.
OSHA anticipates that the equipment
operator will often be used by the
employer as the competent person who
conducts the shift inspection. The
operator will be at the site and, in most
cases, by virtue of his or her
qualification or certification under
proposed §§ 1926.1427 and 1926.1430
and experience and familiarity with the
equipment, would meet the
requirements for a competent person.
However, the employer would have the
flexibility to use someone else to
conduct the shift inspection as long as
that person met the definition of
competent person.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through
(xiv) sets forth the list of items that, at
a minimum, would be required to be
inspected each shift. The Committee
believes that this is an appropriate list
for ensuring safety and builds on well
established industry practice in terms of
what needs to be inspected in this type
of inspection. For example, the list is
similar to the one for pre-shift
inspections in 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart
R, the list in ASME B30.5–2004 for its
Frequent Inspection, and with the
exception of a few additional items, to
the list for Frequent Inspections in ANSI
B30.5–1968.
Overall, except as noted below in the
discussion of the particular items on
this list, the concerns of C–DAC
members relative to this list focused on
whether items not listed as ‘‘daily’’
inspection items but included instead in
the ‘‘Frequent Inspection’’ list in ASME
B30.5a–2002 (which are identical to
those in the more recent ASME B30.5–
2004 standard) should be inspected
each shift. A concern was raised in the
Committee meetings about the nature of
the visual inspection and whether
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
including all of the listed items in
ANSI/ASME would be too burdensome.
To address this concern, the Committee
decided to include these items (and a
few others) but to also include the
language discussed above limiting the
circumstances in which disassembly
would be required.
The following discussion addresses
only those items for which the
Committee recommended inspection
descriptions that vary in some
significant way from past or current
consensus standards (apart from their
being designated for inspection each
shift).
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) lists
‘‘[c]ontrol and drive mechanisms for
apparent excessive wear of components
and contamination by lubricants, water
or other foreign matter.’’ Though similar
to the requirement in ANSI B30.5–1968
and ASME B30.5–2004 (on the
‘‘Frequent’’ list), and in 29 CFR part
1926 subpart R, this provision reflects
some differences. For example, unlike
the ANSI/ASME standards (but similar
to Subpart R), it adds ‘‘drive’’
mechanisms, which the Committee
believed more accurately reflects the
type of mechanisms that need to be
inspected. In addition, ‘‘excessive’’ was
added to account for the fact that some
wear in these mechanisms is normal
and not unsafe. The extent of wear
needed to trigger further evaluation of
the item is that which is apparently
excessive.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii)
addresses ‘‘[a]ir, hydraulic, and other
pressurized lines for deterioration or
leakage, particularly those which flex in
normal operation.’’ This paragraph is
similar to an item listed in ANSI
B30.5—1968 and in ASME B30.5–2004,
with the difference being the reference
to ‘‘air’’ and ‘‘other pressurized lines.’’
These additions reflect the Committee’s
belief that it is necessary to check all
types of pressurized lines.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(v) lists
‘‘[h]ooks and latches for deformation,
cracks, excessive wear, or damage such
as from chemicals or heat.’’ This
substantially mirrors Subpart R, and is
similar to ANSI B30.5–1968 and ASME
B30.5–2004, but also differs in certain
ways. First, the Committee believed that
latches can be damaged by causes other
than the examples listed. The proposed
paragraph therefore adds the words
‘‘such as’’ so that the examples listed
would be a non-exclusive list. Second,
the Committee believed that ‘‘heat’’
should be added as another example of
a cause of damage to highlight this as an
area of concern (since, for example,
welding is sometimes done near a hook
or latch). Finally, the proposed
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
provision would require the competent
person to inspect for ‘‘excessive wear,’’
as opposed to ‘‘wear.’’ This change was
made because the Committee believed
that hooks and latches are designed to
withstand a degree of wear, and it is
only when the wear is excessive that it
is of concern.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(vii) lists
‘‘[w]ire rope, in accordance with
§ 1926.1413(a).’’ This item references
the Shift Inspection provision of
§ 1926.1413, Wire rope—inspection,
which specifies how the wire rope
would be required to be inspected in the
shift inspection. As discussed below in
the section of this Preamble on that
proposed provision, the timing, degree
of scrutiny, and level of expertise
required of the person conducting the
wire rope inspection essentially mirror
those for proposed § 1926.1412(d)(1).
This was done to ensure consistency
with the wire rope inspections and the
other general items inspected each shift.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(viii) lists
‘‘[e]lectrical apparatus for
malfunctioning signs of apparent
excessive deterioration, dirt or moisture
accumulation.’’ This essentially mirrors
provisions in ANSI B30.5–1968 and
ASME B30.5–2004 (for Frequent
Inspection) and Subpart R except for the
insertion of the word ‘‘apparent.’’ That
word was added to be consistent with
proposed § 1926.1412(d)(1)’s reference
to ‘‘apparent deficiencies.’’
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ix) lists
‘‘[t]ires (when in use) for proper
inflation and condition.’’ ASME B30.5–
2004 calls for tires be checked for
‘‘inflation pressure’’ and Subpart R
contains a similar provision, although it
does not contain the ‘‘when in use’’
limitation. The Committee believed that
it is unnecessary to check tires for
proper inflation on equipment that is
not in use. In addition, it decided to not
include the word ‘‘pressure’’ because it
believed that checking pressure each
shift with a gauge is unnecessary and
inconsistent with the visual nature of
the shift inspection.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(x) lists
‘‘[g]round conditions around the
equipment for proper support, including
ground settling under and around
outriggers and supporting foundations,
ground water accumulation, or similar
conditions.’’ This item is new, in that it
is not included in 29 CFR part 1926
subpart N or the ANSI/ASME standards.
The Committee believed that ground
conditions can change from shift to
shift, and in light of the critical
importance of sufficient ground support,
included this item in the C–DAC
document.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
A nearly identical provision is
included in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart R.
However, the C–DAC provision differs
from the Subpart R provision in that the
language ‘‘and supporting foundations’’
was added by C–DAC to reflect that
some cranes (particularly towers cranes)
are set on surfaces other than ‘‘ground’’
(e.g., concrete) and that ground settling
could occur ‘‘under and around’’ those
foundations. As such, the Agency
believes that the C–DAC language is
appropriate in the proposed rule. It
should also be noted that a separate
provision, § 1926.1402, Ground
conditions, is included in this proposed
rule, which more specifically addresses
responsibility for and adequacy of
ground conditions.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xi) lists
‘‘[t]he equipment for level position, both
shift and after each move and setup.’’
This item is not included in the ANSI/
ASME standards; however, it mirrors
the language of the similar pre-shift
inspection in Subpart R. The Committee
found that, as with ground conditions,
maintaining the equipment’s level
position is essential for its safe
operation. Since factors affecting the
equipment’s angle of inclination can
change from shift to shift (such as
compression of dunnage, ground
settling from freeze/thaw conditions and
ground compression), the Committee
believed that it is necessary to include
this in the shift inspection.
The SBREFA Panel recommended
that OSHA solicit public comment
about whether it is necessary to clarify
the requirement of proposed
§ 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) that the equipment
be inspected for ‘‘level position’’ by
clarifying the amount of tolerance that
would be allowed for the equipment to
be considered ‘‘level.’’ The Agency
requests public comment on this issue.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xii) lists
‘‘[o]perator cab windows for significant
cracks, breaks, or other deficiencies that
would hamper the operator’s view.’’ 32
The purpose of this proposed provision
is to ensure adequate visibility. The
Committee believed that it is important
to ensure that the windows’ condition
does not hamper the operator’s view.
Since a significant crack, break or other
defect hampering the operator’s view
may occur during a shift, it believed that
this item needs to be included in the
shift inspection. The inclusion of the
words ‘‘significant’’ and ‘‘hamper the
operator’s view’’ were to clarify that
minor deficiencies that do not
32 Currently, 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart N contains
a requirement specifying that the type of glazing in
cabs must not cause ‘‘a visible distortion.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59769
materially impair the operator’s view
are not considered safety hazards.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xiii) lists
‘‘[r]ails, rail stops, rail clamps and
supporting surfaces when the
equipment has rail traveling.’’ This item
is not specifically listed as an inspection
item in the pre-shift inspections of
Subpart R or in the Frequent Inspections
of the 1968 or 2004 ANSI/ASME B30.5
standards. However, they are included
because of the essential role they play
in the holding and emergency stopping
of rail mounted equipment. Their
importance to safe operation is similarly
recognized by their inclusion in
proposed § 1926.1415, Safety Devices,
as safety devices that must be working
properly for crane operations to
continue.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xiv) lists
‘‘[s]afety devices and operational aids
for proper operation.’’ Subpart N,
through its incorporation by reference of
ANSI B30.5–1968, includes a daily
inspection of safety devices for
malfunction for the equipment it covers,
while ASME B30.5–2004 requires a
daily inspection of operational aids for
malfunction. Finally, Subpart R
includes a nonexclusive list of safety
devices in its pre-shift inspection. The
equipment’s safety devices and
operational aids would be included
because of their important role in
assisting the operator in the safe
operation of equipment.
Concern was raised in Committee
about including this item because the
industry did not have clear, consistent
definitions for terms ‘‘safety devices’’
and ‘‘operational aids.’’ This concern
was addressed by referencing the lists of
devices for each of these terms in
proposed § 1926.1415, Safety devices
and § 1926.1416, Operational aids.
The language also reflects the
Committee’s view that the inspection of
these devices and aids is more
accurately described as an inspection
for ‘‘proper operation’’ rather than for
‘‘malfunction.’’ The Committee
considered this a more accurate
description because the person
conducting the inspection does so by
checking the safety device or
operational aid for proper operation. If
it is found to be working properly, the
inspection is finished.
Another concern was including both
safety devices and operational aids in
this provision, since many members
were of the view that these two
categories of devices necessitate
different levels and types of action
when a deficiency is found. That
concern was addressed by specifying in
proposed § 1926.1412(d)(3) that if a
deficiency is found, the action that
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59770
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
would be required in response would be
the actions delineated in proposed
§ 1926.1415, Safety devices and
§ 1926.1416, Operational aids, which
address these two categories differently.
See additional discussions of these
procedures in §§ 1926.1415 and
1926.1416 of this explanation of the
rule.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would
establish the follow-up actions to the
identification of apparent deficiencies
during the shift inspection that would
be required. Specifically, under
proposed 1926.1412(d)(2), immediately
following the discovery of any
deficiency identified pursuant to
proposed § 1926.1412(d)(1)(i) through
(xiii), or pursuant to other equipmentspecific inspections (e.g., see proposed
§ 1926.1436(p) (inspection of derricks),
the competent person must determine
whether the deficiency is a safety
hazard. If so, equipment operations
must cease until it has been corrected.
The correction procedure described in
proposed § 1926.1412(d)(2) is similar to
that in ANSI B30.5–1968 and ASME
B30.5–2004 for their Frequent
Inspections.
This approach reflects the
Committee’s determination that not all
deficiencies constitute safety hazards.
The proposed language in
§ 1926.1412(d)(2) reflects that approach
by linking the requirement for removing
the equipment from service to
deficiencies that constitute safety
hazards. The provision is designed to
ensure that this determination is made
appropriately by requiring that it be
made by a competent person. The
competent person would have the
capability necessary to make an accurate
determination. In addition, requiring a
competent person to make the
determination would ensure that his or
her findings were implemented; i.e., the
competent person would have the
authority to order the equipment out of
service if the deficiency constituted a
hazard. The Agency believes that this
would be an appropriate means of
protecting employees from equipment
with deficiencies that constitute safety
hazards.
The SBREFA Panel recommended
that OSHA solicit public comment on
whether, and under what
circumstances, booming down should
be specifically excluded as a part of the
shift inspection, and whether the
removal of non-hinged inspection plates
should be required during the shift
inspection. Proposed § 1926.1413(a)(1),
discussed below, explicitly states that
booming down is not required as part of
the shift inspection for wire rope. It is
the Agency’s understanding that C–DAC
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
did not include a similar provision in
the general shift inspection provision in
proposed § 1926.1412(d) because
booming down would not be required to
observe a deficiency in any of the items
requiring inspection under that
paragraph. Similarly, OSHA does not
believe that inspection for a deficiency
in any of those items would require
removal of non-hinged inspection
plates. However, OSHA welcomes
public comment on these points.
Paragraph 1412(e) Monthly
Proposed paragraph (e) would require
a monthly inspection of the equipment,
the second of the three regularly
scheduled general inspections that
would be required by this proposed
standard. The monthly inspection is
identical in coverage and manner to the
shift inspection required by proposed
§ 1926.1412(d), with one addition
discussed below. Thus, the monthly
inspection would be a visual inspection
of the items listed in the shift inspection
for apparent deficiencies, conducted by
a competent person. However, unlike a
shift inspection, a written record of the
monthly inspection is proposed to be
kept and retained for at least 3 months.
In addition, under the annual/
comprehensive inspection in proposed
§ 1926.1412(f)(4), the employer would
be required to identify developing
deficiencies that, while not yet safety
hazards, need to be monitored. In such
cases the employer under proposed
§ 1926.1412(f)(4) and (f)(6) would be
required to monitor them in the
monthly inspections.
This provision differs in some ways
from the current requirement in 29 CFR
part 1926 Subpart N that incorporates
by reference ANSI B30.5–1968 and from
ASME B30.5–2004. For example, rather
than a monthly inspection, these
industry standards call for a ‘‘Frequent’’
inspection to be done at ‘‘daily to
monthly’’ intervals. The Committee
believed that the proposed approach is
an improvement over the ANSI/ASME
approach by eliminating ambiguity over
the frequency of inspections. Also, the
consensus standards do not call for the
monitoring of developing deficiencies, a
change the Committee believed would
lead to the elimination of hazards before
they develop. However, many of the
items listed in those consensus
standards for frequent inspections are
similar to those listed in the shift and
monthly inspections of the proposed
rule (See discussion of items inspected
under proposed paragraphs (d)(1)(i)
through (xiv) for comparison).
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would
establish a documentation requirement
for this monthly inspection.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Specifically, proposed
§ 1926.1412(e)(3)(i) would require that
the inspection ‘‘be documented by the
employer that conducts the inspection’’
and indicate the items checked with
results, the name and signature of the
person of the inspector, and the date. In
these respects this proposed
requirement is similar to that currently
in effect under § 1926.550(b)(2) of 29
CFR part 1926 Subpart N for crawler,
locomotive, and truck cranes. Proposed
§ 1926.1412(e)(3)(ii) would establish a
minimum three-month retention period
for the monthly inspection
documentation.
These two proposed provisions have
several purposes. The Committee
believed that, on a monthly basis, it is
necessary to record the items checked
and the results of an inspection that for
the most part parallels a shift
inspection. It believed that the
documentation of this inspection,
signed by the person who conducted the
inspection and retained for three
months, would have several effects.
First, it would increase the likelihood
that more employers would implement
systems for conducting and responding
to inspections. The failure to do so
would be more readily apparent if a
record were not made, and the signature
of the person who conducted the
inspection would be an inducement to
that person to ensure that the inspection
was done correctly. Second, it would
create a record that the employer could
use to help track developing problems
so that they could be corrected in time
to assure continued safe operation of the
equipment.
The Agency notes that the proposed
three month retention period also
reflects a desire of the Committee to
have a retention period that is
consistent with Department of
Transportation (‘‘DOT’’) truck
inspection documentation requirements.
Also, proposed § 1926.1412(e)(3)
parallels the monthly inspection for
wire rope in proposed paragraph
1413(b) in terms of timing, level of
scrutiny, expertise of the inspector, and
documentation.
The SBREFA Panel recommended
that OSHA solicit public comment on
whether the provision for monthly
inspections should, like the provision
for annual inspections, specify who
must keep the documentation associated
with monthly inspections. (The
provision for annual inspections states
that the documentation must be
‘‘maintained by the employer who
conducts the inspection.’’) OSHA
requests public comment on the issue
raised by the Panel’s recommendation.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
The SBREFA Panel also
recommended that OSHA restate the
corrective action provisions from the
shift inspection (proposed
§ 1926.1412(d)(2) and (3)) in proposed
§ 1926.1412(e). Under proposed
§ 1926.1412(e)(1), the monthly
inspection must be conducted in
accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1412(d) on shift inspections, and
this means that the corrective action
provisions in proposed
§ 1926.1412(d)(2) and (3) must also be
followed in the monthly inspections.
OSHA requests comment on whether
the language in proposed
§ 1926.1412(d)(2) and (3) should be
repeated under proposed § 1926.1412(e).
Paragraph (f) Annual/Comprehensive
Proposed paragraph (f) would require
an annual (i.e., once every twelve
months), general inspection of the
equipment, the third of the three
regularly scheduled general inspections
that would be required by this proposed
standard. It would promote safety by
ensuring that a thorough,
comprehensive inspection of the
equipment is performed to detect and
address deficiencies that might not be
detected in the proposed shift and
monthly inspections.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would
require that a qualified person inspect
the equipment, at least every 12 months,
in accordance with § 1926.1412(d) (shift
inspections). The Committee’s intent
was to have the items specified in the
shift inspection examined more
thoroughly, by a qualified person, on an
annual basis. This would ensure that
deficiencies necessitating a greater
degree of scrutiny than what would be
required in the shift inspection (such as
a deficiency that is not apparent in a
visual inspection but is detectable
through disassembly), and a greater
degree of expertise to detect, would be
discovered.
The Committee believed that, in light
of this need for greater scrutiny, a higher
level of expertise is needed of the
person conducting the inspection than
is currently required for the annual
inspection in 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart
N (Subpart N, at § 1926.550(a)(6),
requires that it be conducted by a
competent person). The Committee’s
view is similar to that reflected in COE–
EM 385–1–1 (3 Nov 03) and ASME
B30.5–2004, both of which call for a
qualified person to perform those
standards’ ‘‘periodic’’ inspections. The
Agency believes that, to effectuate the
purpose of the proposed annual/
comprehensive inspection, a qualified
person would be needed to conduct this
inspection.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
The Agency notes that neither this
paragraph nor the subsequent
paragraphs under proposed
§ 1926.1412(f) specify the level of
scrutiny that would be required for the
annual/comprehensive inspection. As it
is the Agency’s understanding that it
was the Committee’s belief that this
inspection needs to be more thorough
than a visual inspection for apparent
deficiencies, OSHA solicits comments
from the public as to whether language
specifying a higher level of scrutiny (for
example, ‘‘thorough, including
disassembly when necessary’’) should
be added.
In terms of timing, this proposed
annual/comprehensive inspection is
essentially the same as currently
specified in Subpart N, which requires
an ‘‘annual’’ inspection.
The requirement that the inspection
be conducted at least every 12 months
means that an inspection must be
conducted on or before the anniversary
date of the last annual inspection. A
situation that may arise is where the
equipment is not in service on the
anniversary date. In that situation, since
the equipment is not in service, the
annual inspection would not have to be
done at that point. However, the
equipment could not be put back into
service until the annual inspection had
been done.33
As discussed below, proposed
§ 1926.1412(f)(4)–(f)(6) contain specific
proposed responsive actions in the
event a deficiency is discovered in the
annual/comprehensive inspection. C–
DAC recommended that proposed
§ 1926.1412(f)(1) state that ‘‘ * * * the
equipment shall be inspected * * * in
accordance with paragraph (d) (shift
inspections).’’ Read literally, the C–DAC
language would have required the
employer to comply with the responsive
actions specified for the shift
inspections in proposed § 1926.1412(d).
However, the specified responsive
actions for the proposed shift inspection
differ from those proposed for the
annual/comprehensive inspection.
Therefore, the Agency modified the C–
DAC language for proposed
§ 1926.1412(f)(1) to make it clear that
the responsive actions that would be
required if a deficiency were found
under § 1926.1412(f)(1) are those
specified in proposed § 1926.1412(f)(4)–
33 Note that, under proposed § 1926.1412(h),
discussed below, equipment that has been out of
regular service for three months or more must
receive a monthly inspection before being returned
to service. However, if the equipment had been out
of regular service for more than three months but
it was due for its annual inspection, the annual
inspection would have to be done and there would
therefore be no need to also do the § 1926.1412(h)
(out of regular service) inspection.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59771
(f)(6). This has been done by adding the
following language to the C–DAC (f)(1)
provision:
At least every 12 months the equipment
shall be inspected by a qualified person in
accordance with paragraph (d) (shift
inspections) of this section, except that the
corrective action set forth in Paragraph (f)
Annual/comprehensive, of this section shall
apply.
The difference is that while both
require that the equipment be removed
from service if safety hazards are
identified, paragraphs (f)(4) through
(f)(6) also provide that a deficiency that
might, but has not yet, reached the
safety hazard stage must be monitored
on a monthly basis. (Also, the
determinations in § 1926.1412(f)(4)
through (f)(6) are made by a qualified
person, whereas the determinations in
the shift inspection are made by a
competent person.)
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through
(xxi) supplement the list of inspection
items in proposed § 1926.1412(f)(1) that
would be required to be inspected in the
annual/comprehensive inspection. The
Committee developed this list based on
the members’ experience and current
industry practice as reflected in current
consensus standards for annual/periodic
inspections. The Committee believed
that each item plays an important role
in the safe operation of equipment.
The list in proposed paragraphs
(f)(2)(i) through (xxi) differs somewhat
from those in consensus standards.
Among other differences, the list in
these proposed paragraphs is more userfriendly to the employer and qualified
person because the item inspected is at
the beginning of each sentence. Also,
some items not in consensus standards
are included because, as discussed
below, in the view of the Committee,
they also have a significant effect on the
safe operation of equipment.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) lists
‘‘[e]quipment structure (including the
boom and, if equipped, the jib),’’
including ‘‘(A) Structural members:
deformed, cracked, or significantly
corroded. (B) Bolts, rivets and other
fasteners: loose, failed or significantly
corroded. (C) Welds for cracks.’’
Differences with similar items listed in
ANSI B30.5–1968, ASME B30.5–2004
and COE–EM 385–1–1 (3 Nov 03) are as
follows: ‘‘Welds for cracks’’ was added
to better ensure that the equipment is
structurally sound; ‘‘Other fasteners’’
was added to ‘‘bolts and rivets’’
(referenced in the ANSI/ASME
standards) because there are now other
types of fasteners which also need to be
inspected to ensure they are not loose,
failed or significantly corroded; and
‘‘significantly’’ was added to describe
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59772
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the degree of corrosion on a structural
member or fastener needed to trigger
further examination because some
corrosion on those items is normal and
has no effect on safety.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) through
(iv) list: ‘‘[s]heaves and drums for cracks
or significant wear;’’ ‘‘[p]arts such as
pins, bearings, shafts, gears, rollers and
locking devices for distortion, cracks or
significant wear;’’ and ‘‘[b]rake and
clutch system parts, linings, pawls and
ratchets for excessive wear.’’ These
items are similar to the items currently
listed in the Periodic Inspection
(monthly to twelve month intervals) in
ANSI B30.5–1968 and ASME B30.5–
2004. The Committee believed that
these items, as reflected in their
inclusion in current consensus
standards, need to be checked in an
annual inspection to ensure the safe
operation of the equipment.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(v) lists
‘‘[s]afety devices and operational aids
for proper operation (including
significant inaccuracies).’’ The
Committee included the term
‘‘significant inaccuracies’’ in recognition
of the fact that such devices normally
operate within a tolerance range.
Corrective action would not be required
if the inaccuracy is so small as to be
irrelevant with regards to the safe
operation of the equipment. In contrast,
significant inaccuracies in these devices
could mislead the operator and
contribute to actions that could result in
the equipment being inadvertently used
in an unsafe manner. Consequently, the
Committee believed that these devices
and aids need to be inspected for both
proper operation and significant
inaccuracies.
This provision is broader than similar
provisions in the ANSI and ANSI/ASME
standards. Specifically, ANSI B30.5–
1968 only addresses ‘‘safety devices for
malfunction’’ (the Periodic Inspection
includes the items listed in the Frequent
Inspection) while the Periodic
Inspection for ASME B30.5–2004 only
includes operational aids.
Another significant difference
between this paragraph and the ASME
standard is the follow-up action
required subsequent to the discovery of
a deficiency involving operational aids.
Under this paragraph, the discovery of
such a deficiency that is determined to
be a safety hazard would require the
equipment to be removed from service
until the safety hazard is corrected. In
contrast, under the 2004 ASME
standard, alternatives to the removal of
equipment from service are available.34
34 Section 5–3.2.1.2 of the ASME standard allows
the employer to follow the recommendations of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Proposed § 1926.1416 would permit
equipment with operational aids that
are not functioning properly to continue
to be used with specified alternative
measures in place. Proposed
§ 1926.1416(d) and (e) would set time
limits for such use. It is the Agency’s
understanding that the Committee
intended that this same approach
should apply with respect to the followup action required when an operational
aid is found in the annual inspection to
be not working properly. In other words,
the equipment could be returned to
service but the time limits in proposed
§ 1926.1416(d) and (e) would apply, as
would the alternative measures
requirements.
Proposed § 1926.1412(f) does not
explicitly describe how the follow-up
measures in proposed § 1926.1412(f)(4)–
(f)(6) would apply to operational aids.
As explained below in the discussion of
proposed § 1926.1412(f)(4)–(f)(6), the
Agency believes that it would be
appropriate to add language to clarify
that the follow-up action required when
an operational aid is found in the
annual inspection to be not working
properly is the action specified in
proposed § 1926.1416(d) and (e).
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(vi) lists
‘‘[g]asoline, diesel, electric, or other
power plants for safety-related problems
(such as leaking exhaust and emergency
shut-down feature), conditions and
proper operation.’’ This proposed
provision was derived from ANSI
B30.5–1968 and ASME B30.5–2004 and
reworded to emphasize and limit its
application to safety related issues, and
to include examples to better
communicate those concepts. Leaking
exhaust was included as an example
because it could asphyxiate an
employee. The emergency shut-down
feature was added as an example
because a failure of this feature could
result in an employee being struck by a
suspended load.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(vii), (viii)
and (ix) list ‘‘[c]hains and chain drive
sprockets for excessive wear of
sprockets and excessive chain stretch,’’
‘‘[t]ravel steering, brakes, and locking
devices, for proper operation,’’ and
‘‘[t]ires for damage or excessive wear.’’
These proposed provisions were derived
from ANSI B30.5–1968 and ASME
B30.5–2004. The Committee believed
that these items, as their presence in
these industry standards reflects, play a
manufacturer of the equipment or device for
continued operation or shutdown of the equipment.
The same section of the ASME standard also sets
forth alternative precautions, which may be taken
unless the manufacturer specifies otherwise, when
specific operational aids malfunction.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
significant role in the safe operation of
equipment.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(x) lists
‘‘[h]ydraulic, pneumatic and other
pressurized hoses, fittings and tubing, as
follows: (A) Flexible hose or its junction
with the fittings for indications of leaks.
(B) Threaded or clamped joints for
leaks. (C) Outer covering of the hose for
blistering, abnormal deformation or
other signs of failure/impending failure.
(D) Outer surface of a hose, rigid tube,
or fitting for indications of excessive
abrasion or scrubbing.’’ The purpose of
this proposed paragraph, as noted
during C–DAC meetings, is to ‘‘call
attention to specific parts of these
hoses’’ and thus prevent the failure of
mechanisms, such as the brakes, hoist
mechanisms and limit switches, that are
powered or affected by the movement of
fluids or air through the equipment’s
system of hoses.
Neither the general provisions in 29
CFR part 1926 Subpart N nor the
provisions in ANSI B30.5–1968 that are
incorporated by reference in Subpart N
contain a specific requirement for an
inspection of these hoses, fittings and
tubing. However, several more recent
consensus and government standards do
contain similar items in their annual/
Periodic inspections. ASME B30.5–
2004, COE–EM 385–1–1 (3 Nov 03) and
DOE STD 1090–2004 all contain some
form of this item in their Periodic
inspection provisions.
The Committee’s discussion of this
item focused on whether language used
in ASME B30.5–2004 should be
adopted. For example, the meaning of
the reference in the ASME standard to
‘‘metal and couplings’’ as one of the
points of concern on a hose for leakage
was questioned. The Committee sought
to be clearer by referencing ‘‘fittings’’
instead in proposed
§ 1926.1412(f)(2)(x)(A).
Also, members questioned the
appropriateness of the ASME language
on inspecting for hose leakage that
specifies leakage from threaded or
clamped joints that is not eliminated by
‘‘recommended procedures.’’ Since the
use of such procedures to correct a leak
is in the nature of a repair, the concept
of limiting the inspection item in this
manner was rejected.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(xi)–(xiii)
list a series of items that, like (f)(2)(x),
focus on specific parts of hydraulic and
pneumatic power systems. They would
be included for the same reason—to
better ensure that those parts of the
equipment driven by hydraulic and
pneumatic power do not fail. These
provisions address: ‘‘(xi) [h]ydraulic and
pneumatic pumps and motors, as
follows: (A) Performance indicators:
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
unusual noises or vibration, low
operating speed, excessive heating of
the fluid, low pressure. (B) Loose bolts
or fasteners. (C) Shaft seals and joints
between pump sections for leaks’’; (xii)
‘‘[h]ydraulic and pneumatic valves, as
follows: (A) Spools: sticking, improper
return to neutral, and leaks. (B) Leaks.
(C) Valve housing cracks. (D) Relief
valves: failure to reach correct pressure
(if there is a manufacturer procedure for
checking pressure, it must be
followed)’’; and (xiii) ‘‘[h]ydraulic and
pneumatic cylinders, as follows: (A)
Drifting caused by fluid leaking across
the piston. (B) Rod seals and welded
joints for leaks. (C) Cylinder rods for
scores, nicks or dents. (D) Case (barrel)
for significant dents. (E) Rod eyes and
connecting joints: loose or deformed.’’
As with proposed paragraph (f)(2)(x),
these items are not explicitly mentioned
in Subpart N. Neither the Subpart itself
nor the incorporated ‘‘Periodic’’
inspection in ANSI B30.5–1968
specifically references these items.
However, ASME B30.5–2004, COE–EM
385–1–1 (3 Nov 03) and DOE STD 1090–
2004 each require inspection of these
items by language with varying degrees
of specificity.
While discussing these items, C–DAC
members decided not to include the
inspection of hydraulic filters that are
included in ASME B30.5–2004 because,
as a Committee member who works for
a manufacturer noted, the condition of
these filters is a maintenance rather than
a safety issue. Other discussion related
to several of the items in this list. In
proposed § 1926.1412(f)(2)(xi)(C),
‘‘pump’’ was inserted to clarify which
joints must be inspected for leaks.
Further, ‘‘significant’’ was added to
describe the dents subject to inspection
under proposed
§ 1926.1412(f)(2)(xiii)(D) because some
dents on cases do not affect operation.
The Committee believed that these
items, as their presence in these
government and consensus standards
reflects, play a significant role in the
safe operation of equipment.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xiv) lists
‘‘[o]utrigger pads/floats’’ for excessive
wear or cracks.’’ The purpose of the
inspection of outrigger pads/floats is to
make certain that these pads (which are
attached to the outrigger and used to
distribute the weight of the load to the
ground) will not fail and leave the
outrigger without proper support.
This item is not included in the
annual inspection of Subpart N for
cranes and derricks, the periodic
inspections of ANSI B30.5–1968 or
ASME B30.5–2004. However, the
Periodic (yearly) inspection in COE–EM
385–1–1 (3 Nov 03) may cover
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
‘‘outrigger pads/floats’’ with its general
provision regarding ‘‘foundation or
supports.’’ The Committee similarly
included this item because it believed
that it plays a significant role in the safe
operation of equipment.
Paragraph (f)(2)(xv) lists ‘‘slider pads
for excessive wear or cracks.’’ Slider
pads (which are used to guide sections
of equipment such as the boom
extension on a hydraulic crane) are
included because excessive wear may
cause the equipment to fail. The
Committee was aware that some
disassembly may be required to inspect
slider pads.
This item is not included in the
annual inspection of Subpart N for
cranes and derricks or the periodic
inspections of ANSI B30.5–1968 or
ASME B30.5–2004. However, the
Committee included this item because
of its role in the safe operation of the
equipment.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xvi) lists
‘‘[e]lectrical components and wiring for
cracked or split insulation and loose or
corroded terminations.’’ Wires are not
listed in the annual/Periodic inspection
in Subpart N, ANSI B30.5–1968, ASME
B30.5—2004 or COE–EM 385–1–1 (3
Nov 03). The purpose of this proposed
provision is to prevent hazards related
to deficiencies in electrical components
and wiring. Since such deficiencies may
cause a fire or the malfunction of safety
related systems, the Agency believes
that the inclusion of electrical
components as well as wiring in the
inspection list is necessary.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xvii) lists
‘‘[w]arning labels and decals originally
supplied with the equipment by the
manufacturer or otherwise required
under this standard: missing or
unreadable.’’ The annual/Periodic
inspection in COE–EM 385–1–1 (3–
NovJan 03) contains a similar
requirement relative to ‘‘safety and
function labels for legibility and
replacement.’’ However, this item is not
included in the annual/Periodic
inspections included in Subpart N,
ANSI B30.5–1968 or ASME B30.5–2004.
The Committee believed that warning
decals that would be required under this
proposed standard (either by virtue of a
specific provision in this proposed
standard, e.g., paragraph 1407(g), or
because they were originally supplied
by the manufacturer with the
equipment, see § 1926.1433(e)(5), Posted
warnings) provide important safety
reminders and information. As such, it
was of the view that they need to be
maintained in order for them to
continue to alert users to those safety
concerns. The Agency modified the C–
DAC language for proposed paragraph
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59773
(f)(2)(xvii) so that it would cover
warning labels and decals originally
supplied by the manufacturer and thus
better reflect the Committee’s intent as
indicated by proposed § 1926.1433(e)(5).
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(xviii–xxi)
list: ‘‘Originally equipped operator seat:
missing;’’ ‘‘Operator seat: unusable;’’ 35
‘‘Originally equipped steps, ladders,
handrails, guards: missing;’’ and ‘‘Steps,
ladders, handrails, guards: in unusable/
unsafe condition.’’ These are not
included in the annual/periodic
inspections of ANSI B30.5–1968, ASME
B30.5–2004, or COE–EM 385–1–1 (3
Nov 03).
The Committee believed that these are
safety related items that need to be
inspected. For example, if the operator
seat is unusable, the likelihood of the
operator manipulating a control in an
inadvertent manner or being unable to
reach a control is increased. The other
items relate to preventing falls and
contact with exposed parts that are
moving or otherwise dangerous. It
should be noted that, among others,
proposed § 1926.1433, Design,
construction and testing, and
§ 1926.1426, Fall protection, would
include requirements related to several
of these items.
Proposed paragraph (f)(3) would
require functional testing as part of the
annual/comprehensive inspection. A
general functional testing requirement is
not included in the annual/periodic
inspection in COE–EM 385–1–1 (3 Nov
03), although it does require functional
testing for certain items, such as ‘‘crane
function operating mechanisms,’’ and
‘‘operator aids (safety devices) and
indicating devices.’’ Similarly, the
annual/periodic inspection provisions
of ANSI B30.5–1968 (incorporated by
reference into Subpart N) and ASME
B30.5–2004, imply a functional testing
requirement with regard to several
specific items (e.g., in B30.5–1968 and
in B30.5–2004), ‘‘[t]ravel steering,
braking, and locking devices, for
malfunction’’).
The purpose of this testing is to
ensure that the equipment as configured
in the inspection is functioning
properly. It was the Committee’s belief
that, without functional testing, the
inspection may not reveal some safety
problems.
The proposed provision reflects the
Committee’s belief that functional
testing should be limited to the
equipment ‘‘as configured in the
35 The original C–DAC language provided:
‘‘Operator seat: missing or unusable.’’ OSHA
modified this language to avoid the implication that
equipment that did not include an operator seat as
original equipment would, contrary to C–DAC’s
intent, nevertheless need to have a seat installed.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59774
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
inspection.’’ In its view, functional
testing in all possible configurations,
with all possible attachments, is
unnecessary and would be unduly
burdensome. In light of the
comprehensive nature of the inspection
that would result from compliance with
the proposed annual/comprehensive
inspection provision, the Agency
believes that this limitation would not
adversely affect safety.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(4) through (6)
delineate the follow-up procedures that
would apply when a deficiency is
identified during the annual/
comprehensive inspection. The purpose
of these provisions is to ensure that a
deficiency that is not yet a safety hazard
but may develop into one is monitored
on a monthly basis, and that a
deficiency that is a safety hazard is
corrected before the equipment is
returned to service.
Specifically, proposed paragraph (f)(4)
provides that immediately following the
identification of a deficiency, the
qualified person must determine
‘‘whether the deficiency constitutes a
safety hazard, or though not yet a safety
hazard, needs to be monitored in the
monthly inspections.’’ Proposed
paragraph (f)(5) would require that
equipment with a deficiency identified
as a safety hazard by the qualified
person be removed from service until
the deficiency is corrected. Proposed
paragraph (f)(6) would require the
employer to check in the monthly
inspections the deficiencies that the
qualified person had identified as
needing monitoring.
The corrective procedures in
proposed paragraphs (f)(4) through (f)(6)
are similar to those in ANSI B30.5–1968
and ASME B30.5–2004 in that the
ANSI/ASME provisions also call for
equipment operation to cease upon
discovery of a safety hazard. They differ
in that the ANSI/ASME provisions have
no procedures for monitoring
deficiencies that are not yet safety
hazards.
The Committee believed that this
would be an effective means of ensuring
that employers respond appropriately to
deficiencies identified in the annual/
comprehensive inspection. In addition,
the Committee’s addition of a
mechanism for monthly monitoring,
where needed, of deficiencies that have
not yet developed into safety hazards
would ensure that developing hazards
are caught before they endanger
employees.
Upon reviewing these proposed
provisions, OSHA believes that C–DAC
inadvertently omitted a reference in the
proposed provisions for annual/
comprehensive inspections to special
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
corrective action procedures for
operational aids. This issue is explained
below.
Proposed § 1926.1416, Operational
aids, sets out requirements that would
apply where an operational aid is not
working properly. Specifically, it would
allow equipment with an operational
aid that is not working to continue to be
operated for a limited time as long as
certain temporary protective measures
are used.
In a shift or monthly inspection, as
reflected in proposed § 1926.1412(d)(3),
if a deficiency in an operational aid is
identified, the corrective action
described in proposed § 1926.1416
would apply. In contrast, in the
proposed paragraph on annual/
comprehensive inspections
(§ 1926.1412(f)), C–DAC did not include
a similar reference.
If the corrective actions described in
proposed § 1926.1416 did not apply and
an operational aid were found to be not
working properly in an annual/
comprehensive inspection, the qualified
person would have to determine if that
constituted a safety hazard. If he or she
concluded that it was a safety hazard,
the equipment would have to be
removed from service immediately until
the aid was repaired. OSHA believes
that such a result would be contrary to
C–DAC’s intent, since the issue of the
extent to which an operational aid
needed to be repaired was
comprehensively dealt with in proposed
§ 1926.1416.
In sum, the Agency believes that
proposed § 1926.1412(f) should be
modified to specifically make the
corrective actions in proposed
§ 1926.1416 applicable. OSHA requests
public comment on this issue.
The Committee considered whether
the monitoring aspect of this proposed
requirement would unduly add to the
employer’s paperwork burden. The
Committee determined that it would
not, since all that would be involved
would be a notation on the employer’s
monthly inspection form to pay special
attention to the item and then note its
condition.
Proposed paragraph (f)(7),
Documentation of annual/
comprehensive inspection, would
require the employer that conducts the
inspection to complete and maintain,
for a minimum of twelve months,
documentation that contains ‘‘[t]he
items checked and the results of the
inspection,’’ and ‘‘[t]he name and
signature of the person who conducted
the inspection and the date.’’ Note that
proposed § 1926.1413(c)(4), which
pertains to the annual/comprehensive
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
wire rope inspection, contains a similar
documentation requirement.
This proposed documentation
requirement differs in several respects
from Subpart N and other current
consensus standards. For example,
Subpart N at 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(6), has
an open-ended retention period and
does not include a signature
requirement or a requirement that the
inspector be named. It also differs from
the periodic inspection in ASME B30.5–
2004 that only calls for ‘‘dated records’’
for specific, critical items, does not
specify that the inspector’s name be
listed, and does not specify a retention
period.
The Committee believed that the
proposed provision would promote
safety by ensuring that the items
checked and the inspection results are
documented and maintained for at least
12 months. This would ensure that past
deficiencies and potential hazards
associated with the equipment can be
tracked. In the Committee’s view this
information would help the qualified
person assess the equipment in the
subsequent annual/ comprehensive
inspection.
The Committee believed that the
documentation of this inspection,
signed by the person who conducted the
inspection and retained for 12 months,
would have several effects. First, it
would increase the likelihood that more
employers would implement systems
for conducting and responding to
inspections. The failure to do so would
be more readily apparent if a record was
not made, and the signature of the
person who conducted the inspection
would be an inducement to that person
to ensure that the inspection was done
correctly.
The Committee determined that it
would not be necessary for this
documentation to be available on site.
The information in the document is not
routinely needed at the site to ensure
safe operation. Rather, it would be
sufficient to maintain it in a centralized
location (such as a corporate office) and
made available as necessary.
During the SBREFA process, several
Small Entity Representatives objected to
the requirement for documentation of
monthly and annual inspections, stating
that such documentation would be
unduly burdensome and would not, in
their opinions, add to worker safety.
The Panel recommended that OSHA
solicit public comment on the extent of
inspection documentation the rule
should require. OSHA requests
comment on this issue.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1412(g)
Severe Service
Proposed paragraph (g) would require
the employer to inspect the equipment
when the severity of use/conditions—
‘‘such as loading that may have
exceeded rated capacity, shock loading
that may have exceeded rated capacity,
[or] prolonged exposure to a corrosive
atmosphere’’—creates a ‘‘reasonable
probability of damage or excessive
wear.’’ In such instances, the employer
would be required to stop using the
equipment and have a qualified person
‘‘inspect the equipment for structural
damage’’; determine whether, in light of
the use/conditions of the severe service,
any items listed in the Annual/
comprehensive inspection need to be
inspected and if so, inspect them; and
if a deficiency is found, follow the
correction/monitoring procedures set
forth in proposed § 1926.1412(f)(4)–
(f)(6).
Neither ANSI B30.5–1968 nor ASME
B30.5–2004 has a specific inspection
provision for severe service. Rather,
those standards reference ‘‘severity of
service’’ as a factor to be considered
when determining how frequently to
conduct a Periodic Inspection. COE–EM
385–1–1 (1 Jan 03) references severe
service under its periodic inspection as
a basis for requiring that inspection to
be performed quarterly as opposed to
‘‘Yearly.’’
The Committee believed that there are
certain events and circumstances that,
because they may cause damage (i.e.,
structural damage or significant wear),
should trigger a close inspection to
check for such damage, rather than
waiting for the next annual inspection.
The Committee considered using
‘‘heavy service’’ as a trigger for such an
inspection. In the course of that
discussion, the Committee considered
triggering the inspection based on
specific rated load capacities (such as 85
to 100% of the rated load capacity) or
on a particular number of cycles (such
as in excess of 10 lift cycles per hour).
These were rejected because members
believed that, as long as the use is
within the equipment’s rated capacity,
such use would not be expected to
necessitate a special inspection.
Instead, the Committee agreed that a
trigger based on use or conditions in
which there is a reasonable probability
of damage or excessive wear would be
an effective means of ensuring that
equipment was not operated with such
damage/wear. Examples were provided
in the proposed provision to add clarity
to the concept.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Paragraph 1412(h) Equipment Not in
Regular Use
Proposed paragraph (h) would require
that equipment that sits idle for three
months or more be inspected by a
qualified person in accordance with the
monthly inspection provisions of
proposed § 1926.1412(e) before being
used.
This would ensure that deficiencies
that may arise as a result of the
equipment standing idle are checked
before its subsequent use. The
Committee believed that this inspection
would need to be done by a qualified
person because some of the deficiencies
that may arise from sitting idle require
the qualified person’s higher level of
ability to detect and assess. For
example, equipment that is idle for a
period of time is often subject to
variations in weather (e.g., temperature
and humidity) that cause contraction
and expansion of parts and fluids,
which can cause damage. In addition,
idle equipment is also more likely to
have corroded pins and corrosion on the
boom. Such conditions need to be
assessed by a qualified person to
determine if there is a deficiency that
constitutes a hazard.
This proposed requirement differs
from the ANSI/ASME standards in
several respects, most significantly in
terms of the time frame that triggers the
inspection and the type of inspection
required. Both ANSI B30.5–1968 and
ASME B30.5–2004 subject cranes that
are idle for one or more months, but less
than six months, to a frequent
inspection, and cranes that are idle for
six or more months to a periodic
inspection. It should be noted that
under the proposed provision and the
ANSI/ASME standards, an inspection of
wire rope is included. A qualified
person would conduct this inspection of
wire rope (as well as the rest of the
items included in this inspection of
equipment not in regular use).
The Committee considered the ANSI/
ASME approach to inspecting idle
equipment. It determined that a one
month trigger was too short, because
problems that may arise from the
equipment sitting idle, such as drying/
hardening seals, take longer than that to
occur. It believed that a three month
trigger was more appropriate to use for
this purpose.
Paragraph 1412(i). [Reserved.] This
paragraph is reserved because it is
inconvenient for readers to determine
whether ‘‘(i)’’ is being used as a letter or
a roman numeral.
Paragraph 1412(j)
Proposed paragraph (j) would require
that any part of a manufacturer’s
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59775
inspection procedures relating to safe
operation that is more comprehensive or
has a more frequent schedule than that
required by this proposed section must
be followed. However, the proposed
paragraph notes that additional
manufacturer documentation
requirements need not be followed.
Examples are provided in the proposed
provision of the types of items that
would be considered to relate to safe
operation (‘‘a safety device or operator
aid, critical part of a control system,
power plant, braking system, loadsustaining structural components, load
hook, or in-use operating mechanism’’).
Neither the general provisions of 29
CFR part 1926 Subpart N nor ANSI
B30.5–1968 contains a similar
provision. However, § 1926.550(c)(5) of
Subpart N relative to hammerhead
tower cranes and § 1926.550(f)(2)(iii)
relative to floating cranes and floating
derricks require that inspections meet
the manufacturer’s requirements. COE–
EM 385–1–1–1 (3 Nov 03) states that
‘‘[c]ranes and derricks shall be * * *
inspected * * * in accordance with the
manufacturer’s operating manual for the
crane and the applicable ANSI/ASME
codes or OSHA requirements,
whichever is more stringent.’’
The Committee believed that, to the
extent a more comprehensive or
frequent inspection is specified by the
manufacturer, it is necessary for that to
be done to ensure the safe operation of
the equipment. In the Committee’s view,
the expertise of the manufacturer with
respect to the equipment in this regard
needs to be recognized and acted upon.
Summary of Significant Differences
From the Current 29 CFR Part 1926
Subpart N
This proposed section differs in
several respects from Subpart N. Unlike
Subpart N, the proposed standard does
not include an initial inspection for new
equipment or inspections for standby
cranes, nor does it include a
requirement for preventive
maintenance.
The Committee concluded that
manufacturers’ quality control and
inspection practices are generally
effective in ensuring that new
equipment does not have deficiencies
that constitute safety hazards. The
Committee believed that, to the extent
those practices do not identify and
correct all such hazards, the shift
inspection would be adequate to
identify and address them.
The Committee concluded that a
special inspection for ‘‘standby’’ cranes
is not needed since the proposed section
includes proposed requirements for
equipment ‘‘not in regular use’’ (see the
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59776
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
discussion of proposed § 1926.1412(h),
above).
The Committee also concluded that a
general requirement for preventive
maintenance is not needed because the
proposed inspection requirements are
designed to ensure that deficiencies
constituting safety hazards will be
identified quickly and equipment with
such a safety hazard would be
prohibited from being returned to
service until the hazard is corrected.
As discussed above, the proposed
section would add requirements for a
post-assembly inspection and a severe
service inspection, and varies from
Subpart N to some extent with respect
to some of the items to be inspected. In
addition, the specific proposed
requirements for inspecting operational
aids and for a qualified person to
perform the modified equipment and
annual inspections would be new
requirements. Finally, rather than
providing for ‘‘daily to monthly’’
inspections, the proposed standard
would require shift inspections and
monthly inspections.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Section 1413
Wire Rope—Inspection
Cranes/derricks use wire rope to lift
and support their loads and parts of the
equipment. If the rope is worn or
damaged, it can break, causing a failure
of the equipment and/or a falling load,
which can kill or injure workers below.
Approximately 3% of crane fatalities in
construction work result from wire
ropes snapping. J.E. Beavers et al.,
‘‘Crane-Related Fatalities in the
Construction Industry,’’ 132 Journal of
Construction Engineering and
Management 901, 903 (Sept. 2006).
(OSHA–2007–0066–0011).
Subpart N, in § 1926.550(a), contains
several inspection requirements
applicable to wire ropes. Other
requirements are found in ANSI B30.5–
1968, which is incorporated by
reference in Subpart N through
§ 1926.550(b)(2). In addition, the
employer currently must look to both
§ 1926.550 and to the ANSI standard to
learn the content of the required
inspections, the qualifications of the
inspector, and the requirements for
addressing deficiencies found in ropes.
The Committee believed that placing all
of the required inspections and
remedies in this subpart without
reference to outside resources would
make it easier for employers to find and
become familiar with the steps they are
required to take and so facilitate
compliance. This is particularly true for
small businesses, which bear a
disproportionate cost when they must
access outside resources.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
The proposal would require wire rope
inspections at the same frequency—
shift, monthly, and annually—that
would apply for other crane
components. Also, like inspections of
other components, the shift and
monthly inspections must be conducted
by a ‘‘competent person,’’ and the
annual inspection by a ‘‘qualified
person.’’
Paragraph 1413(a) Shift Inspection
Proposed paragraph (a) would require
a shift inspection, the first of the three
types of wire rope inspections that
would be required under this subpart.
The timing, degree of scrutiny, and the
level of expertise required of the person
conducting this inspection and the other
two inspections (monthly and annual)
essentially mirror those in proposed
§ 1926.1412, Inspections, for general
equipment inspections.
Paragraph 1413(a)(1)
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) describes
who conducts the shift inspection, the
timing of the inspection, and the degree
of scrutiny required.
The shift inspection would be
conducted by a ‘‘competent person,’’ a
defined term in this subpart.36 C–DAC
believed that a ‘‘competent person’’
would be the appropriate person to
perform the shift inspection. OSHA
standards typically assign comparable
inspection duties to ‘‘competent
persons.’’ See, for example,
§ 1926.753(c) (competent person must
conduct pre-shift visual inspection of
cranes used in steel erection) and
§ 1926.451(d)(3)(i) (competent person
must inspect suspension scaffold before
use to ensure it is able to support
intended load). Moreover, a ‘‘competent
person’’ would conduct other aspects of
the shift inspections under this
proposed standard. Some C–DAC
members questioned using a
‘‘competent person’’ for shift and
monthly inspections on the basis that
the individual most likely to perform
such an inspection, the operator, may
not have the authority to take corrective
action, as is required of a ‘‘competent
person’’ by definition. In response,
OSHA notes that the employer would be
required to ensure that the person
assigned to perform the shift inspections
has the requisite authority.
This proposed paragraph also would
require that this inspection be started
before each shift and be completed
before or during that shift. As with the
36 As discussed below under paragraph
1926.1413(a)(4), Removal from service, in certain
instances tasks relative to alternative measures for
certain (Category II) deficiencies would be done by
a ‘‘qualified person,’’ also a defined term.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
general shift inspection, the Committee
concluded that it was appropriate to
allow the wire rope inspection to be
completed during the shift instead of
requiring it to be completed before the
shift begins (see the discussion above of
proposed § 1926.1412(d)(1), which
explains the Committee’s reasons for
allowing the general shift inspection to
be completed during the shift).
Accordingly, the competent person
would be required to inspect all wire
rope that is reasonably likely to be used
during the shift. In cases where some of
the rope that is likely to be used is not
readily visible before the shift begins, as
discussed above, that portion may be
inspected during the shift.
Proposed § 1926.1413(a)(1) would
require the competent person to conduct
a ‘‘visual inspection * * * for apparent
deficiencies.’’ As discussed below, the
purpose of this inspection is to ensure
that deficiencies are identified and that,
depending on the competent person’s
evaluation of those deficiencies,
appropriate action is taken. The
Committee wanted to make clear,
however, that the inspection was not to
be so comprehensive and timeconsuming that it would be unrealistic
to conduct it for each shift. To clarify
that the inspection was one that was
reasonable for a shift inspection, the
provision states that neither ‘‘untwisting
(opening of wire rope)’’ nor ‘‘booming
down’’ would be required during this
inspection. It believed that keeping the
level of inspection realistic will
encourage compliance that ultimately
will serve to reduce accidents.
Paragraph 1413(a)(2) Apparent
Deficiencies
Proposed § 1926.1413(a)(1) (discussed
above) would require the competent
person to look for ‘‘apparent
deficiencies, including those listed in
paragraph (a)(2).’’ Proposed
§ 1926.1413(a)(2) would establish three
categories (I, II, and III) of apparent wire
rope deficiencies. The likelihood that a
deficiency is hazardous increases as the
number of the category increases from I
to III. As discussed further below, the
category determines the options or
‘‘next steps’’ available to or required of
the employer under § 1926.1413(a)(4),
Removal from service.
C–DAC’s goal in this paragraph is to
establish clear and appropriate
requirements setting out the steps
employers must take when inspections
reveal deficiencies.
Category I: Proposed
§ 1926.1413(a)(2)(i) lists ‘‘Category I’’
apparent deficiencies. These are similar
to the types of wire rope deterioration
noted in the inspection provisions of
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
section 5–2.4.1 of ANSI B30.5–1968 and
section 5–2.4.2 of ASME B30.5–2004.
As further indicated below in the
discussion of § 1926.1413(a)(4)(i) under
Removal from service, these items are
grouped together because they reflect
damage that may or may not be severe
enough to constitute a hazard. Proposed
§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(i) sets forth the steps
the employer would be required to take
once a Category I apparent deficiency
has been identified.
Proposed § 1926.1413(a)(2)(i)(A)
begins the list with the ‘‘significant
distortion’’ of wire rope, such as
‘‘kinking, crushing, unstranding,
birdcaging, signs of core failure or steel
core protrusion between the strands.’’
These apparent deficiencies were
selected because, as indicated by their
inclusion in consensus standards, such
as section 5–2.4.2 of ASME B30.5–2004,
they may constitute or indicate the
presence of a hazard. The Committee
considered whether the reference in this
paragraph to core failure should be
limited to rotation resistant rope.
However, the Committee decided not to
limit ‘‘signs of core failure’’ to rotation
resistant rope.
The word ‘‘significant’’ was included
in this and other provisions in
§ 1926.1413(a)(2)(i) to make clear that
minimal defects of these types do not
rise to the level of Category I
deficiencies. Only those that may pose
genuine safety concerns are included.
Proposed § 1926.1413 (a)(2)(i)(B) lists
‘‘significant corrosion’’ as a Category I
apparent deficiency. This type of
damage was included because severe
corrosion can weaken wire rope and
cause it to break. The Committee used
the descriptive term ‘‘significant’’ to
limit further action to situations in
which the degree of corrosion could
realistically suggest a hazard.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C) lists
‘‘electric arc (from a source other than
power lines) or heat damage’’ as a
Category I apparent deficiency. These
deficiencies were derived from SAE
(Society of Automotive Engineers) and
COE (Army Corps of Engineers)
standards and are included because
such damage can weaken the wire rope.
In discussing these types of damage,
some Committee members expressed
concern that ‘‘heat damage’’ would
include instances where the rope had
been cut to size by flame cutting.
However, flame cutting would occur at
the end of the newly cut rope, not at a
load-bearing part of the rope. Heat
damage is only a concern if it weakens
a load-bearing part of the rope. Flame
cutting done at the end of the rope, not
in a load-bearing part, would not cause
a hazard.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(D) lists
‘‘improperly applied end connections’’
as another apparent deficiency. In the
Committee’s experience, one type of
error that occurs is when somebody
between shifts cuts the cable and puts
the end connection back the wrong
way.37 An improper connection is
weaker than a proper one and can result
in the connection failing.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(E) lists
‘‘[s]ignificantly corroded, cracked, bent,
or worn end connections (such as from
severe service)’’ as the last type of
Category I apparent deficiency. Each of
these may constitute a hazard.
Category II: Proposed paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) contains two types of Category
II apparent deficiencies—visible broken
wires (§ 1926.1413(a)(2)(ii)(A)) and wire
rope diameter reduction
(§ 1926.1413(a)(2)(ii)(B)). In the
experience of the Committee, these
more typically signal the presence of a
safety hazard than Category I apparent
deficiencies. Proposed
§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii), under Removal
from service, sets forth the steps the
employer would be required to take
once a Category II apparent deficiency
has been identified.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) lists
separate criteria for visible broken wires
for running wire ropes (six randomly
distributed broken wires in one rope lay
or three broken wires in one strand in
one rope lay), rotation resistant ropes
(two randomly distributed broken wires
in six rope diameters or four randomly
distributed broken wires in 30 rope
diameters), and pendant or standing
wire ropes (more than two broken wires
in one rope lay located in rope beyond
end connections and/or more than one
broken wire in a rope lay located at an
end connection).
A ‘‘running wire rope’’ is a wire rope
that moves over sheaves or drums. This
definition is included in § 1926.1401 of
this proposed standard to make clear the
nature of the wire rope that is subject to
this inspection provision. These criteria
are the same as those contained in
section 5–2.4.3 of ASME B30.5–2004,
and those for running wire ropes and
pendant or standing wire ropes are also
contained in section 5–2.4.2 of ANSI
B30.5–1968, which is incorporated by
reference in 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart
N. One issue that was left unanswered
during the Committee discussions is
whether these broken wire criteria are
equally applicable when using plastic
sheaves. The Agency requests public
comment on this issue.
37 An example would be when the person installs
a U-bolt clip with the ‘‘U’’ on the live end of the
wire rope.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59777
The reference in proposed paragraph
(a)(2)(ii)(B) to ‘‘a diameter reduction of
more than 5% from nominal diameter’’
reflects a change in the manner of
expressing essentially the same criteria
currently set forth in fractions in
Subpart N (§ 1926.550(a)(7)(iv)) and
section 5–2.4.3(b)(6) of ASME B30.5–
2004. OSHA notes that the ‘‘reduction
in diameter’’ fractions set forth currently
in § 1926.550(a)(7)(iv) are in each case
equal to or greater than 5%, so the
proposed across the board 5% criterion
is equally or more protective than the
current standard for each rope diameter.
C–DAC used the percentage reduction
criterion because it is consistent with
the criterion now being set by rope
manufacturers and used in the industry.
The industry uses the percentage
reduction criterion because it is easier to
remember than the fractional reductions
in Subpart N.
Category III: Proposed paragraph
(a)(2)(iii) lists apparent Category III
deficiencies. The Committee believed
that these are of such significance that
they require the rope’s immediate
removal from service. For some
Category III deficiencies, the undamaged
part of the rope may be returned to
service if the damaged part is severed
(the actions required in response to
identifying these deficiencies are
discussed below with respect to
proposed § 1926.1413(a)(4)(iv)).
Under proposed paragraph
(a)(2)(iii)(A), ‘‘core protrusion or other
distortion indicating core failure’’ in
rotation resistant rope would be a
Category III apparent deficiency. As
described by a C–DAC member, this
visible indicator is present when there
is core protrusion between the outer
strands or, in other words, ‘‘the metal
core is coming out.’’ Core protrusion is
a late-stage indicator that the rope has
already suffered significant damage and,
in the Committee’s judgment,
necessitates the rope’s immediate
removal from service.
Under proposed paragraph
(a)(2)(iii)(B), ‘‘[e]lectrical contact with a
power line’’ would be a Category III
apparent deficiency. Contact with a
power line could cause the rope to carry
a high electrical current that could
result in internal damage that
significantly reduces the rope’s strength.
The Committee believed that, in view of
the difficulty in confirming such
internal damage and the likelihood that
significant damage has occurred in such
instances, it is imperative that the entire
rope be replaced.
The rope would have to be removed
from service under this provision if the
load, rigging, or the rope itself makes
electrical contact with a power line. In
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59778
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
addition, electrical contact under this
provision would occur if the boom or
other part of the crane contacts a power
line and the wire rope is in contact with
the ground through the hook or some
other means.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C) also
lists ‘‘a broken strand’’ as a Category III
apparent deficiency. A strand is a
‘‘group’’ of wires. In the Committee’s
view, that degree of damage clearly
compromises the rope’s capacity and
continued use would be dangerous.
Paragraph 1413(a)(3) Critical Review
Items
Under proposed paragraph (a)(3), the
competent person must give particular
attention to certain ‘‘Critical Review
Items’’ during the shift inspection (as
well as, as discussed below, in the
monthly and annual inspections).
Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i),
rotation resistant wire rope that is in use
would be a critical review item. As
indicated earlier, the construction of
rotation resistant rope makes it more
susceptible to damage and more
difficult to detect damage to the inner
wires and/or strands.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii),
‘‘wire rope being used for boom hoists
and luffing hoists, particularly at reverse
bends’’ would be included in the list
because of the critical nature of these
ropes and, with respect to reverse
bends, because these areas are subjected
to more stress and are more prone to
damage.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) lists
‘‘wire rope at flange points, crossover
points and repetitive pickup points on
drums’’ because these points of the rope
are subject to additional wear. These
terms are defined in § 1926.1401,
Definitions, as follows:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Flange point: A point of contact between
rope and drum flange where the rope changes
layers.
Crossover points: Locations on a wire rope
which is spooled on a drum where one layer
of rope climbs up and crosses over the
previous layer. This takes place at each
flange of the drum as the rope is spooled onto
the drum, reaches the flange, and begins to
wrap back in the opposite direction.
Repetitive pickup points: When operating
on a short cycle operation, the rope being
used on a single layer and being spooled
repetitively over a short portion of the drum.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iv) lists
‘‘wire rope adjacent to end connections’’
because such rope is prone to corrosion
and/or breakage due to the localized
stresses placed on these areas.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(v) lists
‘‘wire rope at and on equalizer sheaves’’
because the limited travel of such rope
and added stress make it more prone to
wear.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Paragraph 1413(a)(4)
Service
Removal From
Remedial steps upon identification of
apparent deficiency: Proposed
paragraph (a)(4) would set out the
required next steps to be taken once the
competent person performing the
inspection has identified an apparent
deficiency. Those steps depend upon
whether, under § 1926.1413(a)(2), the
apparent deficiency falls under Category
I, II or III. Under this approach,
immediate removal from service would
be required for certain deficiencies,
while continued use under prescribed
circumstances would be allowed for
others. This approach was adopted by
C–DAC because, in the Committee’s
collective experience, different types of
deficiencies warrant different responses.
As described below, this approach
differs somewhat from Subpart N, with
its incorporation by reference of ANSI
B30.5–1968, as well as ASME B30.5–
2004. In addition, certain apparent
deficiencies addressed in this proposed
rule are not addressed by those
consensus standards.
Category I remedial steps: Proposed
paragraph (a)(4)(i) sets forth the followup to the discovery of a Category I
apparent deficiency that would be
required. Immediately upon the
discovery of such a deficiency, the
competent person must determine
whether the deficiency is a safety
hazard. If it is determined to be a
hazard, operations involving the use of
the wire rope would be prohibited until
one of two responses is taken—the rope
is replaced or the deficiency, if localized
(and not due to power line contact), is
removed by severing the rope in two so
that the undamaged portion can be
used. The provision also would prohibit
joining lengths of rope by splicing.
The Committee found that the
likelihood of significant damage from
power line contact is so great that, after
such contact, it is imperative that the
rope be removed from service. Also, it
determined that splicing is not a safe
practice and should therefore be
prohibited.
The Category I deficiencies, except for
damage from significant corrosion or an
electric arc, are currently addressed by
Subpart N through incorporation by
reference of section 5–2.4 of ASME
B30.5–1968. That ANSI standard
requires the deficiencies to be evaluated
(by an ‘‘appointed or authorized
person’’) and a determination made as
to whether continued use of the rope
would constitute a safety hazard. A
similar provision is contained in ASME
B30.5–2004. These provisions imply,
but do not explicitly state, that a rope
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
constituting a safety hazard must not be
used. The proposed standard would
explicitly state this prohibition.
Category II remedial steps: Proposed
paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and (iii) establish
the procedures to be followed once
Category II apparent deficiencies have
been identified. This category of
deficiencies includes wire rope that has
diameter reduction and/or visible
broken wires as described in proposed
§ 1926.1413(a)(2)(ii). Proposed
§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii) sets forth two
alternative options for the employer—
Option A or B—when such a deficiency
is identified.
Under Option A, an employer must
consider the wire rope to be a safety
hazard where the deficiency meets the
wire rope manufacturer’s established
criterion for removal or ‘‘meets a
different criterion that the wire rope
manufacturer has approved in writing
for that specific wire rope.’’ In such
instances, operations involving the use
of the wire rope in question are
prohibited until it is replaced or severed
as provided in § 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B).
Option B would allow limited
continued use of the wire rope with an
identified Category II apparent
deficiency provided the employer
ensures the procedures specified in
§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii) are met. Under
1926.1413(a)(4)(iii), a qualified person
first assesses the deficiencies in light of
the load and other conditions of use and
determines that continued use is safe as
long as the conditions established in
this paragraph are met.
These conditions include (as
established by the qualified person) the
parameters for use of the rope, including
a reduced maximum rated load, the
number of broken wires and/or the
diameter reduction that will require the
rope to be taken out of service (or
repaired in accordance with proposed
1926.1413(4)(i)(A) or (B)), and a specific
time limit, not to exceed 30 days from
the date the deficiency was first
identified, to replace the rope or sever
the damaged portion in accordance with
1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B).
The C–DAC draft, at paragraph
(a)(4)(iii)(C), would also have allowed
the qualified person to specify the
number of broken strands that would
require the equipment to be taken out of
service. However, as discussed above,
under 1926.1413(a)(2)(iii)(C), a single
broken strand is a Category III apparent
deficiency that requires the equipment
to be immediately removed from service
until the rope is replaced or the
deficiency severed, in which case the
undamaged part of the rope may
continue to be used. Because the
proposed rule prohibits any use of a
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
wire rope with a broken strand, OSHA
has deleted the words ‘‘broken strands’’
from 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(C).
Once the qualified person has
established the conditions for continued
use of the rope, the workers who are to
conduct the shift inspections must be
notified of the qualified person’s
determinations. In addition, the
qualified person’s procedures and
findings must be documented. The
Committee included this documentation
provision because the person
conducting the shift inspections would
need to be able to refer to the parameters
set by the qualified person.
29 CFR Part 1926 subpart N, in
§ 1926.550(a)(7), currently requires that
ropes with the same deficiencies that
would fall under the proposed rule’s
Category II (as well as heat damage,
which would be a Category I deficiency)
be removed from service. Section
2.4.3(a) of ASME B30.5–2004 allows the
rope to be used to the end of the work
shift based on the judgment of a
qualified person.
The Committee determined that the
alternative measures specified in Option
B are sufficiently comprehensive and
specific to ensure that the rope’s
continued use for up to 30 days would
be safe.
OSHA notes that the remedial steps
for Category II apparent deficiencies do
not, unlike those for Category I and III
apparent deficiencies, state explicitly
that splicing of wire rope is prohibited.
Instead, § 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A) states
that, if a Category II apparent deficiency
is a safety hazard, continued use of the
rope is prohibited unless ‘‘the damage is
removed in accordance with
§ 1926.1413(4)(i)(B),’’ which applies to
Category I deficiencies. Proposed
§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B) includes a
prohibition against splicing that C–DAC
intended to apply to Category II
deficiencies, but the language ‘‘damage
is removed’’ in proposed
§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A) could, in the
absence of an explicit prohibition
against splicing in that paragraph,
arguably be read to mean that the rope
could be severed and the undamaged
portions spliced. To make clear C–
DAC’s intent that the anti-splicing
provision of § 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B)
applies to Category II, OSHA has
modified the C–DAC language for
proposed § 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(B) as
follows:
(ii) If a deficiency in Category II is
identified, the employer shall comply with
Option A of this section or Option B of this
section, as follows:
(A) Option A. Consider the deficiency to
constitute a safety hazard where it meets the
wire rope manufacturer’s established
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
criterion for removal from service or meets a
different criterion that the wire rope
manufacturer has approved in writing for
that specific wire rope. If the deficiency is
considered a safety hazard, operations
involving use of the wire rope in question
shall be prohibited until the wire rope is
replaced, or the damage is removed in
accordance with all of the requirements and
restrictions in paragraph (4)(i)(B) of this
section.
OSHA has made similar changes to
proposed § 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(C) & (D).
Category III remedial steps: Proposed
paragraph (a)(4)(iv) would establish the
procedure for dealing with identified
apparent deficiencies that fall within
Category III. These deficiencies include
a broken strand, electrical contact with
a power line, and core protrusion or
other distortion in rotation resistant
rope indicating core failure. This
proposed paragraph would prohibit
operations involving the use of the wire
rope until either the wire rope is
replaced or (except where there has
been power line contact) severed in two,
so that the undamaged portion can be
used. Joining lengths of wire rope by
splicing would be prohibited (see
discussion above of proposed
§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B)).
Neither Subpart N nor ANSI B30.5–
1968 addresses these apparent
deficiencies. However, the Committee
noted that section 5–2.4.2(a) of ASME
B30.5–2000 lists ‘‘broken or cut strands’’
and ‘‘core failure in rotation resistant
ropes’’ as deficiencies that may be an
immediate hazard. (ASME B30.5–2004
contains the same characterization of
these deficiencies as the 2000 version).
The Committee believed that ropes with
Category III deficiencies must not be
used because of the high potential for
rope failure.
Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(v) would
require that where a wire rope is
required to be removed from service
under this proposed section, the
equipment (as a whole) or the hoist with
that wire rope shall be tagged-out as
provided in proposed § 1926.1417(f)(1)
until the wire rope is replaced or
repaired. Neither Subpart N, with its
incorporated reference to ASME B30.5–
1968, nor ASME B30.5–2004 contains a
similar tag-out provision specific to wire
rope. The Committee believed that this
would be an efficient and effective way
of preventing employees from activating
equipment (or the affected hoist) that
has a wire rope with an identified
hazard.
Paragraph 1413(b)
Monthly Inspection
Proposed paragraph (b) would require
a monthly inspection of wire rope. The
monthly inspection would be, as
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59779
explained below, a documented shift
inspection. C–DAC decided to keep the
timing of this inspection (as well as the
level of scrutiny required and the
expertise required of the inspector)
parallel with the general inspection
requirements in § 1926.1412 to provide
for an efficient inspection process and
thus enhance compliance. A monthly
wire rope inspection is currently
required by Subpart N’s incorporation
by reference of ASME B30.5–1968.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)
would require the monthly inspection to
be conducted in the same manner as the
shift inspection under § 1926.1413(a).
Thus, the monthly inspection would be
a visual inspection conducted by a
competent person for the same types of
apparent deficiencies noted in the wire
rope shift inspection.
It should be noted that the reference
in proposed § 1926.1413(b)(2) of the C–
DAC Consensus Document to
‘‘paragraph 1413(a)(3)’’ has been
corrected in the proposed rule to refer
to § 1926.1413(a)(4), which contains the
relevant provisions governing corrective
actions.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would
require the monthly inspection to be
documented in the same manner as
required by paragraph § 1926.1412(e)(3)
for the monthly general inspection. C–
DAC wanted to keep this requirement
parallel with the monthly general
inspection provision in order to reduce
paperwork and confusion, and facilitate
compliance.
Specifically, for the general monthly
inspection, § 1926.1412(e)(3) provides
that the ‘‘employer that conducts the
inspection’’ must provide
documentation that reflects the items
checked with results, the name and
signature of the inspector, and the date.
Similar requirements are set forth in
ASME B30.5–1968.
Proposed paragraph 1412(e)(3) also
specifies that the documentation be
retained for not less than three-months.
The Committee believed that the
proposed three-month retention period
would provide sufficient overlap to
avoid gaps in information and thus
provide a tracking mechanism for
developing problem areas.
Paragraph 1413(c) Annual/
Comprehensive
Proposed paragraph 1413(c) would
require an annual inspection (at least
every 12 months) for wire rope,
conducted by a qualified person. The
annual inspection would be
considerably more thorough and
comprehensive than the shift and
monthly inspections required by
proposed § 1926.1413(a) and (b). In
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59780
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
addition, it would be conducted by a
‘‘qualified person,’’ who would have
greater expertise than the ‘‘competent
person’’ who must conduct the shift and
monthly inspections.
The timing and inspector
qualifications for the annual wire rope
inspection coincide with those for the
general equipment annual/
comprehensive inspection. C–DAC
believed that the use of corresponding
timeframes and personnel will allow
inspections to be conducted efficiently
and thereby promote effectiveness and
compliance.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(1), all
apparent deficiencies and critical
review items required to be checked in
a shift inspection would have to be
checked in the annual/comprehensive
inspection (see § 1926.1413(a)(2) and
(a)(3)). In addition, under proposed
§ 1926.1413(c)(2), a complete and
thorough inspection, covering the
surface of the entire length of the wire
ropes, would be required. In addition to
inspecting in this manner for the types
of deficiencies listed in
§ 1926.1413(a)(2), under proposed
§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A), the qualified
person would be required to give
particular attention to the critical review
items listed in § 1926.1413(a)(3). Note
that the C–DAC document’s
§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A) referred to the
‘‘critical review items listed in
paragraph (a)(2)’’ instead of
§ 1926.1413(a)(3). That reference to
§ 1926.1413(a)(2) was a typographical
error, which has been corrected in the
proposed rule.
Under proposed paragraph
(c)(2)(ii)(B), particular attention must be
given to those sections of wire rope that
are normally hidden during shift and
monthly inspections. For example, such
sections would include parts of the rope
that form the lower wraps on the boom
hoist drum and which would not be
visible unless the drum is in a very low
angle position. The parts of the rope that
are normally inside a cowling or
covered area would be another example
of such sections.
Similarly, proposed paragraphs
(c)(2)(ii)(C) through (F) require
particular attention to wire rope in
contact with saddles, equalizer sheaves
or other sheaves where rope travel is
limited, wire rope subject to reverse
bends, wire rope passing over sheaves
and wire rope at or near terminal ends,
since these areas are more prone to
wear.
Unlike the shift and monthly
inspections, in which booming down
would not be required, booming down
would be necessary in order for the
inspection to be ‘‘complete and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
thorough, covering the surface of the
entire length of the wire rope.’’
OSHA notes that the items listed in
§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (F) (‘‘Wire
rope in contact with saddles, equalizer
sheaves or other sheaves where rope
travel is limited’’ and ‘‘Wire rope at or
near terminal ends’’) are similar to the
critical review items listed for shift
inspections in proposed
§ 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v)(‘‘Wire
rope adjacent to end connections’’ and
‘‘Wire rope at and on equalizer
sheaves’’). Consequently, the Agency is
planning to revise the language in
proposed § 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and
(a)(3)(v) to match the language in
§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F).
OSHA then could delete proposed
§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F)
because proposed
§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A) incorporates by
reference the critical review items listed
in § 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v),
thereby making the items listed in
proposed paragraphs
§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F)
redundant and unnecessary. The
Agency asks the public for comments on
this proposed action.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would
establish an exception to the timing of
the annual/ comprehensive inspection
where that inspection is infeasible due
to ‘‘existing set-up and configuration of
the equipment (such as where an assist
crane is needed) or due to site
conditions (such as a dense urban
setting).’’ The provision sets a timetable
for annual/comprehensive inspections
in such cases that requires the
inspection to be performed ‘‘as soon as
it becomes feasible, but no longer than
an additional 6 months for running
ropes and, for standing ropes, at the
time of disassembly.’’
This provision reflects the
Committee’s concern that, particularly
in densely developed urban settings, the
inability to boom down would prevent
the employer from completing a
comprehensive wire rope inspection.
The Committee considered requiring
employers anticipating such situations
to provide rope that is new or ‘‘like
new’’ when the crane is set-up at the
site. Also considered was requiring that
an annual inspection be required in
such instances before the start of the job.
The Committee found these proposals to
be impractical because it is difficult for
employers to forecast completion
timeframes with sufficient accuracy.
The proposed provision is intended to
ensure that, under the circumstances
where the exception would apply, the
required inspection would occur within
an appropriate period. The Committee
considered a maximum of an additional
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6 months appropriate for running ropes
in these circumstances. A longer period,
up to the time of disassembly, was
considered appropriate for standing
ropes because these ropes, in the
Committee’s experience, are less subject
to deterioration and wear.
These provisions of the annual/
comprehensive inspection differ in
various ways from Subpart N annual
inspection provisions at
§ 1926.550(a)(6). The current annual
inspection in Subpart N is a ‘‘thorough’’
inspection conducted by a ‘‘competent
person or by a government or private
agency recognized by the U.S.
Department of Labor.’’ Under this
proposal, the annual/comprehensive
inspection would be conducted by a
qualified person and includes a number
of specific items the inspection must
encompass. The Committee believed
that these changes are needed to reduce
the likelihood of injuries and fatalities
from wire rope failure.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) identifies
the next steps that would have to be
taken once the qualified person
performing the annual/comprehensive
inspection discovers a deficiency. The
qualified person must immediately
determine whether the deficiency
constitutes a safety hazard. If it does,
under proposed § 1926.1413(c)(3)(i), the
rope would either have to be replaced
or, if the deficiency is localized, the
damaged part may be severed and the
undamaged portion may continue to be
used. As discussed with respect to
proposed § 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B), joining
lengths of wire rope by splicing would
be prohibited.
The proposed standard does not
include a prohibition in
§ 1926.1413(c)(3)(i)(B) against repair of
wire rope that contacted an energized
power line, although such a prohibition
is included in the context of a shift
inspection in proposed
§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B). The Agency’s
understanding is that the Committee
decided to not include that prohibition
in the annual/comprehensive inspection
provision because, if an energized
power line contact had occurred, the
rope would have been removed from
service immediately in accordance with
proposed § 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B).
If the qualified person determines that
the deficiency is not currently a safety
hazard but needs to be monitored, under
proposed § 1926.1413(c)(3)(ii) the
employer would be required to ensure
that the deficiency is checked in the
monthly inspections. This would ensure
that, as the deficiency continues to
develop, the competent person would
pay particular attention to it in the
monthly inspections. Once it became a
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
safety hazard, it would be identified
promptly and the appropriate corrective
action would be taken.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(4), the
annual/comprehensive inspection
would be required to be documented
according to proposed § 1926.1412(f)(7),
which is the documentation provision
for the annual general inspection. As
with other parallel requirements in this
section, the C–DAC intended to ensure
consistency with other recordkeeping
requirements and thus facilitate
compliance.
Proposed paragraph 1412(f)(7), which
is incorporated by reference here, would
require the employer that is conducting
the inspection to document and retain
for 12 months, ‘‘the items checked and
the results of that inspection’’ and ‘‘the
name and signature of the person who
conducted the inspection and the date.’’
This documentation requirement differs
from 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart N’s
annual inspection in that Subpart N
does not specify the period of time the
documentation must be kept and has
neither a signature requirement nor a
requirement that the inspector be
named. The Committee believed that a
12 month retention period would ensure
that the employer would be able to refer
to the last annual/comprehensive
inspection to help track the rate of
progression of a deficiency that has not
yet developed into a safety hazard. The
Committee also believed that it would
increase the likelihood of compliance
with the annual/comprehensive
inspection requirements.
Finally, proposed paragraph 1413(d)
would prohibit the use of the type of
rope lubricants that hinder inspection.
For example, rope lubricants that are
opaque or so dark that they mask the
wire rope inside them would be of this
type. This prohibition is necessary to
ensure that the rope lubricant does not
hide potential deficiencies.
Section 1414 Wire Rope—Selection
and Installation Criteria
This proposed section sets forth
requirements for selecting and installing
wire rope. It addresses safety concerns
related to wire rope selection and
installation. In addition, it would
provide greater flexibility in the
selection process than current
requirements under Subpart N. This
flexibility reflects and takes advantage
of new developments in wire rope
technology.
Currently, paragraph
1926.550(a)(7)(vi) of Subpart N
prescribes that wire rope safety factors
accord with ANSI B30.5–1968 or SAE
J959–1966. By contrast, this proposed
section would not refer to external
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
standards for wire rope safety factors or
other requirements (with a single
exception discussed below) and would
give greater flexibility in selecting wire
rope, particularly rotation resistant wire
rope. Specific differences between this
proposal and Subpart N are examined in
the discussion of the paragraph where
the difference arises.
The Agency notes that, in developing
the C–DAC consensus document, the
Committee appears to have made an
inadvertent omission. The wire rope
safety factors in section 5–1.7.1 of ANSI
B30.5–1968 (which, as noted above, are
incorporated by reference in Subpart N)
apply irrespective of whether the rope is
of the standard type (i.e., rope that is not
rotation-resistant) or rotation resistant.
However, the C–DAC document
contains safety factor (now ‘‘design’’
factor) requirements only for rotation
resistant rope 38; it has no provisions on
design factors for standard rope.
Currently, under Subpart N’s
incorporation of section 5–1.7.1 of ANSI
B30.5–1968, the factors for standard
rope vary from a minimum of 2.5 to 3.5
depending on how the rope is used. The
2004 version of section 5–1.7.1 of ASME
B30.5 contains similar provisions and
the same range of design factors.39
Given the importance of design factors
in the selection of wire rope, OSHA
believes that the omission of design
factors for standard rope from the
C–DAC document was an oversight.
OSHA is unaware of any reason to omit
design factors for standard rope and
plans to include factors for standard
rope similar to those in section 5–1.7.1
of ASME B30.5–2004. OSHA requests
public comment on this issue.
Paragraph 1414(a)
Proposed paragraph (a) would require
the selection of replacement wire rope
to be in accordance with the
requirements of this section and the
38 As discussed below under proposed paragraph
(c), C–DAC drew from the current 2004 ASME
document in proposing design factors for rotation
resistant rope.
39 The provisions for standard rope in section
5–1.7.1 of B30.5–2004 read as follows:
5–1.7.1 Rope Design Factors
(a) For supporting rated loads and for supporting
the boom and working attachments at
recommended travel or transit positions and boom
lengths,
(1) the design factor for live or running ropes that
wind on drums or travel over sheaves shall not be
less than 3.5.
(2) the design factor for boom pendants or
standing ropes shall not be less than 3.0.
(b) For supporting the boom under recommended
boom erection conditions,
(1) the design factor for live or running ropes
shall not be less than 3.0.
(2) the design factor for boom pendants or
standing ropes shall not be less than 2.5.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59781
recommendations of the wire rope
manufacturer, the equipment
manufacturer, or a qualified person.
Currently, Subpart N (through section
5–1.7.2e of ANSI B30.5–1968) limits the
employer to using replacement rope of
the same size, grade and construction as
the rope originally furnished by the
crane manufacturer unless otherwise
approved by the rope manufacturer. The
2004 version of ASME B30.5, in section
5–2.4.3(d), specifies that replacement
rope shall have a strength rating at least
as great as the original rope unless a
deviation is approved by the equipment
manufacturer, the rope manufacturer, or
a qualified person.
A number of concerns about the
current 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N
provision were raised during the C–DAC
negotiations. Some members were
concerned about delays in obtaining
approval from the equipment
manufacturer. With respect to older
equipment, the manufacturer may no
longer be in business. In such cases the
employer is unable to get original
equipment wire rope information or
obtain approval for use of a different
specification of rope. Even where the
original manufacturer was purchased by
another company, the current company
may no longer have the original
equipment information. Another
concern was that the wire rope
manufacturer may be unduly
conservative in recommending a
replacement rope.
The Committee concluded that it
would be appropriate to allow a
qualified person to determine the
replacement rope specifications. The
Committee believed that the criteria for
being a qualified person are sufficiently
rigorous to ensure that such a person’s
recommendation in this regard would
be authoritative with respect to safety.
OSHA notes that proposed paragraph
(a)’s mention of only ‘‘replacement
rope’’ could mislead some readers to
conclude that all of § 1926.1414 applies
only to replacement rope. The
Committee clearly intended that the
remainder of § 1926.1414 apply to both
original equipment rope and
replacement rope. Rewording
§ 1926.1414(a) to read as follows would,
OSHA believes, make clear the
Committee’s intent: ‘‘Original
equipment wire rope and replacement
wire rope shall be selected and installed
in accordance with the requirements of
this section. Selection of replacement
wire rope shall be in accordance with
the recommendations of the wire rope
manufacturer, the equipment
manufacturer, or a qualified person.’’
OSHA requests public comment on such
a revision.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59782
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Paragraph 1414(b)
Boom Hoist Reeving
Proposed paragraph (b) sets forth two
provisions regarding the use of wire
rope for boom hoist reeving.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would
prohibit using fiber core ropes for boom
hoist reeving, except for derricks. In the
Committee’s view, the composition of
such ropes makes them prone to
degradation that is not completely
detectable by normal inspection
techniques. The Committee believed
that fiber core ropes can be used safely
for boom hoist reeving on derricks
because the sheaves on derricks are
smaller than on cranes, and because
they are more pliable, fiber core ropes
can accommodate reverse bending. In
addition, but less significant, derrick
booms are typically shorter in length
and have less capacity.
Currently, Subpart N does not contain
an express prohibition against the use of
fiber core wire ropes for boom hoist
reeving. ANSI B30.5–1968, incorporated
by reference into Subpart N, only
references the effect of temperature on
fiber core wire rope.
The 2004 version of ASME B30.5, in
section 5.1.7.2(b), prohibits the use of
fiber core wire ropes for boom hoist
reeving for mobile and locomotive
cranes. By contrast, the standard in the
ASME B30 series that applies to
derricks, ASME B30.6–2003, does not
prohibit the use of fiber core wire rope
for boom hoist reeving. Thus, the
distinction in proposed § 1926.1414(b)
between cranes and derricks in this
regard is consistent with current
national consensus standards.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would
prohibit rotation resistant rope from
being used for boom hoist reeving
except where the requirements of
§ 1926.1414(c) are met. The Committee
believed that only where these
provisions are met would the use of
rotation resistant rope for this purpose
be safe. The particulars of paragraph (c)
are discussed next.
Paragraph 1414(c)
Ropes
Rotation Resistant
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph (c)(1)
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would
classify rotation resistant ropes into
three ‘‘Types’’ (‘‘Type I,’’ ‘‘Type II,’’ and
‘‘Type III’’).40 Proposed
§ 1926.1414(c)(2) specifies use
limitations and requirements for each
‘‘Type’’ of wire rope. This approach
differs from Subpart N, ANSI B30.5–
1968 and ASME B30.5–2004, which do
40 ASTM A 1023/A 1023M–02 has a similar
classification system, although it divides rotation
resistant ropes into ‘‘categories.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
not distinguish between types of
rotation resistant rope.
Technological advances have resulted
in different types of what in the past
had been referred to as ‘‘rotation
resistant rope.’’ The different kinds,
which are distinguished in this
proposed section as Types I, II and III,
have different capabilities, which are
described in the definitions in proposed
§ 1926.1414(c)(1). This proposed section
tailors the requirements and limitations
to each Type. The Committee believed
that this approach would enable the
industry to take advantage of
technological advances and improve
safety.
Paragraph (c)(2) Requirements
Proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through
(iv) set forth use requirements of the
three ‘‘Types’’ of rotation resistant rope
in terms of operating design factors (and
in some instances activity). The purpose
of these provisions is to ensure that the
selection of the Type of rotation
resistant rope is suitable, in terms of
safety, to its use.
The specifics of each paragraph are
discussed below. This approach
generally differs from Subpart N. The
safety factors in ANSI B30.5–1968 and
SAE J959–1966 that are incorporated by
reference in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart
N are applicable to wire rope generally;
those industry consensus standards do
not separately address rotation resistant
rope with respect to design factors.
However, sections 5–5–1.7.1(c) and
5–3.2.1.1(d) of ASME B30.5–2004
generally designate a design factor of 5
for the use of rotation resistant rope,
reflecting the advances in technology
that led the Committee to adopt a
similar approach. Further, the 2004
ASME standard allows for deviation
from the design factor of 5, but in no
case lower than 3.5, when certain
specified procedures that are similar to
procedures in proposed
§ 1926.1414(c)(2)(iv) and further
described in § 1926.1414(c)(3) are
followed.
Proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(i)–(iv) use
the phrase ‘‘operating design factor.’’
‘‘Operating’’ has been included in this
phrase to show that the factors specified
in these proposed paragraphs are to
reflect how the rope is installed on the
specific piece of equipment in which it
is used. In other words, the operating
design factor is calculated based on
numerous considerations associated
with both the rope’s design and how it
is installed on the equipment in which
it will be used.
The Committee recognized that
limiting the use of a particular Type of
rotation resistant rope by operating
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
design factors (and, in some instances,
by activity) is a new approach.
However, the technological
developments that have occurred since
Subpart N was promulgated have led to
a need to tailor use requirements and
parameters to the different Types of
rotation resistant rope.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) would
prohibit Types II and III rotation
resistant rope with an operating design
factor of less than 5 from being used for
duty cycle or repetitive lifts. The
Committee believed that such ropes are
inappropriate for this type of use, which
subjects the rope to high levels of stress
generally and/or concentrates wear in
particular sections of the rope.41
While not addressed in the current
Subpart N, a similar limitation applies
to rotation resistant rope (though not
limited by Type) in section 5–
3.2.1.1(d)(3) of ASME B30.5–2004.
This prohibition would not apply to
Type I rotation resistant rope because
the Committee believed that it is
significantly more resistant to rotation
or torque compared with Types II and
III. This reduces Type I’s potential for
internal wear during use and moves
degradation from the inner wires to the
outer wires, where damage is more
easily detected during wire rope
inspections. Accordingly, the
Committee concluded that Type I rope
can safely be used for duty cycle and
repetitive lifts at an operating design
factor below 5 (but no less than 3.5), as
specified in proposed
1926.1414(c)(2)(ii).
The Committee’s understanding of
‘‘duty cycle’’ in this context is a
continuous operation in which
approximately the same type and weight
of load is handled. For example,
dredging with a clamshell is duty cycle
work. ‘‘Repetitive lifts’’ refers to a
continuous operation with loads that
may vary in size and weight. For
example, steel erection work typically
involves repetitive lifts of various size
and configurations of structural steel
members. It is the Agency’s
understanding that these definitions are
widely understood in the industry.
However, OSHA believes it is
appropriate to include them in
§ 1926.1401, Definitions, to avoid any
misunderstanding as to their meaning in
this standard. OSHA requests public
comment on this issue.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would
require that all rotation resistant ropes
41 In contrast, where the operating design factor
is 5 or greater, the Committee believed that core
damage (which is difficult to detect) would not
occur prior to the development of outer core
damage. Consequently, its use for duty cycle or
repetitive lifts would be safe.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
have an operating design factor of no
less than 3.5. As discussed above, some
rotation resistant ropes—Types II and
III—would have to have an operating
design factor of no less than 5 when
used for duty cycle or repetitive lifts.
Apart from those uses, under proposed
§ 1926.1414(c)(2)(ii), the lowest
operating design factor that would be
allowed for both Types II and III, as well
as Type I, would be 3.5.
This provision recognizes that the use
of rotation resistant rope at operating
design factors below 5 (but in no case
below 3.5) is permissible, although
proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(i) (discussed
above), (iii) and (iv) would set
limitations and conditions. The
Committee was cognizant of the fact that
section 5–3.2.1.1(d) of ASME B30.5–
2004 also allows rotation resistant rope
to be used at a design factor as low as
3.5 under similarly restricted
circumstances.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would
require the operating design factor for
Type I rotation resistant rope to be no
less than 5 except where the wire rope
manufacturer and the equipment
manufacturer approve a different design
factor in writing. (Note that, under
proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii), the
operating design factor would be
prohibited from being less than 3.5.)
The Committee believed that, in light of
the design of Type I rope, where there
is approval for the operating design
factor by both the wire rope
manufacturer and equipment
manufacturer, the use of the rope would
be safe.
The Committee considered concerns
about the fact that, in the future, there
may be many new Type I ropes on the
market, and the manufacturer may not
have tested them; this could lead to
difficulty in obtaining manufacturer
approval for an operating design factor
less than 5. However, in the
Committee’s judgment, the
manufacturer’s expertise regarding the
particular equipment is essential in this
instance to ensure that use of such rope
would be safe.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iv),
Types II and III rotation resistant rope
would be required to have an operating
design factor of no less than 5 except
when used for non-duty cycle and nonrepetitive lifts, and where the
requirements of § 1926.1414(c)(3)(i)—
(iii) are met. When these exceptions
apply, proposed § 1926.1414(c)(2)(ii)
would prohibit the operating design
factor from being less than 3.5.
This proposed paragraph reflects the
Committee’s belief that there is a greater
likelihood of internal damage in Type II
and Type III rotation resistant rope
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
when used with an operating design
factor lower than 5. However, the
Committee’s view is that where the
additional precautions in proposed
§ 1926.1414(c)(3) are met, its use would
be safe.
As stated above, 29 CFR part 1926
subpart N is dissimilar from this
paragraph in that it does not contain a
specific operating design factor for
rotation resistant rope and does not
otherwise differentiate between rotation
resistant wire ropes. This provision is,
however, similar to section 5–3.2.1.1(d)
in ASME B30.5–2004 which, while not
differentiating by ‘‘Type,’’ does allow
the use of rotation resistant rope with an
operating design factor of less than 5
where conditions similar to those
included in proposed § 1926.1414(c)(3)
are instituted.
Paragraph (c)(3)
This proposed paragraph specifies
additional requirements that must be
met when Types II and III are used with
an operating design factor of between
3.5 and 5 (for non-duty cycle, nonrepetitive lifts). The Committee believed
that these additional requirements are
needed to ensure that use of such ropes
would be safe.
Specifically, under proposed
§ 1926.1414(c)(3)(i), an inspection of the
rope by a qualified person in accordance
with § 1926.1413(a) would be required,
with its use allowed only if that person
determines there are no deficiencies
constituting a hazard (with the presence
of more than one broken wire in any one
rope lay considered a hazard). Because
of the lower operating design factor of
these ropes, the Committee believed that
the expertise of a qualified person is
needed to ensure that there are no
deficiencies that constitute a hazard.
Similarly, even one broken wire in any
one rope lay would be considered a
hazard.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii),
operations would have to be conducted
in a manner and at speeds that
minimize dynamic effects. Dynamic
effects are the additional forces exerted
on the rope due to dynamics like
acceleration and deceleration. Such
effects need to be minimized because
they increase the stress on the rope.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii),
each lift would have to be documented
in the monthly and annual inspection
records, with such use to be considered
by the qualified person in allowing
subsequent use of the rope. The
Committee considered this an important
step because the more times the rope is
used, the greater the likelihood that
degradation would have occurred.
Requiring each such lift to be
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59783
documented in the monthly and annual
inspection records would ensure that
this information is available to the
qualified person when that person
makes his or her inspections and
assessments under proposed
§ 1926.1414(c)(3)(i) and (ii).
Paragraph (c)(4) Additional
Requirements for Rotation Resistant
Rope for Boom Hoist Reeving
Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(i) would
prohibit rotation resistant rope from
being used for boom hoist reeving
except where the requirements of
proposed § 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) are met.
Currently, Subpart N, through its
incorporation by reference of section 5–
1.7.2 of ANSI B30.5–1968, prohibits the
use of rotation resistant rope for boom
hoist reeving under all circumstances.
This prohibition reflects the fact that
rotation resistant rope used for boom
hoist reeving tends to twist and thereby
suffer internal damage when it passes
over sheaves that are close together.
In reviewing this prohibition, the
Committee noted that this problem is
reduced when load hoists using rotation
resistant rope are used as boom hoists
for attachments such as luffing
attachments or boom and mast
attachment systems because the sheaves
are not as close together in these
applications and the twisting forces are
therefore lower.
The Committee concluded that safety
would not be compromised in such
circumstances as long as the conditions
in proposed § 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) were
met. The Committee also believed that
the exception would serve a practical
purpose, especially when using
attachments such as luffing jibs. The
auxiliary hoist is typically used as a
boom hoist for such attachments, and is
normally rigged with rotation resistant
rope. The exception enables the
employer to avoid the need to change
the rope when using such attachments
when safety could be assured by
meeting the specified conditions for its
use. Note that section 5–1.7.2 of ASME
B30.5–2004 also allows rotation
resistant rope to be used for boom hoist
reeving when conditions similar to
those in proposed § 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)
are met.
Under proposed paragraph
(c)(4)(ii)(A), the drum must have a first
layer rope pitch diameter of not less
than 18 times the nominal diameter of
the rope used. A first layer rope pitch
diameter less than that could damage
the rope.
Under proposed paragraph
(c)(4)(ii)(B), the requirements of
§ 1926.1426(a) and (b) would have to be
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59784
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
met.42 Section 1926.1426(a) prohibits
boom free fall for equipment
manufactured prior to October 31, 1984
and restricts the circumstances under
which a free falling boom may be used
for equipment manufactured before that
date. By saying that paragraph 1426(a)
applies ‘‘irrespective of the date of
manufacture,’’ proposed
§ 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(B) makes clear that,
when rotation resistant rope is used for
boom hoist reeving, boom free fall is
prohibited for all equipment under all
circumstances. The reference to
§ 1926.1426(b) requires the boom hoist
to have a secondary mechanism to
prevent free fall in the event the primary
system fails. These provisions would
prevent the rope from being subjected to
the shock load forces that would occur
in a boom free fall when the rope arrests
the fall.
The C–DAC draft of proposed
paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(C) incorporated by
reference the provisions in ASME
B30.5–2004 at sections 5–1.3.2(a), (a)(2)
through (a)(4), and (b) through (d).43
(Note that, at the time the C–DAC
document was completed, the most
current version of ANSI/ASME B30.5
was the 2000 version. Since that time
the 2004 version has been issued. The
referenced provisions are identical in
both versions).
These provisions of section 5–1.3.2
(load hoist mechanisms) of the ASME
standard provide:
*
*
*
*
*
(a) Load Hoist Drums. The load hoist drum
assemblies shall have power and operational
characteristics sufficient to perform all load
lifting and lowering functions required in
crane service when operated under
recommended conditions.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Load hoist drums shall have rope
capacity with the recommended rope size
and reeving to perform crane service within
the range of boom lengths, operating radii,
and vertical lifts specified by the
manufacturer.
(a) No less than two full wraps of rope
shall remain on the drum when the hook is
in the extreme low position.
(b) The drum end of the rope shall be
anchored to the drum by an arrangement
specified by the crane or rope manufacturer.
(c) The drum flange shall extend a
minimum of 1/2 inch (13 mm) over the top
layer of rope at all times.
(3) The load hoist drums shall provide a
first layer rope pitch diameter of not less than
18 times the nominal diameter of the rope
used.
42 The C–DAC Document referred to
§ 1926.1426(b) and (c). C–DAC’s intent clearly was
to refer to § 1926.1426(a) and (b), and OSHA has
corrected the text accordingly.
43 The Committee determined that the
incorporated provisions were sufficiently clear and
enforceable for use as OSHA requirements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
(4) A means controllable from the
operator’s station shall be provided to hold
the drum from rotating in the lowering
direction and be capable of holding the rated
load without further action by the operator.
Foot-operated brakes having a continuous
mechanical linkage between the actuating
and braking means, capable of transmitting
full braking force and equipped with a
positive mechanical means to hold the
linkage in the applied position, meet this
requirement.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Load Hoist Brakes.
(1) When power-operated brakes having no
continuous mechanical linkage between the
actuating and braking means are used for
controlling loads, an automatic means shall
be provided to set the brake, to prevent the
load from falling in the event of loss of brake
control power.
(2) Foot-operated brake pedals shall be
constructed so that the operator’s feet, when
in proper position, will not slip off, and a
means shall be provided for holding the
brakes in the applied position without
further action by the operator.
(c) Power Controlled Lowering. When
provided, a power-controlled lowering
system shall be capable of handling rated
loads and speeds as specified by the
manufacturer. Such a system is
recommended to assist in precision lowering
and to reduce demand on the load brake.
(d) Cylinders with Rope Reeving. Cranes
using a load hoist mechanism with hydraulic
cylinder(s) and rope reeving shall have
power and operational characteristics
sufficient to perform all load lifting and
lowering functions required in crane service
when operated under recommended
conditions. Sheaves used in multiple rope
reeving shall have a pitch diameter not less
than 16 times the nominal diameter of the
rope and shall comply with para. 5–1.7.4.
Upon reviewing these provisions,
OSHA believes that two changes need to
be made to the incorporation
recommended by C–DAC. First, the
second sentence of section 5–1.3.2(c) is
stated as a recommendation rather than
a mandatory requirement. OSHA
believes it would be confusing to
incorporate a non-mandatory
recommendation into this standard.
Therefore, rather than incorporating that
provision by reference, OSHA is adding
a new paragraph (G) to
§ 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) that incorporates
only the mandatory first sentence of
section 5–1.3.2(c) of ASME B30.5:
‘‘When provided, a power-controlled
lowering system shall be capable of
handling rated loads and speeds as
specified by the manufacturer.’’
The second change pertains to the
final sentence of section 5–1.3.2(d) of
ASME B30.5. That sentence’s
requirement of a minimum pitch
diameter of 16 times the nominal
diameter of the rope varies from the
requirement of proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(D), discussed next,
that the minimum pitch diameter be 18
times the rope’s nominal diameter. The
variation is due to the fact that section
1.3.2(d) of ASME B30.5 does not apply
solely to rotation resistant rope, as does
this paragraph. Although it is possible
to comply with a minimum pitch
diameter of both 16 and 18 times the
nominal diameter of the rope by
adhering to the value of 18, OSHA
believes it would be confusing to
include requirements giving both
values. Accordingly, OSHA is
modifying the incorporation by
reference recommended by C–DAC so
that, in this proposed rule,
§ 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(C) reads as follows:
The requirements in ASME B30.5–2004
Section 5–1.3.2 (a), (a)(2)–(a)(4), (b), and (d),
except that the minimum pitch diameter for
sheaves used in multiple rope reeving is 18
times the nominal diameter of the rope used
instead of the value of 16 specified in section
5–1.3.2(d).
Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(D)
provides that all sheaves used in the
boom hoist reeving system shall have a
rope pitch diameter of not less than 18
times the nominal diameter of the rope
used.
Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(E)
provides that the operating design factor
of the boom hoist reeving system shall
be not less than five. In this paragraph
and the next one as well, OSHA has
changed the C–DAC term ‘‘design
factor’’ to ‘‘operating design factor.’’
OSHA made this change so that the
terminology in these two paragraphs
would be consistent with that in
proposed paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of
this section. OSHA requests public
comment on whether there is any reason
for using different terminology in
proposed § 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(E) and (F)
than in proposed § 1926.1414(c)(2) and
(3).
Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(F)
provides that the operating design factor
for these ropes shall be the total
minimum breaking force of all parts of
rope in the system divided by the load
imposed on the rope system when
supporting the static weights of the
structure and the crane rated load. The
purpose of this provision is to ensure
that the methodology for computing the
operating design factors is clear and the
operating design factor requirements
specified in the proposed standard
achieve their intended effect.
Paragraph 1414(d)
Proposed paragraph (d) would require
that wire rope clips used with wedge
sockets be attached to the unloaded
dead end of the rope; however, the
provision also permits the use of
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
devices specifically designed for deadending rope in a wedge socket. The
Committee believed that this provision
is necessary to ensure attachment
strength, reliability and prevention of
cable damage.
Paragraph 1414(e)
Proposed paragraph (e) states that
socketing shall be done in the manner
specified by the manufacturer of the
wire rope or fitting. This is a clearer
version of the provision in section 5–
1.7.2b of ANSI B30.5–1968, which refers
to the manner specified by the
manufacturer of the assembly.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1414(f)
Proposed paragraph (f) specifies that
prior to cutting wire rope, seizings must
be placed on each side of the point to
be cut, with the length and number of
seizings determined in accordance with
the wire rope manufacturer’s
instructions. Seizings are needed to
hold the wire in the strands and the
strands in place during handling while
cutting. This keeps the rope beyond the
area of the cut intact. This provision
differs from both section 5.2.4.3(c) of
ANSI B30.5–1968 (incorporated by
reference into 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart
N) and from section 5–2.4.4(c) of ASME
B30.5–2004, which set forth specific
seizing requirements based upon
whether the rope is preformed and the
rope’s diameter.
In Committee’s experience, the
instructions and procedures for seizing
differ among various wire rope
manufacturers. It concluded that the
most appropriate approach would be to
require that, beyond specifying that
seizings be placed on each side of the
point to be cut, which is always
necessary, the length and number of
seizings be in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions. The
Committee decided to require
employers to follow the manufacturer’s
instructions because it believed that
wire rope manufacturers have the
knowledge and expertise to best
determine the length and number of
seizings that are needed to maintain the
integrity of their wire ropes during
cutting.
Section 1415 Safety Devices
This section sets forth the proposed
requirements for equipping cranes and
derricks with certain safety devices.
The safety devices addressed by this
section are devices that C–DAC believed
are essential for the safe operation of
cranes and derricks and therefore,
required to be present and in proper
working order during all equipment
operations with no alternative measures
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
permitted. Those devices considered
less critical to equipment safety are
designated as operational aids and are
governed by proposed § 1926.1416. That
section allows for equipment to
continue operating if the operational aid
fails or malfunctions but requires
certain temporary alternative protective
measures in such cases. Those devices
designated as safety devices in this
section are so essential and integral to
safe equipment operation that C–DAC
determined that there is no acceptable
alternative to having them in proper
working order.
59785
Proposed paragraph (a) lists the safety
devices that would be required on all
equipment covered by this Subpart and
any specifications and conditions
applicable to those devices (including
the exemption of certain equipment
from the requirements of the listed
devices).
Crane Level Indicator: Proposed
paragraph (a)(1) would require that a
crane level indicator be on all
equipment covered under this subpart.
The Agency is proposing this
requirement based upon the
Committee’s belief that level equipment
is a key factor in ensuring crane and
derrick safety. Using a crane level
indicator is necessary because it has the
requisite accuracy for leveling the
equipment. C–DAC members stressed
the need to use a crane level indicator
because, if the equipment is not
properly leveled, it will not have all the
capacities indicated in the load charts.
Reliance on the charts in such situations
could cause the equipment to overturn
or otherwise fail.
C–DAC discussions also raised two
significant issues in applying the (a)(1)
requirement. First, as stated in
§ 1926.1415(a)(1)(i), the proposal
specifies that a crane level indicator
must either be built into the equipment
or available on it. The Committee
believed that either option accomplishes
the purpose of enabling the employer to
determine if the equipment is level.
Second, as covered in
§ 1926.1415(a)(1)(ii), the Committee
believed that tagging out or removing
deficient built-in crane level indicators
is necessary. This provision addresses
the hazard posed by false readings.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would
exempt portal cranes,44 derricks,
floating cranes/derricks and land
cranes/derricks on barges, pontoons,
vessels, or other means of flotation from
the requirements of § 1926.1415(a)(1).
C–DAC members indicated that these
types of equipment are leveled upon
installation and then fixed in place,
precluding the need for a crane level
indicator.45
Boom Stops: Proposed paragraph
(a)(2) requires boom stops on all
equipment except for derricks and
hydraulic booms. ‘‘Boom stop’’ is
defined in proposed § 1926.1401 as a
device that restricts the boom from
moving above a certain maximum angle
and toppling over backwards. This
definition is derived from the SC&RF
Handbook. The term includes all
devices that meet the definition,
including boom stops, (belly straps with
struts/standoff), telescoping boom stops,
attachment boom stops, and backstops.
As the definition indicates, a boom stop
is needed to prevent a boom from
tipping backwards past its designed
range during equipment operations.
Several Committee members suggested
exempting certain older equipment from
being retrofitted with boom stops.
However, C–DAC concluded that the
significant safety issue at stake and the
fact that installing boom stops is not
technically difficult justify requiring
them on older equipment.
As noted above, the Agency proposes
to exempt derricks and hydraulic cranes
from the requirements of
1926.1415(a)(2). The derrick boom
overturn issue is covered in proposed
1926.1436(f)(2). Hydraulic cranes are
exempted because these cranes contain
the equivalent function of boom stops in
that the hydraulic cylinder physically
prevents the boom from moving
backward past its designed range.
Jib Stops: ‘‘Jib stop’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as the same type of device
as a boom stop but used for a fixed or
luffing jib. The definition notes that the
device is also referred to as a ‘‘jib
backstop.’’ Proposed § 1926.1415(a)(3)
would require jib stops on all
equipment where a jib is attached,
except for derricks. Jib stops perform the
same function for jibs as boom stops
perform for booms, and are similarly
necessary. The proposal exempts
derricks from this requirement because
jibs are not installed on derricks.
Foot Pedal Brake Locks: Proposed
paragraph (a)(4) would require that
equipment with foot pedal brakes have
44 Proposed § 1926.1401 defines ‘‘portal cranes’’
as a type of crane consisting of a rotating
upperstructure, hoist machinery, and boom
mounted on top of a structural gantry which may
be fixed in one location or have travel capability.
The gantry legs or columns usually have portal
openings in between to allow passage of traffic
beneath the gantry.
45 Note that, under proposed § 1926.1437(e), a
pontoon or barge/vessel list and trim device would
be required for floating cranes/derricks and land
cranes/derricks.
Paragraph 1415(a) Safety Devices
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59786
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
locks, except for portal cranes and
floating cranes. Such locks are needed
to prevent the unintentional
disengagement of a foot pedal brake,
which could lead to unintended
equipment movement and consequent
injuries and fatalities. Due to the
physical effort needed to keep the pedal
engaged, this is particularly important
where the brake is applied for long
periods of time.
The rationale for exempting portal
cranes and floating cranes from this
requirement discussed by the
Committee was that there are instances
in which, due to the pitching of a
floating crane and the pitching of the
vessel or object in the water with which
a portal crane works, the operator may
have to immediately release the brake.
The concern is that, if the foot pedal
brake lock had been activated, the
operator may not be able to release the
brake quickly enough in such a situation
to prevent the equipment from being
overloaded or to prevent unintended
movement of the load.
Upon review of the exemption in the
provision, the Agency has realized that
C–DAC assumed that the locking device
would in all cases be of the type that is
located on the brake pedal. That type of
device can be difficult to disengage,
thereby delaying the operator’s ability to
release the brake. However, it is OSHA’s
understanding that there are other types
of brake locking mechanisms that do not
present this problem (for example, a
brake lock that is hand-actuated). It
therefore appears that the exemption
may not be needed.46 The Agency
requests public comment on changing
proposed paragraph § 1926.1415(a)(4) by
deleting the exemption and requiring a
hoist brake locking mechanism for all
cranes.
Integral Holding Device/Check Valve:
Proposed paragraph (a)(5) would require
that hydraulic outrigger jacks have an
integral holding device/check valve.
Such a device is necessary to prevent
the outrigger jack from collapsing in the
event of a hydraulic failure.
Rail Clamps and Rail Stops: Proposed
paragraph (a)(6) specifies that
equipment on rails have rail clamps and
rail stops, except for portal cranes. A
rail clamp restricts the equipment from
lifting off the rails. The rail stop
prevents the equipment from moving
further than a specific point on the rails.
Portal cranes are exempt from the
requirements of § 1926.1415(a)(6)
because these cranes typically are
46 OSHA notes that ASME B30.8–2004, ‘‘Floating
Cranes and Floating Derricks,’’ section 8–1.6.2(l),
applies to load hoists and reads as follows: ‘‘Footoperated brake pedals * * * shall be equipped with
a means for latching in the applied position.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
equipped with a parking brake that
provides the equivalent function of
preventing the crane from
unintentionally moving along the rails.
Paragraph 1415(b) Proper Operation
Required
Proposed paragraph (b) would
prohibit the operation of the equipment
if any of the safety devices listed in this
section are not in proper working order.
This paragraph reflects the Committee’s
belief, discussed above, that proper
operation of these devices is critical to
safe use of the equipment.
Section 1416 Operational Aids
This section sets forth the proposed
requirements for equipping cranes and
derricks with certain operational aids.
‘‘Operational aids’’ are defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘devices that assist the
operator in the safe operation of the
crane by providing information or
automatically taking control of a crane
function. These include, but are not
limited to, the devices listed in
§ 1926.1416 (‘listed operational aids’).’’
This definition is similar to that in
section 5–0.2.2 of ASME B30.5–2004.
As discussed above in regard to
proposed § 1926.1415, the Committee
believed that the devices addressed in
§ 1926.1416 enhance safety. However,
they are less essential to the safe
operation of equipment than the safety
devices addressed by § 1926.1415
because of the availability of
alternatives that are sufficient on a
temporary basis. The temporary
alternative measures are precautions
that were historically used prior to the
widespread availability and use of these
operational aids.
Paragraphs 1416(a) and (b)
Under proposed paragraphs (a) and
(b), operational aids would be required
on all equipment unless otherwise
specified, and would have to be in
proper working order unless the
employer uses specified temporary
alternative protection. Section
1926.1416(b) provides that if the
crane/derrick manufacturer specifies
more protective alternative measures
than those listed in the standard, the
employer would be required to follow
them.
Committee discussions of these
provisions primarily focused on the use
of manufacturer procedures as
temporary alternative measures. The
Committee considered recommending
that the Agency require employers to
follow any temporary alternative
measures specified by the equipment
manufacturer in addition to those
required by this proposal. However,
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
instead of requiring additional
measures, the Committee decided that
employers should be required to rely
solely on measures specified by the
manufacturer but only if those measures
are more protective than those specified
in the standard.
Paragraph 1416(c)
Proposed paragraph (c) states that if a
listed operational aid stops working
properly during operations, the operator
shall safely stop operations until the
temporary alternative measures are
implemented or the device is again
working properly. It further provides
that, if a replacement part is no longer
available, a substitute device that
performs the same type of function may
be used, and the use of such a device
is not considered a modification under
proposed § 1926.1434, Equipment
modifications. Section 1926.1434
applies to modifications or additions
which affect the capacity or safe
operation of the equipment unless
certain steps are taken to have the
modifications or additions approved.
The Committee believed that it is
unnecessary to apply § 1926.1434 to the
use of a substitute operational aid
because, as long as the substitute device
works properly, its use will not affect
the capacity or safe operation of the
equipment.
Paragraph 1416(d) Category I
Operational Aids and Alternative
Measures
The proposal splits operational aids
into two categories, with different
amounts of time permitted for
temporary alternative measures to be
used in place of the listed operational
aids. Category I operational aids, which
are addressed by proposed paragraph
(d), would set a 7-day time limit for
repairing the deficient aid, and Category
II, addressed below under proposed
paragraph (e), has a 30-day time limit.
The allowance of a 30-day time period
for Category II operational aids reflects
the Committee’s belief that these aids
are less critical to equipment safety than
those in Category I.
Both Category I and II would have an
exception to the repair time limits. For
Category I, if the employer documents
that it has ordered the necessary part
within 7 days of the occurrence of the
deficiency, the repair would have to be
completed within 7 days of receipt of
the part. For Category II, if the employer
documents that it has ordered the
necessary part within 7 days of the
occurrence of the deficiency and the
part is not received in time to complete
the repair in 30 days, the repair shall be
completed within 7 days of receipt of
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the part. The Committee believed that
these time frames set limitations that are
both feasible and reflective of the
amount of time that it is appropriate to
rely on the alternative measures in each
category.
During the SBREFA Panel process,
one Small Entity Representative stated
that an extended period of time might
be required to determine the appropriate
part number for older equipment and
that it might therefore not be possible to
order a replacement within 7 days.
OSHA solicits public comment on the
extent to which this is a problem. OSHA
further seeks comment on how to
accommodate a situation in which
ordering a replacement part is hindered
because the part number is not readily
available. For example, would a parts
supplier be able to furnish the correct
part if the type of device (e.g., boom
hoist limiting device) and the model of
the crane are provided?
The SBREFA Panel also questioned
whether the number of ‘‘days’’ for
ordering parts and completing repairs
for operational aids refers to calendar
days or business days. Absent a
different definition in the standard,
OSHA interprets the word ‘‘days’’ to
mean ‘‘working days’’ which, as
discussed above in relation to proposed
§ 1926.1407(e), would mean Mondays
through Fridays, excluding federal
holidays. OSHA solicits public
comment on whether a different
definition of ‘‘days’’ should apply under
this section.
Proposed paragraph (d) lists the
required Category I operational aids and
the acceptable temporary alternative
measures for these aids.
Boom Hoist Limiting Device:
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would
require that all equipment manufactured
after December 16, 1969 have a boom
hoist limiting device. As defined in
§ 1926.1401, a boom hoist limiting
device disengages boom hoist power
when the boom reaches a predetermined
operating angle and also sets brakes or
closes valves to prevent the boom from
lowering after power is disengaged. This
definition is taken from the SC&RF
Handbook. Section 1926.1401 also
explains that the term ‘‘boom hoist
limiting device’’ includes boom hoist
disengaging device, boom hoist shutoff,
boom hoist disconnect, boom hoist
hydraulic relief, boom hoist kick-outs,
automatic boom stop device, or
derricking limiter. A boom hoist
limiting device automatically prevents
the boom hoist from pulling the boom
past the minimum allowable radius
(maximum boom angle). If the boom
were to be pulled past that point, a
failure is likely (for example, the boom
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
could buckle from being forced against
the boom stop).
The December 16, 1969 date reflects
the effective date of ANSI B30.5–1968.
This was the first national consensus
standard to require a boom hoist
limiting device, and the Committee
regarded that date as a reasonable
indicator of when the industry began
widely manufacturing or equipping
cranes and derricks with such devices.
Although the ANSI standard was only
applicable to crawler, locomotive, and
truck cranes, the Committee
recommended extending this provision
to all equipment based on prevailing
industry practice.
The Agency is also proposing three
temporary alternative measures
[§ 1926.1416(d)(1)(A)–(C)], of which the
employer must use at least one upon
malfunction of the boom hoist limiting
device. These are: Use of a boom angle
indicator; clearly marking the boom
hoist cable at a point that will give the
operator sufficient time to stop the hoist
to keep the boom within the minimum
allowable radius; and, if a spotter is
used, clearly marking the boom hoist
cable at a point that will give the spotter
sufficient time to signal the operator and
have the operator stop the hoist to keep
the boom within the minimum
allowable radius. C–DAC recommended
these measures because historically they
were used by employers prior to the
development of the boom hoist limiting
device. This paragraph further proposes
requiring these measures on a
permanent basis for those employers
operating equipment manufactured on
or before December 16, 1969 and not
originally equipped with a boom hoist
limiting device.
Luffing Jib Limiting Device: Proposed
paragraph (d)(2) would require that
equipment with a luffing jib have a
luffing jib limiting device. As defined in
§ 1926.1401, a luffing jib limiting device
is similar to a boom hoist limiting
device, except that it limits the
movement of the luffing jib. C–DAC
indicated that these two devices
function similarly and are distinguished
only as to the type of crane extension
each is automatically designed to limit:
The jib versus the boom. The temporary
alternative measures for a luffing jib
limiting device are the same as those
proposed for a boom hoist limiting
device in § 1926.1416(d)(1)(i)(A)–(C).
Anti Two-Blocking Device: Proposed
paragraph (d)(3) sets forth the
requirements for anti two-blocking
devices. ‘‘Two blocking’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a condition in which a
component that is uppermost on the
hoist line such as the load block, hook
block, overhaul ball, or similar
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59787
component, comes in contact with the
boom tip, fixed upper block or similar
component. This binds the system and
continued application of power can
cause failure of the hoist rope or other
component.’’ This definition is derived
from the SC&RF Handbook. As the
definition indicates, two-blocking can
result in the crane dropping the load,
the headache ball, or another
component, creating an extreme hazard
to employees below. An anti twoblocking device has been required by
§ 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(C) when hoisting
personnel since October 3, 1988 but is
not otherwise required under 29 CFR
part 1926 subpart N. The Committee
believed that expanding the use of anti
two-blocking devices beyond hoisting
personnel is needed to help reduce the
number of crane-related injuries and
fatalities.
Anti two-block devices are
manufactured in two forms: As an
automatic prevention device or as a
warning device. The automatic
prevention device automatically stops
two blocking from occurring. The
warning device warns the operator
when two blocking is about to occur.
C–DAC members agreed that the
automatic prevention anti two-block
device provides better protection for
employees, since it automatically stops
two-blocking. As discussed below, the
proposed standard would ultimately
require automatic prevention devices on
all equipment under a phase-in
schedule. In drafting the schedule,
C–DAC took account of the date the
national consensus standard, ANSI
B30.5, began to require such devices for
telescopic boom cranes and the fact that
B30.5 has continued to allow lattice
boom cranes to be equipped with either
prevention devices or warning devices.
Effective February 28, 1992, ASME
B30.5 required automatic prevention
devices on telescopic boom cranes. At
the same time, for lattice boom cranes,
ASME B30.5 required two-block
protection but allowed greater
flexibility, requiring them to be
equipped with either automatic
prevention devices or warning devices.
The additional protection required for
telescopic boom cranes in the ASME
standard reflects the fact that such
cranes are more likely to two-block
because telescoping the boom out (an
action that does not occur with lattice
boom cranes) moves the boom’s block
closer to the load end of the hoist cable,
which can cause two-blocking.
Because February 28, 1992, is the date
that ASME B30.5 first required anti twoblock devices on telescopic boom cranes
and the industry first began widely
manufacturing or equipping such cranes
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59788
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
with such devices, proposed
§ 1926.1416(d)(3)(i) would require
automatic prevention devices on all
telescopic boom cranes manufactured
after February 28, 1992. However,
because ASME B30.5 has allowed lattice
boom cranes to have either a warning
device or an automatic prevention
device since February 28, 1992,
proposed § 1926.1416(d)(3)(ii)(A)
similarly would give employers the
option of using either device on lattice
boom cranes manufactured between
February 28, 1992 and one year after the
effective date of this standard.
As noted above, C–DAC believed that
the automatic prevention device offers
better protection than the warning
device. Therefore, to ensure that future
cranes are equipped with the preferable
automatic prevention device, the
proposal would require lattice boom
cranes manufactured more than one
year after the effective date of this
standard to be equipped with an
automatic prevention device.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(C)
excludes lattice boom equipment used
during certain activities from the anti
two-block requirements of
§ 1926.1416(d)(3)(A) and (B). The
provision would exempt lattice boom
equipment when used for dragline,
clamshell (grapple), magnet, drop ball,
concrete bucket, and pile driving work
because these operations involve heavy
repetitive motion, and currently
manufactured anti-two block devices
used during these activities consistently
malfunction (that is, the device ‘‘trips’’
even though a two-block has not
occurred) and are frequently damaged.
Lattice boom equipment used during
marine operations generally would be
exempt because the constant movement
of the barge tends to damage the device.
Similarly, lattice boom equipment used
during container handling work in
construction would be exempted
because this activity typically involves
hoisting containers to and from ships.47
However, note that proposed
paragraph 1437(f)(1) would require anti
two-block devices on floating cranes/
derricks and land cranes/derricks on
barges when hoisting personnel or
hoisting over an occupied coffer dam or
shaft. In those situations the exemption
would not apply. The Agency believes
that the need for anti two-block devices
47 In most situations hoisting containers would be
regulated under 29 CFR part 1918; the proposed
standard would apply to hoisting containers only
where that activity is considered construction work.
For example, hoisting a container of construction
material from a ship onto a concrete pier that is part
of a bridge construction project would be a
construction activity and covered by this proposed
standard.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
in such situations to prevent employees
from being dropped, and to prevent a
load from striking employees in the
confined work environment of a coffer
dam or shaft, outweighs any propensity
for damage to the device or unnecessary
‘‘tripping’’ during marine operations.
For lattice boom cranes and derricks,
the temporary alternative measure
required when an anti two-block device
malfunctions is to clearly mark the cable
so that it can easily be seen by the
operator at a point that will give the
operator sufficient time to stop the hoist
to prevent two-blocking, or use a spotter
to warn the operator to stop the hoist.
For telescopic boom cranes, the
temporary alternative measure required
would be to clearly mark the cable so
that it can easily be seen by the operator
at a point that will give the operator
sufficient time to stop the hoist to
prevent two-blocking and use a spotter
when extending the boom. The
Committee believed that the alternative
measure for telescopic boom cranes
needs to have the additional precaution
of a spotter when extending the boom
because in those cranes two-blocking
can occur even when the cable hoist is
not being operated. As noted above,
telescoping the boom out moves the
boom’s block closer to the load end of
the hoist cable, which can cause twoblocking. A mark on the hoist cable in
such instances would not warn the
operator that two-blocking is about to
occur. Therefore, when extending the
boom, a spotter would also have to be
used.
Paragraph 1416(e) Category II
Operational Aids and Alternative
Measures
Proposed paragraph (e) lists the
required Category II operational aids
and the acceptable temporary
alternative measures for these aids. If
these aids were to malfunction there
would be a 30-day time limit for repair.
If the employer documents it has
ordered the necessary parts within 7
days of the occurrence of the deficiency
and the part is not received in time to
complete the repair within 30 days, the
repair would be required to be
completed within 7 days of receipt of
the part.
Boom Angle or Radius Indicator:
Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would require
a boom angle or radius indicator
readable from the operator’s station on
all equipment. ‘‘Boom angle indicator’’
is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a device
which measures the angle of the boom
relative to the horizontal.’’ This
definition is taken from the SC&RF
Handbook. Knowing the boom angle is
necessary to accurately determine the
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
crane’s capacity from its load chart. The
temporary alternative would be to
measure the radii or boom angle with a
measuring device.
Jib Angle Indicator: Proposed
paragraph (e)(2) would require a jib
angle indicator on all equipment with a
luffing jib. The temporary alternative
would be to measure the radii or jib
angle with a measuring device.
Boom Length Indicator: Proposed
paragraph (e)(3) would require a boom
length indicator on all equipment
equipped with a telescopic boom. As
defined in § 1926.1401, a boom length
indicator ‘‘indicates the length of the
permanent part of the boom (such as
ruled markings on the boom) or, as in
some computerized systems, the length
of the boom with extensions/
attachments.’’ The length of the boom
must be known because it affects the
crane’s capacity as shown on the load
chart. The temporary alternative would
be one of the following: mark the boom
with measured marks to calculate boom
length; calculate boom length from
boom angle and radius measurements;
or measure the boom with a measuring
device.
Load Weighing and Similar Devices:
Proposed paragraph (e)(4) would require
load weighing and similar devices on all
equipment with a rated capacity over
6,000 pounds and manufactured after
March 29, 2003, except derricks. (A
comparable provision for derricks is in
proposed § 1926.1436(f)(3), discussed
below.) The framework of this proposed
paragraph is similar to the approach
taken in section 5–1.9.9.2 of ASME
B30.5–2004 with respect to these aids.
The framework permits employers to
choose to outfit its equipment with
either a load weighing device; load
moment or rated capacity indicator; or
a load moment or rated capacity limiter.
Load moment (or rated capacity)
indicator is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a
system which aids the equipment
operator by sensing the overturning
moment on the equipment, i.e., load
multiplied by radius. It compares this
lifting condition to the equipment’s
rated capacity, and indicates to the
operator the percentage of capacity at
which the equipment is working. Lights,
bells, or buzzers may be incorporated as
a warning of an approaching overload
condition.’’ This definition is derived
from the SC&RF Handbook.
Load moment (or rated capacity)
limiter is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a
system which aids the equipment
operator by sensing the overturning
moment on the equipment, i.e., load
multiplied by radius. It compares this
lifting condition to the equipment’s
rated capacity, and when the rated
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
capacity is reached, it shuts off power
to those equipment functions which can
increase the severity of loading on the
equipment, e.g., hoisting, telescoping
out, or luffing out. Typically, those
functions which decrease the severity of
loading on the equipment remain
operational, e.g., lowering, telescoping
in, or luffing in.’’ The proposal permits
employers flexibility in choosing which
device to employ because the
Committee believed that all three
devices will help ensure that the
equipment does not exceed its capacity
and tip over.
This provision would be limited to
equipment (other than derricks)
manufactured after March 29, 2003.
That was the date when ASME B30.5
first called for all mobile cranes with a
rated capacity over 6,000 pounds to be
equipped with load weighing devices. It
therefore reflects when the industry first
began widely manufacturing or
equipping cranes with load weighing or
load moment devices.
Each of these indicators makes it
easier for the operator to ensure that the
equipment is operated within its
capacity. The proposed provision would
therefore reduce the likelihood of
injuries and fatalities from tip-over and
other incidents resulting from operating
equipment beyond its capacity.
Proposed paragraph (e)(5) would
require two future operational aids—an
outrigger position sensor/monitor and a
hoist drum rotation indicator—on all
equipment manufactured after January
1, 2008. ‘‘Drum rotation indicator’’ is
defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a device on
a crane or hoist which indicates in
which direction and at what relative
speed a particular hoist drum is
turning.’’ This definition is taken from
the SC&RF Handbook. C–DAC believed
that these aids will help ensure the safe
operation of cranes but found that
additional time is needed for the
industry to develop them.
The Committee also considered
whether a third future operational aid—
counterweight sensors—should be
required on all equipment manufactured
after January 1, 2008. Several Committee
members representing crane
manufacturers expressed concern as to
the difficulty in developing a reliable
counterweight sensor presently or in the
near future. In light of these
technological problems, the Committee
did not include these.
Section 1417 Operation
Proposed § 1926.1417 addresses
hazards associated with general
operation of equipment covered by this
standard. Currently, 29 CFR part 1926
subpart N primarily addresses safe
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
operation by incorporating national
consensus standards and manufacturer
recommendations. For example,
§ 1926.550(b)(2) requires crawler, truck,
and locomotive cranes to comply with
the operation requirements of ANSI
B30.5–1968. The provisions in this
proposed section are designed to update
such requirements, make them more
comprehensive, and state them in a way
that is clear and enforceable.
Paragraph 1417(a)
Currently, Subpart N requires
employers to comply with
manufacturers’ operational
requirements for hammerhead tower
cranes (§ 1926.550(c)(5)) and for floating
cranes/derricks (§ 1926.550(f)(2)(iii)) but
not for other types of equipment.
Proposed § 1926.1417(a) would require
employers to comply with the
manufacturer procedures applicable to
the operational functions of all
equipment covered by this proposed
standard, including the use of
equipment with attachments.
The Committee believed that the
manufacturer has a high degree of
expertise with respect to the capabilities
and limitations of the equipment it has
designed and built. Accidents can
therefore be prevented by ensuring that
the equipment is operated in a manner
that is consistent with the
manufacturer’s procedures. As noted in
the discussion of the proposed
definition of ‘‘procedures’’ in
§ 1926.1401, the phrase ‘‘manufacturer
procedures’’ is to be interpreted broadly
to include all recommendations by the
manufacturer regardless of the format of
those recommendations.
Paragraph 1417(b) Unavailable
Operation Procedures
Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3).
Currently, Subpart N has no provision
for developing operational procedures
where manufacturer procedures are not
available. C–DAC believed that setting
requirements to address these situations
would help improve safety with respect
to the operation of such equipment.
‘‘Unavailable procedures’’ is defined
in proposed § 1926.1401 as meaning
procedures that are no longer available
from the manufacturer, or have never
been available from the manufacturer.
C–DAC provided this definition so that
employers would understand what
constitutes unavailable procedures. For
instance, procedures that are in the
employer’s possession but are not on the
job site, would not be considered
unavailable under proposed
§§ 1926.1417(b) and 1926.1441(c)(2),
where the term is used.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59789
Under proposed paragraph (b)(1), in
the event that the manufacturer
procedures for operation are not
available, the employer would be
required to develop procedures
necessary for the safe operation of the
equipment and its attachments. The
employer would also be required to
ensure compliance with such
procedures.
For example, the manufacturers of
some old equipment are no longer in
business; procedures for that equipment
are typically unavailable. Even where
the original manufacturer became a part
of another company that is still in
business, in some cases the successor
company no longer has the original
manufacturers’ procedures for that
equipment. In such instances the
employer would be required to develop
and follow substitute procedures.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3)
would specify qualifications criteria for
those who develop two aspects of the
substitute procedures. Specifically,
under proposed § 1926.1417(b)(2),
procedures for the operational controls
would have to be developed by a
qualified person. As defined in
§ 1926.1401 of this proposed standard,
‘‘operational controls’’ are levers,
switches, pedals and other devices for
controlling equipment operation. The
Committee believed that a high level of
expertise is needed to develop such
procedures in light of both the
complexity of the factors that must be
considered in developing such
procedures and the critical nature of the
operational controls.
Under proposed paragraph (b)(3),
operational procedures related to
equipment capacity would have to be
developed and signed by a registered
professional engineer familiar with the
equipment. The Committee believed
that the type and complexity of
engineering analysis that is needed to
develop safe procedures related to
capacity necessitates that this work be
done by a registered professional
engineer (RPE). In addition, because
capacity is so critical to safe operation,
the Committee believed that a signature
by the RPE is needed to ensure that this
work is done with the requisite care.
Paragraph 1417(c)
Procedures
Accessibility of
Paragraph (c)(1). This proposed
paragraph would require employers to
provide the operator with ready access
in the cab to the procedures applicable
to the operation of the equipment,
including the following: Rated
capacities (load charts), recommended
operating speeds, special hazard
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59790
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
warnings, and the instructions and
operator’s manual.
For the purposes of this proposed
standard, ‘‘special hazard warnings’’ are
warnings of site-specific hazards (for
example, proximity of power lines). C–
DAC defines this term in proposed
§ 1926.1401 to differentiate these sitespecific warnings from all other general
hazard warnings which are common to
typical construction worksites.
Currently, § 1926.550(a)(2) of Subpart
N requires rated capacities,
recommended operating speeds, and
special hazard warnings to be posted on
the equipment, and instructions and
warnings to be visible at the operator’s
station. Unlike § 1926.1417(c)(1) of this
proposed standard, it does not require
the operator’s manual to be accessible to
the operator.
The Committee believed that the
information in these materials,
including the operator’s manual, is
essential for safe crane operation. It is
needed to help the operator avoid
performing operations beyond a crane’s
capacity and recommended operating
speed, and by increasing operator
awareness of special hazards related to
a specific piece of equipment.
In addition, the Committee believed
that this information needs to be
available to the equipment operator in
the cab so that the operator can obtain
the information as the need arises. If the
information were not available in the
cab, operations would have to be
delayed in order for the operator to
leave the cab and obtain the information
elsewhere (or for someone else to obtain
them and bring them to the operator).
The prospect of such a delay would
serve as a disincentive to obtaining the
information and increase the chance
that operations would proceed without
it, which could result in injuries or
fatalities.
Paragraph (c)(2). Subpart N does not
address the issue of load capacities that
are available only in electronic form.
With the advancement of technology
since 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N was
promulgated, it has become increasingly
common for equipment to be supplied
by manufacturers with load capacities
in electronic form. Because of the
potential for an electronic or other
failure to occur that would make that
information inaccessible, C–DAC
determined that it is necessary to
establish requirements to address that
problem. Proposed § 1926.1417(c)(2)
establishes requirements to address a
situation in which electronic or other
failure makes such information
unavailable.
The Committee agreed that having the
load capacities accessible to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
operator in the cab is so important, due
to this information’s direct relationship
to preventing overloading, that
operations need to shut down without
them. Therefore, where load capacities
are available in the cab only in
electronic form and a failure makes the
load capacities inaccessible, this
proposed paragraph would require that
the operator immediately cease
operations or follow safe shut-down
procedures until the load capacities
become available again (in electronic or
other form).
Paragraph 1417(d)
This proposed paragraph would
require that operators refrain from
engaging in any practice that would
divert his or her attention while
operating the crane. This would include
the use of cell phones except when cell
phones are used for signal
communications. Operating a crane is a
complex task that requires an operator’s
full attention to be performed safely.
This proposed paragraph addresses the
risk that an accident can occur if the
operator’s full attention is not directed
toward that task. A similar provision is
found in section 5–3.1.2 of ANSI B30.5–
1968, which is incorporated by
reference in Subpart N, although it does
not specifically reference the use of cell
phones.
Paragraph 1417(e) Leaving Equipment
Unattended
Paragraph (e)(1). Currently, under 29
CFR part 1926 subpart N, the operator
of a crawler, locomotive, or truck crane
is prohibited from leaving the controls
while a load is suspended.48 It is
important for the operator to be at the
controls for a variety of safety-related
reasons. These include making
necessary adjustments to keep the load
in a safe position, moving the load
where necessary for reasons of safety
(such as for the safety of employees
working with or near the load), and
responding to emergencies that may
arise during lifting operations.
In the Committee’s experience, this
requirement is routinely breached when
the load is ‘‘held suspended,’’ that is,
without need for adjustment of the
load’s or the equipment’s position—for
an extended period. In such
circumstances, the operator does not
manipulate the controls.
In this type of circumstance, the
Committee believed that greater safety
could be achieved by developing criteria
48 Section 5–3.2.4a. of ANSI B 30.5–1968,
incorporated by reference in 29 CFR part 1926
Subpart N at § 1926.550(b)(2), states, ‘‘The operator
shall not leave his position at the controls while the
load is suspended.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that allow the operator to leave the
controls when it is safe to do so rather
than to simply continue the existing
rule unchanged. (Note that the
suspension of working gear, such as
slings, spreader bars, ladders, and
welding machines, is addressed
separately in proposed
§ 1926.1417(e)(2)).
This proposed paragraph would
require that the operator not leave the
controls while the load is suspended
except when four conditions, outlined
in proposed § 1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through
(e)(1)(iv), are met. The conditions are as
follows:
Paragraph (e)(1)(i). The operator
would be required to remain adjacent to
the equipment and not engage in any
other duties. This paragraph will not
only prevent unauthorized use of the
crane by persons who are not competent
crane operators but also allow the
operator to quickly access the controls
in case the equipment or load
inadvertently moves.
Paragraph (e)(1)(ii). The load is to be
held suspended for a period of time
exceeding normal lifting operations. As
explained above, these are instances
when the load is ‘‘held suspended,’’ that
is, without need for adjustment of the
load’s or the equipment’s position—for
an extended period. These are
circumstances in which the operator
will not need to manipulate the
controls. Such circumstances must be
for a period of time in excess of the
periods that occur during normal lifting
operations.
For example, during the construction
of a structure, a large subassembly is
being attached to another part of the
structure. After the subassembly has
been initially connected, it is held
suspended (that is, without need for
adjustment of position) for support for
a protracted period while the final
connections are made. This period
exceeds normal lifting operations. In
this example, the criterion of proposed
§ 1926.1417(e)(1)(ii) would be met.
Another, contrasting example is the
following: A steel structure is being
erected. When installing the steel
beams, the operator holds the beam
suspended (typically for several
minutes) while it is initially connected.
Holding the beam suspended in such
instances is a normal part of the steel
erection process. In this example the
criterion in proposed
§ 1926.1417(e)(1)(ii) would not be met
and the operator can not leave the
controls.
Paragraph (e)(1)(iii). The competent
person would have to determine that it
is safe for the operator to leave the
controls and implement measures
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
necessary to restrain the boom hoist and
telescoping, load, swing, and outrigger
functions. This proposed provision
addresses the hazard of inadvertent
movement while the controls are
unattended.
Paragraph (e)(1)(iv). Barricades or
caution lines, and notices would have to
be erected to prevent all employees from
entering the fall zone. Furthermore,
under this proposed paragraph no
employees would be permitted in the
fall zone, including those listed in
proposed § 1926.1425(b)(1) through (3),
(d), or (e). The Committee concluded
that this is necessary because the added
margin of safety that results from the
operator being at the controls would not
be present in these circumstances.
Paragraph (e)(2). As drafted, proposed
§ 1926.1417(e)(2) reads:
The provisions in paragraph (e) of this
section do not apply to working gear (such
as slings, spreader bars, ladders, and welding
machines) where the load is not suspended
over an entrance or exit.
The Agency notes that the reference to
‘‘§ 1926.1417(e)’’ is a drafting error and
that the appropriate reference is to
paragraph ‘‘§ 1926.1417(e)(1).’’ In
addition, the provision currently
contains two incidences of the word
‘‘not’’ which could lead to confusion.
Therefore, the Agency is considering
changing the language to read as follows
and requests comment on such a
change:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
The provisions in § 1926.1417(e)(1) do not
apply to working gear (such as slings,
spreader bars, ladders, and welding
machines) where the working gear is
suspended over an area other than an
entrance or exit.
The Committee agreed on this
paragraph with the understanding that
employers frequently leave lightweight
items such as slings, ladders, spreader
bars, and welding machines suspended
in the air overnight in order to prevent
theft. These are items whose weight is
negligible relative to the capacity of the
equipment and whose size is small (the
small size means that there will not be
a significant sail effect and the rigging
needed to attach the item to the hook is
not complex).
The Committee recognized that this
practice is a safe practice as long as the
working gear items are not suspended
over an entrance or exit where
employees could be exposed to falling
object hazards. Thus, this paragraph
would allow such items to be held
suspended, without the operator at the
controls, and without establishing the
four conditions set forth in
§ 1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through (iv), so long
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
as the gear is not suspended over an
entrance or exit.
Paragraph 1417(f) Tag-Out
Paragraph 1417(f)(1). Tagging out of
service equipment/functions. Where the
employer has taken the equipment out
of service, this proposed paragraph
would require that the employer place
a tag in the cab stating that the
equipment is out of service and not to
be used. Where the equipment remains
in service but the employer has taken a
function out of service, this proposed
paragraph would require that the
employer place a tag in a conspicuous
position stating that that function is out
of service and not to be used. This
proposed paragraph is designed to
prevent hazards associated with workers
inadvertently attempting to use out-ofservice equipment or a function that is
out of service.
Currently, section 5–2.3.2 of ANSI
B30.5–1968, which is incorporated by
reference in Subpart N, requires ‘‘out of
order’’ signs on crawler, locomotive and
truck cranes undergoing maintenance.
Unlike proposed 1926.1417(f)(1), 29
CFR part 1926 subpart N does not
address the situation where the
equipment itself is in service but a
function is out of service.
Paragraph 1417(f)(2) Response to ‘‘Do
Not Operate’’/Tag-Out Signs
Paragraph 1417(f)(2)(i). If there is a
warning sign on the equipment or
starting control, proposed paragraph
(f)(2)(i) would prohibit the operator
from activating the switch or starting the
equipment until the sign is removed by
someone authorized to remove it or
until the operator can verify that (A) no
one is servicing, working on, or
otherwise in a dangerous position on
the machine, and (B) the equipment has
been repaired and is working properly.
Similarly, under proposed
§ 1926.1417(f)(2)(ii), when there is a
warning sign on any other switch or
control, the operator would be
prohibited from activating that switch or
control until the sign has been removed
by an individual authorized to remove
it, or until the operator meets the two
requirements of paragraph
§ 1926.1417(f)(2)(i), described above.
These provisions would prevent two
types of hazards. First, since the
machine is out of service, there is a risk
that an employee servicing, working on,
or otherwise in a dangerous position on
it is not expecting it to be activated and
would be injured if it were activated.
Second, if an employee does not know
that the equipment is malfunctioning or
has a function that is not working
properly, an employee could
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59791
inadvertently try to operate it with the
result that the equipment will not work
as intended, causing unintended
movement or a collapse.
Subpart N addresses this issue
through section 5–3.1.3g of ANSI B30.5–
1968, which states: ‘‘If there is a
warning sign on the switch or engine
starting controls, the operator shall not
close the switch or start the engine until
the warning sign has been removed by
the person placing it there.’’ Instead of
requiring that the sign be removed by
the person who placed it, proposed
§ 1926.1417(f)(2) would permit it to be
removed by an authorized person and,
as an alternative, permit the operator to
start the equipment after verifying that
no worker is in a dangerous area and
that the equipment has been repaired
and is working properly. C–DAC
believed that either alternative would
achieve the safety purpose of the tag-out
because it would ensure that a
knowledgeable and responsible person,
either the operator or another
authorized person, verifies that repairs
are complete and all workers are in a
safe position before the equipment can
be started.
As discussed above, the operator
would be permitted to start equipment
that is tagged out or activate a taggedout switch if the procedures specified in
proposed § 1926.1417(f)(2)(i) are met. In
reviewing this provision, the Agency
noted that these procedures are not as
comprehensive as those in the general
industry standard for the control of
hazardous energy (lockout/tagout),
which are listed in § 1910.147(e)(3)(i)
through (iii).49 The Agency requests
public comment on whether procedures
similar to those in paragraphs
1910.147(e)(3)(i) through (iii) 50 would
be feasible and appropriate for cranes/
derricks used in construction.
Paragraph 1417(g). Before starting the
engine, this proposed paragraph would
require the operator to verify that all
controls are in the proper starting
position and that all personnel are in
the clear. The Committee agreed that
requiring operators to check that all
controls are in their proper starting
positions would prevent unintended
movement of the equipment when the
49 Section 1910.147 is not applicable to
construction (see § 1910.147(a)(ii)(A)).
50 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).
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59792
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
engine is initially started. Similarly,
requiring operators to ensure that all
personnel are in the clear is designed to
prevent personnel from being injured in
the event that some aspect of the
equipment moves upon start-up.
Currently, section 5–3.1.3h of ANSI
B30.5–1968, incorporated by reference
in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N, contains
a comparable requirement.
Paragraph 1417(h). Storm warning.
When a local storm warning has been
issued, this proposed paragraph would
require the competent person to
determine whether it is necessary to
implement manufacturer
recommendations for securing the
equipment. This provision was designed
to prevent hazards that could arise from
severe weather including inadvertent
movement and crane collapse. Highspeed winds in particular can affect
both the crane and the load, reducing
the rated capacity of the crane and
affecting boom strength. Subpart N does
not contain a corresponding
requirement.
Paragraph 1417(i). [Reserved.] This
proposed paragraph is reserved because
it is inconvenient for readers to
determine whether ‘‘(i)’’ is being used as
a letter or a roman numeral.
Paragraph 1417(j)
This proposed paragraph would
require that operators be familiar with
the equipment and its proper operation.
Furthermore, if adjustments/repairs are
necessary, then the operator would have
to promptly inform the individual
designated by the employer to receive
such information as well as inform the
next operator in cases where there are
successive shifts.
This paragraph addresses the need to
identify problems that may develop
with the equipment during operations.
Early recognition of such problems by
the operator would help prevent
accidents that could result from
continued operation of equipment that
needs adjustment and/or repair.
Operators who are familiar with the
equipment and its proper operation can
recognize such equipment anomalies
and problems. By requiring that
information about needed adjustments
and/or repairs be provided to the
individual designated by the employer
to receive it, this proposed paragraph
will facilitate the correction of those
problems.
C–DAC did not specify any particular
job title for the person to whom the
operator would be required to provide
this information because different
employers may assign the responsibility
of receiving such information to
different job classifications.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Providing this information to the next
operator in cases where there are
successive shifts (that is, shifts that have
no break between them) would ensure
that the next operator is aware of this
information and will be able to take
appropriate action.
This provision is comparable to
section 5–3.1.3j of ANSI B30.5–1968,
incorporated by reference in Subpart N,
which requires operators of crawler,
locomotive and truck cranes to
familiarize themselves with the
equipment and its proper care, to report
any needed adjustments/repairs or
defects to a responsible person, and to
notify the next operator of any such
problems when changing shifts.
Paragraph 1417(k)
This proposed paragraph would
prohibit safety devices and operational
aids from being used as a substitute for
the exercise of professional judgment by
the operator. The Committee agreed that
such devices and aids do not displace
the need for operators to apply their
professional judgment because the
devices and aids can malfunction and
lead to the types of safety hazards they
are designed to prevent. Subpart N
contains no corresponding provision.
Paragraph (l). [Reserved.] This
proposed paragraph is reserved because
it is inconvenient for readers to
distinguish the letter ‘‘l’’ from the
number ‘‘1.’’
Paragraph 1417(m)
If the competent person determines
that there is a slack rope condition
requiring re-spooling of the rope, this
proposed paragraph would require that
before starting the lift, it shall be
verified that the rope is seated on the
drum and in the sheaves as the slack is
removed. This would prevent a loose
coil of rope from becoming cross-coiled
on the drum, a portion of the rope
coming off the drum altogether, or the
rope being pulled alongside (instead of
seating in) a sheave. Each of these
conditions can lead to sudden failure of
the rope.
Section 5–3.2.3a.4 of ANSI B30.5–
1968, incorporated by reference in
Subpart N, has a provision stating: ‘‘If
there is a slack rope condition, it should
be determined that the rope is properly
seated on the drum and in the sheaves.’’
The term ‘‘should’’ has been interpreted
by the courts of appeals as meaning that
the provision is non-mandatory. The
provision in paragraph (m) of this
section uses language making clear that
the provision is mandatory.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Paragraph 1417(n)
This proposed paragraph addresses
the hazards posed by wind, ice and
snow on equipment capacity and
stability. Wind can reduce capacity by
imposing loads on the equipment,
which can also reduce stability. Ice and
snow can also reduce capacity and
stability when it accumulates on the
equipment. There are numerous
variables involved in determining the
effects of wind, ice and snow in any
particular circumstance, (for example,
the extent to which the crane is
operating below its rated capacity, the
sail effect presented by the load, the rate
at which ice or snow is accumulating,
and whether the snow is wet or light).
C–DAC concluded that the most
effective approach would be to require
the competent person to consider their
effect on equipment stability and rated
capacity. 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N
currently has no similar provision.
Paragraph 1417(o) Compliance With
Rated Capacity
Paragraph 1417(o)(1). This proposed
paragraph would require employers to
ensure that equipment is not operated
beyond its rated capacity. Overloading a
crane or derrick can cause it to collapse,
with potentially catastrophic
consequences. This basic safeguard has
long been recognized in the industry as
crucial and is designed to prevent such
accidents. A comparable requirement is
contained in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart
N through incorporation by reference of
section 5–3.2.1a of ANSI B30.5–1968.
Paragraph 1417(o)(2). This proposed
paragraph would require employers to
ensure that operators are not required to
operate the equipment in a manner that
would exceed its rated capacity, in
violation of proposed § 1926.1417(o)(1)
above. This proposed provision
reinforces the general prohibition of
proposed § 1926.1417(o)(1) by making it
a separate violation for an employer to
expressly require an operator to exceed
the equipment’s rated capacity. 29 CFR
part 1926 subpart N currently has no
provision comparable to proposed
paragraph (o)(2) of this section.
In the Committee’s experience, a
significant problem in the construction
industry is that some employers
pressure operators to conduct lifts that
exceed the equipment’s rated capacity.
Such employers seek to avoid the time
and expense associated with bringing in
larger capacity equipment.51
51 In some instances the overcapacity problem can
be avoided by repositioning the crane (for example,
by moving the crane so that the lift can be
performed at a higher boom angle). However, even
in those instances some time (and associated
expense) is involved.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
The Committee believed that in many
of these instances the employer knows
that the load exceeds the crane’s rated
capacity but acts on the belief that the
rated capacity is sufficiently
conservative to perform the lift. In some
such cases the exact weight of the load
is unknown, and the employer pressures
the crane operator in the belief that even
if the operator is right about the weight
exceeding the capacity rating, the safety
factor that the employer assumes is built
into the capacity rating will enable the
crane to perform the lift anyway.
In the C–DAC discussions of this
issue, members explained that while
equipment capacity ratings are
developed with consideration of a safety
factor, that safety factor is not intended
by the manufacturer to be treated as
excess capacity. There are numerous,
complex considerations used by
manufacturers in setting the capacity
rating. Employers cannot safely assume
that, in any particular situation, they
will not need the benefits conferred by
the safety factor.
There continue to be a significant
number of injuries and fatalities
resulting from equipment overturning.
Although it has long been a requirement
not to exceed the equipment’s rated
capacity, in the Committee’s experience,
a significant number of overturning
incidents are caused by exceeding rated
capacity. A study of fatal accidents
involving cranes in the U.S.
construction industry for 1984–1994,
based on investigations of reported
accidents conducted by OSHA and
states with OSHA-approved safety and
health programs, showed that 22 deaths
resulted from overloaded cranes. A.
Suruda, M. Egger, & D. Liu, ‘‘CraneRelated Deaths in the U.S. Construction
Industry, 1984–94,’’ p. 12, Table 9, The
Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (Oct.
1997). (OSHA–2007–0066–0013).
The Committee believed that there are
several root causes of this problem,
including lack of operator qualification/
certification requirements, insufficient
ground conditions, reliance on
unreliable information regarding load
weight, and operators being pressured
into exceeding rated capacity. The
Committee concluded that this
additional measure is needed to help
counteract the persistent problem of
operators being pressured into
exceeding rated capacity.
Paragraph 1417(o)(3). Load weight. As
discussed above, another cause of
injuries and fatalities from overturning
equipment is the use of unreliable
information on load weight. The
Committee concluded that one of the
ways these incidents can be reduced is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
to require that load weight be verified
by a reliable means.
Under this proposed paragraph, the
operator would be required to verify
that the load is within the rated capacity
of the equipment by using the
procedures in either proposed
§ 1926.1417(o)(3)(i) or (ii). Under
§ 1926.1417(o)(3)(i), the weight of the
load would have to be determined in
one of three ways: From a reliable
source, from a reliable calculation
method, or by other equally reliable
means. An example of verifying the load
weight from a reliable source would be
where the load is mechanical equipment
and the weight is obtained from its
manufacturer.
An example of a reliable calculation
method would be the following: The
load is a steel I–beam. After measuring
the thickness of the steel and the I–
beam’s other dimensions, the operator
uses an industry table that shows weight
per linear foot for a beam of these
dimensions. The operator then
calculates the beam’s weight using that
information. If the weight of the load is
determined under proposed
§ 1926.1417(o)(3)(i), the information
about how the load weight was
determined must be provided to the
operator, prior to the lift, upon the
operator’s request. This provision is
included to help ensure that the
operator has the information necessary
to verify that the load is within the rated
capacity of the equipment.
Under proposed paragraph (o)(3)(ii),
the operator would have to begin
hoisting the load to determine if it
exceeds 75 percent of the maximum
rated capacity at the longest radius that
will be used during the lift operation,
using a load weighing device, load
moment indicator, rated capacity
indicator, or rated capacity limiter. If
the load does exceed 75 percent of the
maximum rated capacity, then the
operator would be prohibited from
proceeding with the lift until he/she
verifies the weight of the load in
accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1417(o)(3)(i).
The Committee concluded that as
long as one of these devices shows that
the load does not exceed 75% of the
rated capacity (at the longest radius that
will be used), it is not necessary to
determine the actual weight of the load.
Its conclusion is based on the belief that
this verification procedure 52
52 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
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59793
incorporates a sufficient margin of error
and would be adequate to ensure that
the crane’s rated capacity would not be
exceeded.
In contrast, the Committee believed
that if the device shows that the load
exceeds 75%, there is an insufficient
margin of error to proceed without a
more accurate determination. In such
instances a verified determination of the
actual weight, in accordance with
proposed § 1926.1417(o)(3)(i), is needed
to ensure safety.
Currently, the only Subpart N
requirement for determining or verifying
the weight of the load is found in
section 5–3.2.1b of ANSI B30.5–1968,
which states: ‘‘When loads which are
limited by structural competence rather
than by stability are to be handled, the
person responsible for the job shall
ascertain that the weight of the load has
been determined within plus or minus
10 percent before it is lifted.’’ The
Committee believed that the more
detailed procedures in proposed
§ 1926.1417(o)(3) and the greater margin
of safety provided by the 75% limit are
needed to prevent the crane’s capacity
from being exceeded.
Paragraph 1417(p)
This proposed paragraph would
require that the boom or other parts of
the equipment not contact any
obstruction. The Committee agreed on
this provision because of its
understanding that boom contact with
an obstruction can deform, misalign or
otherwise damage the equipment. Such
damage can cause unintended
movement, prevent intended movement,
or a collapse. 29 CFR part 1926 subpart
N currently has no similar provision.
Paragraph 1417(q)
This proposed paragraph would
require that the equipment not be used
to drag or pull loads sideways. The
Committee intended this provision to
prevent the sideloading that occurs
when a load is dragged or pulled
sideways. Sideloading can buckle the
boom, damage the swing mechanism, or
overturn the crane (such as when the
boom is at a high angle). Currently,
section 5–3.2.3c.2 of ANSI B30.5–1968
contains a similar requirement,
providing: ‘‘Side loading of booms shall
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\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59794
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
be limited to freely suspended loads.
Cranes shall not be used for dragging
loads sideways.’’ (As discussed below,
proposed paragraph (v) addresses
sideloading of freely suspended loads
by restricting the speed of rotation).
Paragraph 1417(r)
On wheel-mounted equipment, this
proposed provision would require that
no loads be lifted over the front area,
except as permitted by the
manufacturer. The Committee agreed on
this provision because wheel-mounted
equipment typically is not designed to
lift loads over the front area without
tipping over unless it is specifically
designed to do so (such as where
equipped with a front outrigger for
support and stabilization for this
purpose). Equipment that is not so
designed will likely tip over or
otherwise fail when lifting loads over
the front area. This proposed paragraph
continues the requirement of section 5–
3.2.3g of ANSI B30.5–1968, which is
incorporated by reference in Subpart N.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1417(s)
In many circumstances an operator
may use equipment that has not recently
been used to handle a load that is 90%
or more of the maximum line pull. The
condition and adjustment of the brakes
may be sufficient to handle lesser loads,
but insufficient to handle loads closer to
their design capacity. Consequently, the
operator may not know that the brakes
are insufficient until after the load is
hoisted. In such a case the load could
be dropped, posing a struck-by hazard.
This proposed paragraph would
address that hazard by requiring that the
operator test the brakes each time a load
that is 90% or more of the maximum
line pull is handled by lifting the load
a few inches and applying the brakes. In
duty cycle and repetitive lifts where
each lift is 90% or more of the
maximum line pull, this requirement
would apply to the first but not to
successive lifts, since the operator
would have already determined from
the initial test that the brakes are
sufficient.
Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart
N contains a similar requirement
through section 5–3.2.3h of ANSI
B30.5–1968, which states: ‘‘The operator
shall test the brakes each time a load
approaching the rated load is handled
by raising it a few inches and applying
the brakes.’’ C–DAC believed that
additional clarity than that found in the
ANSI provision is needed to give
employers notice of when a brake test
was required and therefore proposed in
§ 1926.1417(s) to require testing when
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
the load is 90% or more of the
maximum line pull.
Paragraph 1417(t)
This proposed paragraph would
require that neither the load nor the
boom be lowered below the point where
less than two full wraps of rope remain
on their respective drums. This
provision is designed to ensure that the
rope is not unspooled to the point
where the rope would become
disconnected from the drum. It
continues the current Subpart N
requirement found in section 5–3.2.3j of
ANSI B30.5–1968.
Paragraph 1417(u) Traveling With a
Load
Paragraph 1417(u)(1). This proposed
paragraph would prohibit traveling with
a load if the practice is prohibited by the
manufacturer. If the manufacturer does
not prohibit this practice, the equipment
may travel with a load, but only if the
requirements of proposed
§ 1926.1417(u)(2) are met. 29 CFR part
1926 subpart N does not prohibit
traveling with a load if the practice is
prohibited by the manufacturer but,
through incorporation of section 5–
3.2.3n of ANSI B30.5–1968, permits
traveling with a load whenever
conditions similar to those in proposed
§ 1926.1417(u)(2)(i) are satisfied.
The dynamic effects of traveling with
a load impose additional and/or
increased forces on crane components.
Unless the crane has been designed to
handle these types of forces and force
levels, they can cause component
failure, collapse, instability or
overturning. The Committee believed
that the manufacturer has the expertise
to ascertain its equipment’s capabilities.
Therefore, the Committee believed that
where the manufacturer has prohibited
traveling with the load, such a
determination needs to be complied
with to ensure safety.
Paragraph 1417(u)(2). If the
manufacturer does not prohibit traveling
with a load, the equipment may travel
with a load if the requirements of
proposed § 1926.1417(u)(2) are met.
This proposed paragraph sets forth three
procedures that employers would have
to follow when traveling with a load.
Paragraph 1417(u)(2)(i). Pursuant to
this proposed paragraph, a competent
person would have to supervise the
operation, determine if it is necessary to
reduce crane ratings, and make
determinations regarding load position,
boom location, ground support, travel
route, overhead obstructions, and speed
of movement necessary to ensure safety.
Under proposed § 1926.1417(u)(2)(ii),
the determinations of the competent
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
person must be implemented. These
provisions are similar to section 5–
3.2.3n of ANSI B30.5–1968, which is
incorporated in 29 CFR part 1926
subpart N.
As discussed above, traveling with a
load imposes types and levels of forces
on the equipment that are not present
when the equipment is stationary, and
conditions such as load position and
boom location can affect the magnitude
of those forces. Some of the criteria in
proposed § 1926.1417(u)(2)(i) address
this type of effect. Other criteria in this
paragraph are intended to ensure that
other hazards—those posed by the crane
being in changing locations (such as
ground support, travel route and
overhead obstructions)—are addressed
by the competent person. When
traveling with a load, a crane may
encounter hazards such as power lines,
insufficient ground support, uneven or
slippery ground conditions, and
obstructions that the equipment could
strike.
A competent person must address
these issues before the equipment
begins to travel with a load. The
competent person must also supervise
the operation as it proceeds so that
problems that arise that were not
foreseen at the outset can be properly
addressed. In sum, the Committee
designed these provisions to ensure that
the employer plans and implements a
travel operation so that the various
effects and changeable conditions
associated with travel are properly
identified, assessed and addressed.
Paragraph 1417(u)(2)(iii). For
equipment with pressurized tires, this
proposed paragraph would require that
tire pressure specified by the
manufacturer be maintained. Subpart N
currently has no corresponding
provision.
The Committee agreed on this
provision to address the hazards posed
by improper tire pressure when
traveling with a load. Where pressure
varies among the tires, the equipment
may be out of level, reducing capacity
and causing instability. Uniform but
improper pressure can reduce capacity
or lead to tire failure. Each of these
circumstances can lead to unintended
movement, loss of the load, overturning
and/or collapse.
Paragraph 1417(v)
This proposed paragraph would
require that rotational speed of the
equipment be such that the load does
not swing out beyond the radius at
which it can be controlled. As noted
above in relation to proposed
§ 1926.1417(q), 29 CFR part 1926
subpart N currently permits sideloading
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
of freely suspended loads with no
restriction comparable to that in
proposed § 1926.1417(v).
The Committee intended this
provision to prevent the hazard of
sideloading, which occurs when the
load swings to either side of the boom
tip, rather than its appropriate position
directly beneath the boom tip. When the
load is not directly under the boom tip,
sideloading occurs and decreases
capacity. This hazard can lead to tipover or boom failure.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1417(w)
This proposed paragraph would
require that a tag or restraint line be
used if necessary to prevent rotation of
the load that would be hazardous. The
Committee agreed on this provision in
order to prevent the hazard of an
unstable or uncontrolled load which
could in turn destabilize other parts of
the crane or the crane itself. This
condition can also result in the load
posing a struck-by hazard. Section 5–
3.2.3p of ANSI B30.5–1968 contains a
comparable requirement.
Paragraph 1417(x)
This proposed paragraph would
require that the brakes be adjusted in
accordance with manufacturer
procedures to prevent unintended
movement. This requirement would
apply to all brakes on equipment
covered by this standard, including
brakes used to control the lowering of
the load and those used to stop the
equipment while it is traveling.
Improper adjustment can cause a delay
in the onset of braking after the operator
attempts to activate the brake and can
also diminish the brake’s capacity.
Brakes are critical to the safe operation
of the equipment and must be properly
adjusted to serve their safety function.
Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart
N does not specifically address brake
adjustment. However, section 5–2.3.1a
of ANSI B30.5–1968 requires a
preventive maintenance program based
on the manufacturer’s
recommendations, and section 5–2.3.3b
requires that all components and
operating mechanisms be adjusted to
ensure their correct functioning. In light
of the critical role that brakes play in
ensuring equipment safety, these
provisions of ANSI B30.5–1968 can be
read to include brake adjustments. The
Committee concluded that the more
explicit approach to this issue taken in
proposed § 1926.1417(x) requirement
would help enhance employee safety.
Paragraph 1417(y)
This proposed paragraph would
require that the operator obey a stop or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
emergency stop signal, regardless of
who gives the signal. Any person on a
worksite may observe a hazardous
condition that is not visible to or
recognized by the crane operator and
that can only be avoided if the
equipment stops immediately.
Therefore, the operator must obey a stop
signal given by anybody on the
worksite. Section 5–3.1.3c of ANSI
B30.5–1968 contains a comparable
requirement.
Paragraph 1417(z) Swinging
Locomotive Cranes
Pursuant to this proposed paragraph,
a locomotive crane shall not be swung
into a position where it is reasonably
foreseeable that railway cars on an
adjacent track could strike it, until it is
determined that cars are not being
moved on the adjacent track and that
proper flag protection has been
established. A comparable requirement
is contained in section 5–3.4.4 of ANSI
B30.5–1968.
Paragraph 1417(aa) Counterweight/
Ballast
Paragraph 1417(aa)(1). This proposed
paragraph contains counterweight/
ballast requirements that would apply to
equipment other than tower cranes.
Pursuant to proposed
§ 1926.1417(aa)(2), requirements
regarding counterweight/ballast for
tower cranes are found in proposed
§ 1926.1435(b)(7).
Paragraph 1417(aa)(1)(i). This
proposed paragraph would require that
equipment not be operated without the
counterweight or ballast in place as
specified by the manufacturer. Failure
to follow the manufacturer’s
specifications for use of counterweights
and ballast could result in a tipover or
collapse.
Paragraph 1417(aa)(1)(ii). Under this
proposed provision, the employer
would be prohibited from exceeding the
maximum counterweight or ballast
specified by the manufacturer for the
equipment. Exceeding that maximum
could result in component failure,
which could cause unintended
movement, tipover or collapse.
Requirements similar to those in
§ 1926.1417(aa)(1)(i) and (ii) are
currently contained in Subpart N
through incorporation by reference of
section 5–3.4.2 of ANSI B30.5–1968.
The C–DAC draft of this provision
stated that the maximum counterweight
or ballast ‘‘approved’’ by the
manufacturer shall not be exceeded.
Upon reviewing the draft, OSHA
determined that a term that more
accurately reflects the Committee’s
intent in this regard is ‘‘specified.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59795
Therefore, the Agency has modified the
C–DAC language so that proposed
§ 1926.1417(aa)(1)(ii) reads:
The maximum counterweight or ballast
specified by the manufacturer for the
equipment shall not be exceeded.
Paragraph 1417(aa)(2). This proposed
paragraph complements proposed
§ 1926.1417(aa)(1) by noting that the
counterweight and ballast requirements
for tower cranes are found in proposed
§ 1926.1435(b)(8).
Section 1418
Operation
Authority To Stop
This proposed section provides:
‘‘Whenever there is a concern as to
safety, the operator shall have the
authority to stop and refuse to handle
loads until a qualified person has
determined that safety has been
assured.’’ Subpart N incorporates pre1971 industry consensus standards that
require operators to have comparable
authority, and current industry
consensus standards contain similar
provisions. An appropriately capable
equipment operator is highly
knowledgeable in matters affecting
equipment safety and is well qualified
to determine whether an operation
presents a safety concern. C–DAC
believed that it continues to be
necessary for the employer to provide
this authority to the operator.
Current consensus standards specify
that an operator with a safety concern
must raise that concern with a
supervisor before proceeding with a lift.
For example, section 5–3.1.3(d) of ANSI
B30.5–2004, ‘‘Mobile and Locomotive
Cranes,’’ provides: ‘‘Whenever there is
any doubt as to safety, the operator shall
consult with the supervisor before
handling the loads.’’ Similar provisions
are included in section 2–3.1.7 of ASME
B30.2–2001, ‘‘Overhead and Gantry
Cranes,’’ section 3–3.1.3(d) of ASME
B30.3–1996, ‘‘Construction Tower
Cranes,’’ section 6–3.2.3 of ASME
B30.6–2003, ‘‘Derricks,’’ and other
standards in the ASME B30 series.
The proposed section reflects C–
DAC’s belief that it is necessary to
clearly delineate the circumstances
under which it would be permissible to
resume operations after the operator has
exercised this authority. Under the
proposed provision, operations would
be prohibited from resuming ‘‘until a
qualified person had determined that
safety has been assured.’’
In accordance with the proposed
definition of a qualified person (see the
discussion above of this term in
proposed § 1926.1401), that person
would, ‘‘by possession of a recognized
degree, certificate, or professional
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59796
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
standing, or who by extensive
knowledge, training and experience,
successfully demonstrated the ability to
solve/resolve problems relating to the
subject matter, the work or the project.’’
For example, operations could resume
only after the qualified person either: (1)
Assesses the factors that led the operator
to stop and refuse to handle the load
and determines that there is not, in fact,
a safety hazard, or (2) after corrective
action has been taken, determines that
there is no longer a safety hazard.
An illustrative example of this is the
following: A large steel cylinder, which
is lying lengthwise on the ground, is to
be lifted into the vertical position and
then up to the top of a structure. As the
crane operator prepares to lift the
cylinder into the vertical position, the
operator sees that the rigging is attached
at a point that is more than halfway
down from the top of the cylinder. This
indicates to the operator that the rigging
has been attached below the cylinder’s
center of gravity. Rigging such a load
below the center of gravity could cause
it to flip over when it is lifted. As a
result of this concern, the operator
exercises his/her authority to stop and
refuse to handle the load.
After the operator explains his/her
concern to the employer, the employer
consults with an individual who is a
qualified person with respect to the
rigging of the load. The qualified person
finds that the wall of the steel cylinder
is much thicker near its base than at the
top. After calculating the cylinder’s
center of gravity, the qualified person
determines that it is well below the
midpoint of the cylinder. The qualified
person then determines that the rigging
is, in fact, attached above the cylinder’s
center of gravity, and that safety is
assured. The lifting operation is then
resumed.
In this example the operator
appropriately exercised his/her
authority to stop and refuse to handle
the load, since there were indications of
an unsafe condition. A qualified person
then appropriately found that safety was
assured after examining those
indications, assessing the relevant
factors, and determining that the load
was in fact rigged in a safe manner.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Signals
Proposed §§ 1926.1419 through
1926.1422 address the circumstances
under which a signal person must be
provided, the type of signals that may be
used, criteria for how signals are
transmitted, and other criteria
associated with the use of signals.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Section 1419 Signals—General
Requirements
This proposed section would set
requirements regarding signals when
using equipment covered by this
proposed standard.
Currently, § 1926.550(a)(4) provides:
‘‘Hand signals to crane and derrick
operators shall be those prescribed by
the applicable ANSI standard for the
type of crane in use. An illustration of
the signals shall be posted at the job
site.’’ C–DAC believed that the current
rule is insufficient in several respects.
First, the current rule does not establish
the circumstances in which there is a
need to have a signal person. Second,
the current standard refers only to hand
signals. C–DAC believed that other
means of signaling need to be addressed
as well to provide necessary flexibility
and reduce the potential for
miscommunication (requirements
regarding other signaling methods are
addressed in proposed §§ 1926.1420 and
1926.1421).
Finally, C–DAC found that hazardous
situations arise as a result of signal
persons not understanding safetyrelated aspects of crane operations and
dynamics and not knowing how to give
appropriate signals. Consequently, it
determined that there is a need to
establish requirements regarding the
qualifications of the signal person; these
are addressed in proposed § 1926.1428.
In short, C–DAC believed that
addressing these issues is one of the
means by which the number of injuries
and fatalities caused by ‘‘struck-by’’
incidents, in which the equipment or
load strikes an employee, can be
reduced.
Paragraph 1419(a)
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(3) address the circumstances that
would require the provision of a signal
person: When the point of operation,
meaning the load travel or the area near
or at load placement, is not in full view
of the operator (§ 1926.1419(a)(1)); when
the equipment is traveling and the
operator’s view in the direction of travel
is obstructed (§ 1926.1419(a)(2)); and
when, due to site specific safety
concerns, either the operator or the
person handling the load determines it
is necessary (§ 1926.1419(a)(3)). The
first two of these circumstances involve
an obvious hazard—limited operator
visibility.
With respect to the third
circumstance, C–DAC believed that
other situations arise that, from a safety
standpoint, necessitate the use of a
signal person. For example, the operator
may recognize that the load at one point
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
will move alongside and very close to a
structure. Even though the load in this
example will remain in view of the
operator as it travels, because of the
tight tolerances involved, the operator
determines that a signal person is
needed to help ensure that the load does
not come in contact with the structure
(which could cause the load to fall).
Another example is where a heavy
load, such as a large HVAC unit, has to
be placed very precisely on a concrete
pad. In this example, as in the previous
one, the load remains within the view
of the operator at all times. However,
the employee handling the load
determines that signals need to be given
to the operator so that the load handler’s
work and the operator’s movement of
the load are properly coordinated.
Because of the weight of the load, the
employee handling it will have to use
both hands to help position it as it is
placed on the pad and will not be able
to give signals. In such an instance the
person handling the load could
determine that a signal person is
necessary.
Paragraph 1419(b) Types of Signals
Under proposed paragraph (b), signals
to crane operators would have to be by
hand, voice, audible, or ‘‘new’’ signals.
As used in this proposed standard, these
terms refer to the type of signal, not the
means by which the signal is
transmitted. For example, signaling by
voice refers to oral communication, not
whether the oral communication is done
with or without amplification or with or
without electronic transmission. The
manner of transmission of the signal is
addressed separately.
‘‘Audible signal’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a signal made by a
distinct sound or series of sounds.
Examples include, but are not limited
to, sounds made by a bell, horn, or
whistle.’’ Under some circumstances,
audible signals are effective means of
communicating with an operator, and
C–DAC defined the term to make clear
the types of sounds that would be
permissible.
The criteria for the use of these signal
types are set out in proposed
§ 1926.1419(c)–(m) (additional voice
signal requirements are in proposed
§ 1926.1421, Signals—voice signals—
additional requirements). The
Committee’s intent was to reduce the
potential for miscommunication, which
can lead to injuries and fatalities,
particularly from ‘‘struck-by’’ and
‘‘crushed-by’’ incidents. In setting
parameters for the use of the various
types of existing signal methods, and for
signal methods that may be developed
in the future, the Committee sought to
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
promote a degree of standardization
while still allowing appropriate
flexibility. In addition, the proposed
provisions are designed to ensure that
the selection of signal type and means
of sending the signals are appropriate
under the circumstances and reliable.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1419(c)
Hand Signals
Proposed paragraph (c) addresses the
use of hand signals. The industry has
long recognized the need for consistent,
universal hand signals to minimize the
potential for miscommunication
between signal persons and operators.
ANSI B30.5–1968, ‘‘Crawler,
Locomotive and Truck Cranes,’’
contains illustrations of hand signals
that are the same as the current 2004
edition of ASME B30.5 and that are
consistent with hand signals for other
types of cranes in ASME B30 standards.
Subpart N currently requires that hand
signals to crane and derrick operators
‘‘be those prescribed by the applicable
ANSI standard for the type of crane in
use’’ and that ‘‘an illustration of the
signals shall be posted at the job site’’
(§ 1926.550(a)(4)).
Because of the industry’s long
familiarity with these standard hand
signals, C–DAC determined that, when
using hand signals, the standardized
version of the signals should continue to
be required. These signals are referred to
as the ‘‘Standard Method,’’ which is
defined in proposed § 1926.1401 as ‘‘the
protocol in Appendix A for hand
signals.’’ The ‘‘Standard Method’’
signals are located in Appendix A.
However, the Committee recognized
that there are instances when use of the
Standard Method is either infeasible or
where there is no Standard Method
signal applicable to the work being
done.
For example, the Standard Method
signal for raising the boom is: arm
extended, thumb pointing upward and
other fingers closed. The signal for
lowering the boom is the same except
the thumb points down. There are
circumstances where back-lighting
conditions make it difficult for the
operator to see the signal person’s
thumb and therefore cannot discern
whether it is pointing up or down. In
such circumstances use of the standard
signal would be infeasible.
In such instances, under this
proposed paragraph, non-standard
signals (examples of which are provided
in Appendix B of this proposed rule)
may be used. To avoid confusion when
non-standard signals are used, proposed
§ 1926.1419(c)(2) would require that the
signal person, crane operator, and lift
supervisor (where there is one) meet
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
prior to the operation to agree upon the
signals that will be used.
59797
Proposed paragraph (d) would allow
signals other than hand, voice, or
audible signals to be used if certain
criteria are met. As discussed above
under proposed § 1926.1419(b), C–DAC
include § 1926.1419(d) to allow for the
development of new signals in the
future. To ensure that any new signals
are as effective as hand, voice, or
audible signals, proposed
1926.1419(d)(1) and (d)(2) would
require the employer to demonstrate
either that the new signals are as
effective as existing signals for
communicating, or that there is a
national consensus standard for the new
signals.53 C–DAC believed it was
appropriate to allow reliance on signals
in a national consensus standard
because their inclusion in such a
standard shows a high degree of
standardization and widespread
acceptance by persons who are affected
by the signals, thereby ensuring that the
signals can be used safely to control
equipment operations.
Most signal systems permit only oneway communication, from the signal
person to the operator. In addition, most
two-way systems, such as a typical twoway radio system, only permit one
person to speak at a time. When using
such systems, circumstances may arise
in which the operator, while receiving
signals, becomes aware of a safety
problem that is of a nature that
necessitates that the operator
communicate with the signal person.
For example, the signal person signals
to the operator to lower the load.
However, the operator sees that an
employee has moved under the load in
an area that is out of the view of the
signal person. Under this proposed
provision the operator would have to
safely stop lowering the load and
communicate the problem to the signal
person.
Another example is where the signal
person gives a hand signal but it appears
to the operator that the signal person is
using the wrong signal. The operator
would be required to safely stop
operations and communicate with the
signal person to resolve the problem.
Paragraph 1419(e)
Paragraph 1419(h) and (j)
Paragraph 1419(d)
New Signals
Suitability
Under proposed paragraph (e), the
type of signal (hand, voice, audible, or
new) and the transmission method used
would have to be suitable for the site
conditions. For example, hand signals
would not be suitable if site conditions
do not allow for the signal person to be
within the operator’s line of sight. Radio
signals would not be suitable if
electronic interference on the site
prohibits the signals from being readily
understood.
Paragraph 1419(f)
Proposed paragraph (f) would require
the ability to transmit signals between
the operator and signal person to be
maintained. If that ability is interrupted,
the operator would be required to safely
stop operations until signal
transmission is reestablished and a
proper signal is given and understood.
Paragraph 1419(g)
Proposed paragraph (g) would require
the operator to stop operations if the
operator becomes aware of a safety
problem and needs to communicate
with the signal person. Operations may
only be resumed after the operator and
signal person agree that the problem has
been resolved.
53 The C–DAC draft refers to an ‘‘industry
consensus standard.’’ OSHA hasd changed this to
‘‘national consensus standard’’ to conform to the
terminology used in the OSH Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Proposed paragraph (h) would require
that only one person at a time signal the
operator. C–DAC believed this provision
was needed to prevent confusion with
respect to which signals the operator is
supposed to follow. An exception is
provided when, as provided in
proposed § 1926.1419(j), somebody
becomes aware of a safety problem and
gives an emergency stop signal. Under
proposed § 1926.1417(y), the operator
would be required to obey such a signal.
Paragraph 1419(i) [Reserved.]
Paragraph (i) is reserved because it is
inconvenient for readers to determine
whether ‘‘(i)’’ is being used as a letter or
a roman numeral.
Paragraph 1419(k)
Proposed paragraph (k) would require
that all directions given to the operator
by the signal person be given from the
operator’s direction perspective. In the
Committee’s experience, the operator
will tend to react to a directional signal,
such as ‘‘forward,’’ by acting on the
signal from the operator’s perspective.
This provision would ensure that the
signal that is given will be consistent
with that natural tendency.
Paragraph 1419(l) [Reserved.]
Paragraph (l) is reserved because it is
inconvenient for readers to whether ‘‘l’’
is being used as a letter or a number.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59798
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Paragraph 1419(m) Communication
With Multiple Cranes/Derricks
Proposed paragraph (m) addresses a
situation where the signal person is in
communication with more than one
crane or derrick. It would require the
signal person to use an effective means
of identifying the crane or derrick the
signal is for before giving the signal.
Proposed § 1926.1419(m)(i) and (ii) set
out alternate means of complying with
this requirement. Under proposed
§ 1926.1419(m)(i), for each signal, prior
to giving the function/direction, the
signal person must identify the crane/
derrick for which the signal is intended.
Alternatively, under proposed
§ 1926.1419(m)(ii), the employer could
implement a method of identifying
which crane/derrick for which the
signal is intended that is as effective as
the system in proposed
§ 1926.1419(m)(i). Because of the
potential for confusion, it is essential
that an alternative system under
proposed § 1926.1419(m)(ii) be equally
effective as § 1926.1419(m)(i) in clearly
conveying, on a consistent basis, the
crane/derrick to which each signal is
directed.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Section 1420 Signals—Radio,
Telephone, or Other Electronic
Transmission of Signals
C–DAC concluded that certain criteria
are needed to ensure the reliability and
clarity of electronically transmitted
signals; these criteria are listed in
proposed paragraphs § 1926.1420(a)
through (c). Proposed paragraph (a)
would require the testing of the
transmission devices prior to the start of
operations to ensure that the signals are
clear and that the devices are reliable.
This will help ensure that the operator
receives and can understand the signals
that are given and will prevent
accidents caused by miscommunication.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require
that such signals be transmitted through
a dedicated channel. As defined in
§ 1926.1401, a ‘‘dedicated channel’’ is
‘‘a line of communication assigned by
the employer who controls the
communication system to only one
signal person and crane/derrick or to a
coordinated group of cranes/derricks/
signal person(s).’’ Use of a dedicated
channel would ensure that the operator
and signal person are not interrupted by
users performing other tasks or confused
by instructions not intended for them.
An exception to § 1926.1419(b) would
allow more than one signal person and
more than one crane/derrick operator to
share a dedicated channel in multiple
crane/derrick situations for coordinating
operations. The Committee believed that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
this exception is needed because, in
those situations, it may be advantageous
to share a single dedicated channel. For
example, in some situations several
cranes may be operating in an area in
which their booms, loads or load lines
could come in contact with each other.
In such cases it is crucial that the
movements of each crane be properly
coordinated. By sharing a single
channel, each operator can hear what
each crane is being asked to do, which
can facilitate that coordination.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
that the operator’s reception be by a
hands-free system. In other words, the
operator must not have to depress a
button, manipulate a switch, or take any
action in order for the incoming signal
to be received. C–DAC believed that this
provision is needed because the
operator must have both hands free to
manipulate the equipment’s controls.
Paragraph 1421 Signals—Voice
Signals—Additional Requirements
C–DAC considered whether the
proposed rule should include a
standardized set of voice signals. Unlike
hand signals, which have become
standardized to a large extent within the
industry, in the Committee members’
experience there is significant variation
in the phrases used to convey the same
instructions. Consequently, words or
phrases that the Committee might
choose to propose to be required as
voice signals could be unfamiliar to
many employees in the industry or
contrary to common usage in some parts
of the country. In light of this, the
Committee determined that it would be
better to use a different approach to
address the problem of
miscommunication when using voice
signals. This approach, which
establishes criteria for whatever voice
signals are used, is set out in proposed
§ 1926.1421(a)–(c).
Under proposed paragraph (a), prior
to beginning operations, the personnel
involved with signals—the crane
operator, signal person and lift
supervisor (if there is one)—would be
required to meet and agree on the voice
signals that will be used. Because of the
lack of standardization and the variety
of languages that are in use in the
construction industry, the Committee
concluded that it is essential that the
persons who give and/or receive voice
signals agree in advance on the signals
that will be used in order to avoid
miscommunication. Once the parties
have met and agreed on the voice
signals, another meeting is not required
to discuss them unless another worker
is substituted, there is some confusion
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
about the signals, or a signal needs to be
changed.
In reviewing the C–DAC draft of this
provision, the Agency realized that the
adjective ‘‘voice’’ was inadvertently left
out when referring to signals. To avoid
ambiguity, the Agency has added the
term ‘‘voice’’ to clarify that this
proposed provision applies to the use of
voice signals.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require
that each voice signal contain the
following three elements, given in the
following order: function (such as hoist,
boom, etc.), direction; distance and/or
speed; Function, stop command. For
example: hoist up; 10 feet; hoist stop. As
discussed above, the Committee
considered it impractical to attempt to
standardize the voice signals themselves
(that is, to require the use of particular
words to represent particular functions,
directions or other instructions).
However, the Committee concluded that
the chance of miscommunication could
nonetheless be reduced if certain
parameters were established for the type
of information and order of information
that would be given.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
the crane operator, signal person, and
lift supervisor (if there is one) to be able
to effectively communicate in the
language used. Voice signals will not
serve their intended purpose if they
cannot be understood, or can be
misinterpreted. The inability of these
workers to understand each other could
lead to accidents caused, for example,
by the crane operator moving a load in
a different direction than the signal
person intends.
Section 1422 Signals—Hand Signal
Chart
This proposed paragraph would
require that hand signal charts be either
posted on the equipment or be readily
available at the site. The purpose of this
proposed provision is to serve as a
reference for operators and signal
persons of the mandatory hand signals
and thereby help avoid
miscommunication.
Section 1423 Fall Protection
This proposed section contains
provisions designed to protect workers
on equipment covered by this Subpart
from fall hazards. (See proposed
§ 1926.1431, Hoisting Personnel, for fall
protection provisions that would apply
when equipment is used to hoist
personnel). Currently, 29 CFR part 1926
subpart N contains certain fall
protection requirements but does not
address fall protection for cranes and
derricks comprehensively. Where
Subpart N does not specifically address
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
a fall protection issue, the general fall
protection provisions of 29 CFR part
1926 subpart M apply. As OSHA
explained when it issued subpart M,
‘‘while Subpart N contains requirements
for fall protection when certain cranes
are used, it does not address other
equipment or working conditions
otherwise covered by subpart N which
may also expose employees to a fall
hazard.’’59 FR 40672, 40675 (Aug. 9,
1994).54
The fall protection requirements in
Subpart M apply where an employee is
on a ‘‘walking/working surface.’’ 29 CFR
1926.501. In § 1926.500(b), the
definition of walking/working surface
excludes ‘‘vehicles.’’ That definition
effectively excludes many cranes (for
example, mobile cranes would be
considered ‘‘vehicles’’).
The Committee believed that safety
would be enhanced by addressing the
problem of fall hazards associated with
cranes and derricks comprehensively. In
addition, it believed that putting all
such requirements under the cranes and
derricks standard would make it easier
for employers to readily determine the
applicable fall protection requirements.
Accordingly, under this proposed
standard, Subpart M would not apply to
equipment covered by this proposed
subpart except where it incorporates
requirements of Subpart M by reference.
In this regard, note that the Agency is
proposing to amend Subpart M at
§ 1926.500(a)(2)(ii) to remove the word
‘‘certain.’’
Definition of Fall Protection Equipment
‘‘Fall protection equipment’’ is
defined in proposed § 1926.1401 as
‘‘guardrail systems, safety net systems,
personal fall arrest systems, positioning
device systems, or fall restraint
systems.’’ The first four listed systems
are described, and their specifications
listed, in 29 CFR Part 1926. Subpart M
of this part, OSHA’s general fall
protection standard for construction
work. See § 1926.502(b) (guardrail
systems); § 1926.502(c) (safety net
systems); § 1926.502(d) (personal fall
arrest systems); and § 1926.502(e)
(positioning device systems).
The fifth category of fall protection
equipment, ‘‘fall restraint system,’’ is
defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a fall
protection system that prevents the user
from falling any distance. The system is
comprised of either a body belt or body
54 In Subpart M, § 1926.500(a)(2) states: ‘‘Section
1926.501 sets forth those workplaces, conditions,
operations, and circumstances for which fall
protection shall be provided except as follows:
* * * (ii) Requirements relating to fall protection
for employees working on certain cranes and
derricks are provided in Subpart N of this part.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
harness, along with an anchorage,
connectors and other necessary
equipment. The other components
typically include a lanyard, and may
also include a lifeline and other
devices.’’ This definition is found in 29
CFR part 1926. Subpart R of this part,
OSHA’s steel erection standard.
By defining ‘‘fall protection
equipment’’ to include the same types of
fall protection equipment required
under other OSHA standards, C–DAC
sought to ensure that employers would
be familiar with the types of fall
protection required under this standard
and thereby promote compliance.
Paragraph 1423(a) Application
Falls have traditionally been the
leading cause of deaths among
construction workers. BLS data for 2004
and 2005, the latest years for which
complete figures are available, shows
445 fatalities from falls in 2004 (OSHA–
2007–0066–0023), and 394 in 2005
(OSHA–2007–0066–0024). In 2004, 20
fatalities resulted from falls from
nonmoving vehicles and in 2005, such
falls caused 18 deaths. A recent study of
crane-related fatalities in the U.S.
construction industry found that 2%
resulted from falls. J.E. Beavers, J.R.
Moore, R. Rinehart, and W.R. Schriver,
‘‘Crane-Related Fatalities in the
Construction Industry,’’ 132 Journal of
Construction Engineering and
Management 901 (Sept. 2006) (OSHA–
2007–0066–0012). Falls from cranes,
particularly when the operator is
entering or leaving the crane, also cause
numerous non-fatal injuries to
construction workers. (OSHA–S030–
2006–0663–0422).
Under proposed paragraph (a), certain
proposed provisions in this section
(proposed § 1926.1423(c)(1), (f) and (h))
would apply to all equipment, including
tower cranes; certain provisions
(proposed § 1926.1423(b), (c)(2), (d) and
(e)) would apply to all equipment
except tower cranes; and certain
provisions (proposed paragraph (g)
would apply only to tower cranes).
Paragraph 1423(b) Boom Walkways
Proposed paragraph (b) would
establish when walkways must be
incorporated into lattice booms and the
criteria for such walkways. Boom
walkways are not currently required by
subpart N of this part.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would
require that equipment manufactured
more than one year after the effective
date of this standard with a lattice boom
be equipped with walkways on the
boom if the vertical profile of the boom
(from cord centerline to cord centerline)
is 6 or more feet. C–DAC believed that
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59799
the installation of walkways on booms
would decrease the number of falls
which occur during assembly/
disassembly, inspection, and
maintenance of booms and attached
devices. Without a walkway, employees
walking the boom must step from lattice
to lattice. C–DAC believed it is safer to
walk the boom if the boom is equipped
with a walkway.
C–DAC considered the technical
difficulty of equipping a boom with a
vertical profile of less than 6 feet. Such
booms would not accommodate the
addition of a walkway into their design
because the added weight of the
walkway would significantly
compromise their hoisting capacity. For
that reason, C–DAC limited the
requirement for boom walkways to
equipment with lattice booms where the
vertical profile of the boom is 6 feet or
more.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2), Boom
walkway criteria, would establish a
minimum width for boom walkways
and address safety issues associated
with guardrails, railings and other
attachments.55 Proposed
§ 1926.1423(b)(2)(i) would require that
walkways on booms be at least 12
inches wide. C–DAC considered
requiring boom walkways to be at least
18 inches wide to remain consistent
with § 1926.451(b)(2) of the scaffold
standard (Subpart L). However, C–DAC
determined that there are engineering
limitations applicable to booms that are
not applicable to scaffolds. Specifically,
the Committee found that an 18 inch
requirement would present feasibility
problems, especially on smaller booms.
In such cases an 18 inch walkway’s
added weight would unduly impinge
upon the equipment’s capacity.
C–DAC believed that a walkway with
a 12 inch width, while not as easy to use
as an 18 inch walkway, would provide
enough space for an employee to
maintain his/her balance while walking
from point to point on the boom when
the boom is positioned horizontally.
This would be a significant
improvement over having to step across
the open space between the boom’s
lattice-work and onto the lattice. In sum,
the Committee concluded that the
benefits obtained by providing a
walkway on booms outweigh any
drawbacks associated with a minimum
width of 12 inches. Note that, in many
circumstances, the safety benefits
afforded by this walkway would be
supplemented by fall protection
equipment (see the discussion below of
proposed paragraphs (d) and (e)).
55 These criteria would apply to all boom
walkways, not just those on lattice booms.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59800
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) would
address the use of guardrails, railings
and other permanent fall protection
attachments along walkways. The
general fall protection standard for
construction work at § 1926.501(b)(6)
requires that walkways be equipped
with guardrail systems to protect
workers against falling 6 feet or more.
This proposed section would retain the
general requirement for fall protection at
or above 6 feet for certain work (see
discussion below of § 1926.1423(d)), but
C–DAC believed that guardrails should
not be a required form of fall protection
on boom walkways because of the
feasibility constraints discussed below.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) states
that guardrails, railings and other
permanent fall protection attachments
along boom walkways would not be
required. For some equipment, the
added weight of fixed railings,
combined with the walkway’s weight,
would unduly impinge upon the lift
capacity of the boom. In addition, as
discussed in relation to
§ 1926.1423(b)(2)(ii)(B) below, in some
boom designs pendant ropes and bars
(where present) could become snagged
on such railings.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B)
would prohibit guardrails, railings and
other permanent fall protection
attachments along walkways on booms
supported by pendant ropes or bars if
the guardrails, railings or attachments
could be snagged by the ropes or bars.
Such snagging could cause instability or
a collapse. Whether the potential for
snagging is present on a boom
supported by pendant ropes or bars
would depend on the design of the
equipment.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C)
would prohibit removable-type
guardrails, railings, and other
permanent fall protection along
walkways. For purposes of this
paragraph, ‘‘removable-type’’ means
designed to be installed and removed
each time the boom is assembled/
disassembled. One of the Committee’s
concerns was that such devices may be
left installed by mistake, which could
damage the equipment and cause
unexpected movement or a failure
during its operation.
Under proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(ii)(D), where guardrails or railings
are not prohibited, they would be
permitted to be of any height up to, but
not more than, 45 inches. C–DAC
believed that requiring all guardrails
and handrails to comply with the height
criteria in Subpart M of this part, which
generally requires them to be 39 to 45
inches high, could deter manufacturers
from equipping their products with
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
guardrails and handrails. That is
because meeting Subpart M’s height
criteria could make the device
incompatible with the design and
operation of the boom. For boom
walkway applications, C–DAC
concluded that using guardrails lower
than 39 inches when higher guardrails
are infeasible was preferable to not
having any guardrails at all.
Paragraph 1423(c) Steps, Handholds,
Grabrails, Guardrails and Railings
Proposed paragraph (c) would specify
criteria for the use and maintenance of
steps, handholds, grabrails, guardrails
and railings.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would
require that the employer maintain
originally-equipped steps, handholds,
ladders and guardrails/railings/grabrails
in good condition. The failure to
properly maintain such devices could
pose dangers to the employees who use
them. For example, a grabrail that has
become weakened from rust could fail
when an employee uses it, which could
cause the employee to fall. Another
example is a missing railing. A
manufacturer that integrated a railing
into its design may have provided a
walking surface that would otherwise be
too narrow to be safe.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would
require that equipment manufactured
more than one year after the effective
date of this standard be equipped to
provide safe access and egress between
the ground and the operator work
station(s), including the forward and
rear operator positions, by the provision
of devices such as steps, handholds,
ladders, and guardrails/railings/
grabrails. As discussed below, proposed
§ 1926.1423(c)(2)(i) would require these
devices to meet updated design criteria.
Currently, § 1926.550(a)(13)(i) in
Subpart N requires that guardrails,
handholds, and steps be provided on
cranes for easy access to the car and cab
and specifies that these devices conform
to ANSI B30.5. The 1968 version of
ANSI B30.5, which was in effect at the
time Subpart N was issued, specifies
that the construction of these devices
must conform to the 1946 U.S. Safety
Appliance Standard. C–DAC recognized
that many pieces of equipment now in
use would have been manufactured
with handholds and steps but was
concerned that the handholds and steps
may have been designed to meet
outdated criteria.
The Committee believed that it would
be unduly burdensome to require all
equipment to be retrofitted with new
steps, handholds, and railings simply
because the existing design may vary
from what would be required under this
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposal. Accordingly, the proposal
would allow one year from the date of
the published final rule for equipment
to be manufactured with devices that
conform to proposed 1926.1423(c)(2)(i),
discussed next. This would give
equipment manufacturers adequate time
to incorporate the requirements of
§ 1926.1423(c)(2)(i) into their products.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) would
require that steps, ladders and
guardrails/railings/ grabrails meet the
requirements of SAE J185 (May 2003) or
ISO 11660–2 (1994). OSHA’s
construction standards contain
specifications for stairways and ladders
in 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart X, but C–
DAC believed that the Subpart X
requirements do not take into account
the characteristics of the equipment
covered by this proposed standard. The
specifications in SAE J185 are
referenced in industry consensus
standards, such as ASME B30.5–2004,
‘‘Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,’’ and
crane manufacturers are familiar with
those requirements. C–DAC
recommended alternatively allowing
compliance with ISO 11660–2 since
employers also use equipment built by
foreign manufacturers who have been
following that standard.
Under proposed paragraph (a) of this
section, the requirements in proposed
paragraph § 1926.1423(c)(2) do not
apply to tower cranes. It is the Agency’s
understanding that C–DAC excluded
tower cranes from these requirements
because the SAE and ISO standards
referenced in § 1926.1423(c)(2)(i) are
designed for, and only address, mobile
cranes. The Agency also believes that
the lack of a similar provision in the
C–DAC document designed for tower
cranes was an oversight; tower cranes
also need to be equipped with safe
stairways and ladders to enable the
operator to ascend to the cab and
descend safely.56 Accordingly, OSHA
plans to include a requirement similar
to § 1926.1423(c)(2) that would be
applicable to, and designed for, tower
cranes, and requests public comment on
this issue.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would
require that walking/stepping surfaces,
except for crawler treads, have slipresistant features/properties (such as
diamond plate metal, strategically
placed grip tape, expanded metal, or
slip-resistant paint). Section
1926.550(a)(13)(iii) of Subpart N of this
part requires platforms and walkways to
have anti-skid surfaces. C–DAC
56 Note that section 3–1.17.2 of both the 1996 and
2004 versions of ASME B30.3, ‘‘Construction Tower
Cranes,’’ calls for access ladders to the cab,
machinery platform, and tower to conform to ANSI
A14.3 or to SAE J185.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
recommended that OSHA retain this
requirement as a complement to the use
of guardrails, handholds, grabrails,
ladders and other engineered safety
features that would be required by this
proposed section. OSHA continues to
believe that compliance with this
provision would minimize the number
of slips and falls for employees who
must travel point to point to access the
operator workstations on equipment
covered by this proposed section.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1423(d) Fall Protection
Requirements for Non-Assembly/
Disassembly Work
Proposed paragraph (d) addresses fall
protection requirements for employees
engaged in work other than assembly/
disassembly work (‘‘non-A/D’’ work).
For such work, in certain circumstances,
employers would be required to provide
and ensure the use of fall protection
equipment for employees who are on a
walking/working surface with an
unprotected side or edge more than 6
feet above a lower level.
C–DAC discussed different trigger
heights for fall protection requirements
for particular types of cranes and
derricks. Ultimately, C–DAC concluded
that the requirements for fall protection
should remain consistent with 29 CFR
Part subpart M, which generally
requires fall protection at heights at and
above 6 feet, as much as possible. (As
discussed below, for A/D work, the
Committee recommended fall protection
beginning at 15 feet). C–DAC also
believed that, in its view, operators do
not need to be tied off while moving to
and from their cabs, and the proposal
would make this clear by requiring fall
protection equipment only when
employees are moving point-to-point on
booms or while at a work station (with
certain exceptions). The Committee
believed that the steps, handholds, and
railings required under proposed
§ 1926.1423(c) would protect operators
moving to and from their workstations
and eliminate the need for additional
fall protection equipment.
Paragraph 1423(d)(1) Non-Assembly/
Disassembly: Moving Point to Point
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i) would
require employers to provide and ensure
the use of fall protection equipment at
6 feet and above when an employee is
moving point to point on non-lattice
booms (whether horizontal or not
horizontal). As defined in § 1926.1401,
‘‘moving point to point’’ means ‘‘the
times during which an employee is in
the process of going to or from a work
station.’’
C–DAC believed that non-lattice
booms generally present more hazards
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
to workers who must walk them to
reach other work areas, devices, and
equipment attached to it than lattice
booms. Non-lattice booms are typically
of the extensible type. As a result, as
members noted, the walking/working
surfaces on these types of booms are
often oily (from the hydraulic
mechanisms). Also, since the boom
sections extend and retract, it is
typically infeasible to provide boom
walkways and other safety features.
Because they tend to be slippery from
oil, the Committee concluded that they
are especially hazardous to move across
even when horizontal. Therefore, where
an employee is required to move point
to point on a non-lattice boom, the
proposal would require fall protection
above 6 feet in height.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) would
require employers to provide and ensure
the use of fall protection, beginning at
6 feet, when employees must move
point to point on lattice booms that are
not in a horizontal position. In non-A/
D work, an employee may, for example,
need to move point-to-point on a lattice
boom to inspect a part that is suspected
to need repair, or to make a repair (such
as replacing a broken or missing cotter
pin). In many of these situations, the
boom will not be horizontal, since space
limitations often make it difficult to
lower the boom to do this work.
The Committee believed that it is both
necessary and feasible for fall protection
to be used in such instances. Typically,
the fall protection that would be used
would consist of a double-lanyard or
similar personal fall arrest system. Since
the boom in these instances would be
elevated, there would usually be a point
on the boom above the level of the
employee’s feet to which the lanyard
could be attached.
It is the Agency’s understanding that,
in contrast, it is uncommon for an
employee to need to move point-topoint on a horizontal lattice boom for
non-A/D work. If work does need to be
done, such as making an inspection or
repair as discussed above, the employee
would usually get access to their work
station with a ladder. In those instances
when the employee must traverse the
boom itself, the Committee concluded
that it would be inappropriate to require
fall protection for the reasons discussed
below.
The key difficulty in providing fall
protection in such instances stems from
the lack of a tie-off point above the level
of the employee’s feet. Most lattice
booms when horizontal would be less
than 15 feet above the next lower level.
At heights below 15 feet, a personal fall
arrest system tied off at the level of the
employee’s feet, with a lanyard long
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59801
enough to afford the employee the range
of movement necessary for this work,
might not prevent the employee from
falling to the next lower level. In
construction work the problem of
providing personal fall protection in
this height range, when there is no
higher tie-off point, is usually solved in
one of three ways (apart from the use of
ladders, scaffolds, aerial lifts, and
similar devices). One way is to use a
restraint system, which is anchored at a
point that prevents the employee from
moving past an edge. This type of
system could not be used while on a
boom because the boom is too narrow.
Another method is to set up a
personal fall arrest system that would
arrest the employee’s fall before hitting
the next lower level by using stanchions
to support an elevated, horizontal lifeline. However, such stanchions must be
securely fastened and whatever they are
fastened to must be able to withstand
considerable forces in an arrested fall.
On a crane’s lattice boom, the
stanchions would have to be attached
either to the chords or the lacings.
The chords and lacings are engineered
to be as light as possible, and an
engineering analysis would be needed
in each case to determine if the
attachment point was sufficiently strong
to withstand those forces. Also, the
Agency believes that manufacturers
would be unlikely to approve clamp-on
type systems because of the likelihood
of the clamping forces damaging these
critical structural components.
Similarly, the Agency believes that
manufacturers would not approve the
repeated weld/removal/re-weld cycles
that would be involved in attaching and
removing stanchions because this could
adversely affect the boom’s structural
components.
The third method commonly used in
construction work is a temporary
guardrail system, but that also would
require attaching stanchions to the
boom, which would be infeasible for
these same reasons.
The Committee concluded that, in
light of such factors, it would not be
appropriate to require fall protection
when an employee moves point-to-point
on horizontal lattice booms. However,
the Agency notes that, although it may
rarely be necessary for an employee
moving point-to-point on a horizontal
lattice boom to be 15 feet or more above
the next lower level, there is the
possibility of such an occurrence, such
as where a horizontal boom spans a
large gap in the ground surface. At such
heights a personal fall arrest system tied
off at the level of the employee’s feet
would allow sufficient room for the
arrest system to operate without
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59802
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
allowing the employee to strike the next
lower level. Therefore, the Agency
requests public comment on whether
proposed § 1926.1423(d)(1)(ii) should be
expanded to require fall protection
when an employee, engaged in
non-A/D work, is moving point-to-point
on a boom that is horizontal and the fall
distance is 15 feet or more.
Paragraph 1423(d)(2) Non-Assembly/
Disassembly: While at a Work Station
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would
require employers to provide and ensure
the use of fall protection while an
employee is at a work station on any
part of the equipment (including the
boom, of any type), except when the
employee is at or near draw-works
(when the equipment is running), in the
cab, or on the deck. An example of
being at a work station is the following:
An employee is assigned to replace a
cotter pin for a sheave at the end of a
boom. The employee’s ‘‘work station’’
on the boom for this task will be the
point where, after the employee has
traversed the boom or climbed on from
a ladder, the employee performs that
task. Because the employee is using one
or both hands to perform the task, there
is a heightened risk of falling.
Since the work is typically done
while the employee is sitting or lying on
or inside the boom and is stationary
while doing the task, there is normally
no difficulty in setting up the personal
fall protection system so that it would
prevent the worker from contacting the
next lower level. Therefore, this
proposed provision does not distinguish
between work stations based on boom
type or whether the boom is horizontal
or elevated. For work stations on other
parts of the equipment, the Committee
concluded that there is normally some
suitable point available to which a
personal fall arrest system can be
anchored.
Fall protection would not be required
near draw-works when the equipment is
running because of the danger that
moving parts could catch a safety
lanyard and pull the worker into
moving machinery. This danger is
present when parts in the draw works
are moving. It is also present when the
equipment is running and the draw
works parts are not moving because of
the potential that someone will activate
those parts.
Fall protection would not be required
when the employee is in a cab because
the employee is not exposed to a fall
hazard in that instance. Fall protection
would also not be required for
employees on decks, since the
Committee believed that equipment is
typically designed so that employees on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
the deck are not exposed to a fall
hazard.
As discussed earlier, C–DAC was
convinced that the steps and railings
required by this proposed standard
would provide adequate fall protection
to operators going to and from their
workstations. Therefore, fall protection
(apart from those devices) would not be
required for operators while moving
point-to-point between the ground and
the operator work station(s).
Paragraph 1423(e)
Disassembly
Assembly/
Proposed paragraph (e) would require
the employer to provide and ensure the
use of fall protection equipment during
A/D work for employees who are on a
walking/working surface with an
unprotected side or edge more than 15
feet above a lower level, except when
the employee is at or near draw-works
(when the equipment is running), in the
cab, or on the deck.
The principal problem with the use of
fall protection during assembly/
disassembly below 15 feet is the
difficulty in setting up a personal fall
protection system that allows a
significant degree of movement on a
boom in this height range (which is
usually of the lattice type) and also
prevents the employee from contacting
the next lower level. Unlike employees
who work at a stationary work station,
employees engaged in assembly/
disassembly work typically have to
move a significant amount to
accomplish the work.
Consequently, the degree of
movement that the protection system
needs to provide to the employee is
more similar to what is needed when
moving point-to-point on a boom than
working at a work station. As discussed
above, the characteristics of lattice
booms make it more difficult to set up
such systems than in other situations.
The exception to the requirement for
fall protection when the employee is at
or near draw-works (when the
equipment is running), in the cab, or on
the deck is based on the same
considerations discussed above with
respect to proposed § 1926.1423(d)(2).
Paragraph 1423(f)
Anchorage Criteria
Proposed paragraph (f) would specify
criteria for anchorage points used in
personal fall protection systems.57
57 ‘‘Personal fall arrest system’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 of this proposed standard as ‘‘a system
used to arrest an employee in a fall from a working
level. It consists of an anchorage, connectors, a
body harness and may include a lanyard,
deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable
combination of these.’’ This definition is taken from
§ 1926.500(b) of Subpart M. As with other
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Proposed paragraph (f)(1), Anchorages
for fall arrest and positioning device
systems, contains requirements for
anchorage points used in fall arrest and
positioning device systems. Proposed
§ 1926.1423(f)(1)(i) would permit
personal fall arrest systems and
positioning systems to be anchored to
any apparently substantial part of the
equipment unless a competent person,
from a visual inspection, without an
engineering analysis, would conclude
that the applicable criteria in § 1926.502
of Subpart M of this part would not be
met. The Subpart M criteria include, for
personal fall arrest systems, 5,000
pounds per employee or twice the
potential impact load of an employee’s
fall (in addition to other requirements)
(§ 1926.502(d)(15)); for a positioning
device, 3,000 pounds or twice the
potential impact load of an employee’s
fall, whichever is greater (in addition to
other requirements) (§ 1926.502(e)(2)).
Most of the equipment covered by the
proposed standard are designed to lift
and support weights much heavier than
these. Apparently substantial parts of
the equipment are, therefore, typically
capable of meeting the Subpart M
capacities. Consequently, C–DAC
believed that the proposed
§ 1926.1423(f)(1)(i) criteria was
appropriate and would avoid burdening
employers with what it considered to be
the unnecessary expense of obtaining
engineering analyses for each part that
would serve as an anchor.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii) would
require that attachable anchor devices
(portable anchor devices that are
attached to the equipment) meet the
applicable anchorage criteria in
§ 1926.502. These criteria are the same
as those discussed in the previous
paragraph for fall arrest and fall
positioning systems.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2), Anchorages
for restraint systems, would require
restraint systems to be anchored to any
part of the equipment that is capable of
withstanding twice the maximum load
that a worker may impose on it during
reasonably anticipated conditions of
use. Since restraint systems do not
arrest a worker’s fall (instead they
prevent a fall from occurring), the
anchorage does not need to be able to
support the significantly greater force
generated during an arrested fall. C–
DAC believed that having the anchorage
support twice the maximum anticipated
load will provide an adequate margin of
safety when a restraint system is used.
definitions applicable to this section, C–DAC used
terminology that is familiar to the industry to
provide clear notice of the standard’s requirements
and promote compliance.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Paragraph 1423(g)
Tower Cranes
Proposed paragraph (g) would specify
fall protection requirements specific to
tower cranes. Note that the terminology
‘‘erecting’’ and ‘‘dismantling’’ is used
with regard to tower cranes rather than
‘‘assembly’’ and ‘‘disassembly’’; this
terminology reflects the industry’s use
of these terms.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1423(g)(1)
Dismantling
Non-Erecting/
Proposed paragraph (g)(1) addresses
fall protection requirements for nonerecting/dismantling work. The
employer would be required to provide
and ensure the use of fall protection
equipment for employees who are on a
walking/working surface with an
unprotected side or edge more than 6
feet above a lower level. The exceptions
to this requirement would be when the
employee is at or near draw-works
(when the equipment is running), in the
cab, or on the deck.
As discussed above, for equipment
other than tower cranes, there were
various factors that prompted C–DAC to
agree on different requirements for
moving point-to-point than when
working at a work station. Those factors,
however, are not present in tower
cranes.
For example, when moving point-topoint on the jib (or boom) or on the
tower, there are no feasibility
constraints to being protected. There are
numerous areas on the jib to which an
employee can anchor personal fall arrest
equipment as the employee walks out
and back on the jib (or boom) on a tower
crane. Also, by standard industry
practice, the counter-jib 58 is usually
equipped with a walkway and railings.
If the employee needs to traverse in an
area that is off the walkway, other fall
protection can be used, such as a
personal fall arrest system. Since the jib
(or boom) once erected is much higher
than 6 feet from the next lower level,
there is plenty of room for the arrest
system to operate without allowing the
employee to strike the next lower level.
Moving point-to-point on the tower is
typically done either using the ladder or
stair system provided within the tower,
or (in some situations) moving on a
tower section. When moving on a tower
section, because the sections are
vertical, there is always a point above
the employee’s feet to which the arrest
system can be anchored. There is
58 At the top of the tower, there is a long
horizontal structure that supports the load (the
‘‘jib’’ or, if the luffing type, the ‘‘boom’’), and a
shorter horizontal structure that supports the
counterweights, which is referred to as the
‘‘counter-jib.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
therefore no need for stanchions or
other equipment to set up the system to
prevent the employee from striking the
next lower level.
The exception to the proposed
provision for fall protection when the
employee is at or near draw-works
(when the equipment is running), in the
cab, or on the deck is based on the same
considerations discussed above with
respect to proposed § 1926.1423(d)(2).
The Agency notes that its understanding
of the location of ‘‘the deck’’ on a tower
crane is the walking/working area on
the counter-jib.
Paragraph 1423(g)(2) Erecting/
Dismantling
This proposed paragraph specifies
that, for erecting/dismantling work,
employers must provide, and ensure use
of, fall protection equipment for
employees who are on a walking/
working surface with an unprotected
side or edge more than 15 feet above a
lower level.
On tower cranes, almost all of the
erecting/dismantling work that takes
place below 15 feet occurs in
connection with erecting or dismantling
the sections of the jib (or boom), which
is usually done on the ground. In this
respect the erecting/dismantling process
is similar to the assembly/disassembly
of other types of cranes. Therefore, the
same reasons for setting a 15–foot
threshold for requiring fall protection
for assembling/disassembling non-tower
cranes (see discussion of proposed
paragraph (e) above) are also the basis
for proposing to require fall protection
beginning at 15 feet for erecting and
dismantling tower cranes.
The Agency notes that C–DAC did not
include the exceptions that were
included in proposed § 1926.1423(g)(1)
for when the employee is at or near
draw-works (when the equipment is
running), in the cab, or on the deck.
OSHA is unaware of any reason why
these exceptions would not be equally
applicable here, and asks for public
comment on whether they should be
added to proposed § 1926.1423(g)(2).
Paragraph 1423(h) Anchoring to the
Load Line
Proposed paragraph (h) would permit
an employer, under prescribed
conditions, to anchor a fall arrest system
to the hook or other part of a load line
of a crane or derrick. Currently, in
Subpart M of this part, § 1926.502(d)(23)
prohibits personal fall arrest systems to
be attached to ‘‘hoists except as
specified in other subparts of this part.’’
Subpart N does not contain any
provisions specifically addressing this
issue. Therefore, since the hook or other
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59803
part of a load line is connected to a hoist
in the crane or for the derrick, attaching
a personal fall arrest system in this
manner is currently prohibited by
Subpart M.
OSHA has received a number of
inquiries asking whether a crane’s hook
or load line may be used as an
anchorage point for fall protection.
Using a crane for such purpose would
be particularly useful in many
situations, especially where establishing
a suitable anchor point would be
otherwise very difficult. OSHA asked C–
DAC to consider whether there is any
reason to prohibit using a crane or
derrick for such purpose. C–DAC
believed that the hook or load line of a
crane could be used safely as an anchor
point under the conditions proposed in
the rest of this paragraph.
Proposed paragraph (h)(1) would
allow the hook or load line to be used
as an anchorage point when a qualified
person has determined that the set-up
and rated capacity of the crane/derrick
(including the hook, load line and
rigging) meets or exceeds the
requirements in § 1926.502(d)(15). C–
DAC concluded that, as long as the
crane or derrick had sufficient capacity
to meet those criteria, there is no reason
to prohibit its use for this purpose.
The criteria in § 1926.502(d)(15) were
developed to ensure that fall protection
anchorages provide adequate employee
protection. A number of factors related
to the crane’s capacity in the particular
configuration and set-up involved
would need to be considered, including,
in some cases, the angle of the fall arrest
lanyard to the boom if a fall were to
occur. In C–DAC’s view, determining
whether those criteria are met when
anchoring to the hook or load line
requires the expertise of a qualified
person.
Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would
require that the equipment operator be
at the work site and informed that the
equipment is being used to anchor a fall
arrest system. This would ensure that
the operator is available to make any
necessary adjustments, such as moving
the boom or load lines. Further, in the
event of an emergency that results in a
tied-off employee being suspended from
the hook or load line, the operator
would be available to bring the worker
to the ground safely.
Section 1424 Work Area Control
Proposed paragraph (a) addresses the
hazard of employees being struck,
pinched-between or crushed when
within the swing radius of the
equipment’s rotating superstructure.
Proposed 1926.1424(a)(1) states that the
precautions in § 1926.1424(a)(2) must be
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59804
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
taken when there are accessible areas in
which the equipment’s rotating
superstructure (whether permanently or
temporarily mounted) poses a
reasonably foreseeable risk of either: (i)
Striking and injuring an employee; or
(ii) pinching/crushing an employee
against another part of the equipment or
another object.
Currently, § 1926.550(a)(9) provides:
‘‘Accessible areas within the swing
radius of the rear of the rotating
superstructure of the crane, either
permanently or temporarily mounted,
shall be barricaded in such a manner as
to prevent an employee from being
struck or crushed by the crane.’’ In
proposed § 1926.1401, ‘‘superstructure’’
is defined as a synonym for
‘‘upperworks’’ and ‘‘upperstructure.’’
Under this definition, all three terms
mean the following: ‘‘the revolving
frame of equipment on which the engine
and operating machinery are mounted
along with the operator’s cab. The
counterweight is typically supported on
the rear of the upperstructure and the
boom or other front end attachment is
mounted on the front.’’
The Committee agreed that barriers
around danger areas are a viable, safe
option, but they also agreed that such
barriers are not always feasible and that,
in such cases, there needs to be
alternative means of protecting the
employees. In addition, C–DAC was
concerned that the language ‘‘accessible
areas within the swing radius . * * *’’
would require that all areas accessible to
an employee within the swing radius
would have to be protected, irrespective
of whether an employee could be
injured while in such an area. C–DAC
viewed such a requirement as overly
broad and unnecessary.
The Committee drafted the proposed
requirement so that protective measures
would be required for accessible areas
that pose a ‘‘reasonably foreseeable risk’’
that an employee would be struck or
pinched/crushed. The principle of
reasonably foreseeable risk is one that is
well established in Occupational Safety
and Health Review Commission caselaw
and in the courts of appeals. For
example, in Pete Miller Inc., 19 O.S.H.C.
(BNA) 1257, 1258 (Rev. Comm’n 2000),
the Review Commission stated that a
violation occurs when ‘‘it is reasonably
predictable either by operational
necessity or otherwise (including
inadvertence), that employees have
been, are, or will be in the zone of
danger.’’ 59 The following are two
59 See also, Daniel Int’l Corp. v. Donovan, 705
F.2d 382, 388 (10th Cir. 1983); Mineral Indus. &
Heavy Constr. Group v. OSHRC, 639 F.2d 1289,
1294 (5th Cir. 1981).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
illustrative examples of the application
of this principle to the swing radius
provision:
Illustrative example #1: The bottom of the
rear of the rotating superstructure of crane A
is 12 feet above the ground. An employee
standing on the ground within that swing
radius could not be struck by the rotating
superstructure since the rotating
superstructure would swing well above him/
her. There is nothing within that area on
which the employee could stand. In this
example the area does not pose a reasonably
foreseeable risk of the employee being struck
or pinched/crushed.
Illustrative example #2: Same scenario as
example #1 above, except that a truck with
material that is to be unloaded from its bed
is within the swing radius. If an employee
were to stand on the truck bed the employee
would be within the swing radius. In this
example there is a reasonably foreseeable risk
of an employee being struck or pinched/
crushed.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2), the
employer would be required to institute
two types of measures to prevent
employees from entering these hazard
areas. Specifically, under proposed
§ 1926.1424(a)(2)(i), the employer would
have to train employees assigned to
work on or near the equipment in how
to recognize these areas. The Committee
believed that employees need to
understand and appreciate the risk
posed by the rotating superstructure for
the other precautions required by
§ 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii) to be effective.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would
require the employer to erect and
maintain control lines, warning lines,
railings, or similar barriers to mark the
boundaries of the hazard areas, but
contains an exception when such a
precaution is infeasible. If it is neither
feasible to erect such barriers on the
ground nor on the equipment, the
employer would be required to mark the
danger zone with a combination of
warning signs and high visibility
markings on the equipment that identify
the hazard areas. In addition, the
employer would have to train
employees to understand what those
markings signify.
To help prevent struck-by and
crushed-by injuries and fatalities, C–
DAC concluded that it is necessary to
address the protection of employees
who must sometimes enter the hazard
area to perform work. Proposed
§ 1926.1424(a)(3) is designed to help
protect such employees by ensuring that
there is adequate communication and
coordination between the operator and
the employee in the danger area.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i), if
an employee is going to go to a location
in a hazard area that is out of view of
the operator, before that employee goes
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
in that area the employee (or someone
instructed by the employee) would have
to ensure that the operator is informed
that the employee is going to that
location. Since the operator will
typically be under the assumption that
no one is in that area, informing the
operator that an employee is going to
enter the hazard area is an essential first
step in preventing the operator from
moving the superstructure and causing
injury to that employee.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii),
once informed that an employee is going
to enter a hazard area out of the
operator’s view, the operator would be
prohibited from rotating the
superstructure unless and until he/she
gives a warning that the employee
understands is a signal that the
superstructure is about to be rotated and
gives the employee time to get clear.
Alternatively, the operator may rotate
the superstructure if informed in
accordance with a pre-arranged system
of communication that the employee is
in a safe position. An example of such
a system would be the use of a signal
person who gives an all-clear signal to
the operator once the signal person sees
that the employee has exited the hazard
area. Another example would be where
the employee in the hazard area is
equipped with a portable air horn and,
in accordance with a pre-arranged horn
signal system, sounds an appropriate
signal to the operator that the employee
has exited the hazard area. To be
effective, the pre-arranged signal system
would need to be designed so that this
all-clear signal could not be confused
with a horn signal from some other
employee for another purpose.
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses
situations where multiple pieces of
equipment are located in such
proximity that their working radii
overlap. Such situations pose the danger
of employees being pinched/crushed
between the equipment and being
injured as a result of unintended
movement or collapse when pieces of
equipment collide. To prevent such
accidents, the controlling entity would
be required to coordinate the operations
of these pieces of equipment. In the
event that there is no controlling entity,
the employer or employers operating the
equipment would be required to
institute a coordination system.
C–DAC’s language for proposed
paragraph (b) refers to ‘‘employers
operating the equipment’’ but does not
address a situation in which only one
employer is operating the multiple
pieces of equipment. It appears to the
Agency that a coordination system is
also needed in that situation. OSHA is
considering revising the C–DAC
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
language to make clear that such an
employer would be required to institute
a coordination system. Proposed
§ 1926.1424(b) could be revised in this
regard as follows:
(b) Multiple equipment coordination.
Where any part of a crane/derrick is within
the working radius of another crane/derrick,
the controlling entity shall institute a system
to coordinate operations. If there is no
controlling entity, the employer (if there is
only one employer operating the multiple
pieces of equipment), or employers, shall
institute such a system.
OSHA requests public comment on
whether such a revision should be
made.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Section 1425 Keeping Clear of the
Load
Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart
N at § 1926.550(a)(19) states: ‘‘All
employees shall be kept clear of loads
about to be lifted and of suspended
loads.’’ C–DAC believed that
compliance with this provision is
infeasible in certain circumstances. For
example, many urban construction sites
have a relatively small footprint with
numerous construction employees
throughout the site. These sites are
typically bounded on all sides by roads
and sidewalks with high concentrations
of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. In
such circumstances it is not always
possible to route a suspended load in
such a way that all employees will be
clear of the load at all times. In addition,
meeting that objective may sometimes
conflict with meeting local requirements
regarding public safety.
C–DAC also believed that employers
have a greater ability to avoid having
static suspended loads over employees
than moving loads, since a static
suspended load usually affects a much
smaller area. Furthermore, in a static
situation, it is possible to limit the
number of employees in the fall zone to
only those whose jobs involve the
handling of the load and therefore
require them to be in that area at that
time. Accordingly, this proposed section
is designed to account for these
considerations and protect employees to
the extent feasible.
Paragraph 1425(a)
Proposed paragraph (a) would require
the employer to use hoisting routes that
minimize employee exposure to hoisted
loads to the extent consistent with
public safety. This provision addresses
the fact that in many situations,
especially urban construction sites with
high concentrations of employees
throughout the site, it is not feasible to
prevent all employees from being
exposed to hoisted loads that are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
moving at all times (see discussion
above).
Also, C–DAC recognized that there
could be situations where minimizing
employee exposure to hoisted loads
would be in conflict with local
requirements regarding public safety, as
when an alternative route would take
the load over a street with public traffic.
The Committee wanted to make clear
that choosing a route that would
endanger the public was not required.
Paragraph 1425(b)
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses
those situations where the equipment
operator is not actually engaging the
controls to move the load. In such
situations, the load affects a more
limited area then when it is moved up
or horizontally. Consequently, C–DAC
determined that, in these static
situations, it is feasible to preclude most
employee exposure to the load’s fall
zone. The only exceptions are
employees engaged in the types of
activities specified in proposed
§ 1926.1425(b)(1) through (3).
‘‘Fall zone’’ is defined in § 1926.1401
as ‘‘the area (including but not limited
to the area directly beneath the load) in
which it is reasonably foreseeable that
partially or completely suspended
materials could fall in the event of an
accident.’’ The ‘‘fall zone’’ thus includes
both the area directly under the load as
well as other areas into which it is
‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ that
suspended materials could fall. For
example, if wind is causing the load to
swing, the employer would need to
consider the extent to which the load is
or may swing in determining the extent
of the fall zone. Another example is
where a bundle of materials is
suspended, and some loose materials at
the top of the bundle may slide off
sideways. In such a case those materials
would foreseeably fall outside the area
directly beneath the load. As discussed
above in relation to § 1926.1424, Work
area control, the concept of ‘‘reasonably
foreseeable’’ risk is well established in
OSHA law.
Proposed paragraph 1425(b)(1) would
permit employees engaged in hooking,
unhooking or guiding a load to be
within the fall zone while engaged in
these activities. Hooking or unhooking a
load sometimes requires an employee to
be within the fall zone of a load. For
example, where a lifting accessory is
used, the employee will typically be
under the fall zone of the lifting
accessory when attaching or unhooking
the load. Also, guiding a load, even with
a tag line, sometimes necessitates that
the employee be positioned within the
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59805
fall zone, especially when the work area
below is restricted in size.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would
permit employees engaged in the initial
attachment of the load to a component
or structure to be within the fall zone.
One example is the following scenario:
A subassembly of steel members is
hoisted for attachment to a structure.
When initially attaching the lower
portion of that subassembly, an
employee is within the fall zone of the
load. In this example, the employee
engaged in the initial attachment of the
subassembly to the structure would be
permitted to be within the fall zone; that
work cannot be done otherwise.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would
allow workers to be present in the fall
zone when operating a concrete hopper
or concrete bucket. The employee
operating the hopper or bucket is
necessarily in the fall zone since the
hopper or bucket is suspended while
the employee operates the releasing
mechanism.
Paragraph 1425(c)
Proposed paragraph (c) deals with the
situations addressed in paragraphs
1425(b)(1) and (b)(2). The Committee
felt that additional requirements were
necessary to ensure employee safety in
these situations, given the additional
risks posed while loads are being
connected to equipment or structures.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would
require that the load be rigged to
prevent unintentional displacement, so
that workers in the fall zone are less
likely to be struck by shifting materials.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would
require the use of hooks with selfclosing latches or their equivalent be
used, to prevent accidental failure of the
hooks. However, ‘‘J’’ type hooks would
be permitted for setting wooden trusses.
This exception is designed to enable the
truss to be unhooked without the need
for an employee to go out on the truss.
This avoids the additional exposure to
fall hazards that would otherwise occur
from going out on the truss to release a
latched hook.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would
require the use of a qualified rigger in
the rigging of materials in the situations
addressed by proposed § 1926.1425(c).
By ensuring that the load is rigged in as
safe a manner as possible, this
requirement serves to reduce the risk of
injury to workers who cannot perform
their duties outside of the fall zone, and
reduces the potential size of the fall
zone.
Section 1401 of this proposed
standard defines a ‘‘qualified rigger’’ as
a rigger who meets the criteria for a
qualified person. The same definition is
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59806
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
found in subpart R of 29 CFR Part 1926,
Steel Erection at § 1926.753(c)(2).
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1425(d) Receiving a Load
Proposed paragraph (d) would
prohibit all employees except those
needed to receive a load from being in
the fall zone when it is being landed. An
employee receiving a load will typically
need to be within the fall zone when it
is being landed because that is the time
when the load needs to be guided to a
specific landing point.
Paragraph 1425(e)
Proposed paragraph (e) concerns tiltup and tilt-down operations. In these
operations, one end of a component,
such as a precast panel, is either raised,
tilting the component up, usually from
a horizontal position (often on the
ground) to a vertical position; or
lowered, tilting the component down,
usually from a vertical position to a
horizontal position on the ground or
other surface.60 Note that the
requirements in this proposed
paragraph would not apply when
receiving a load.
As with any other suspended load, it
is dangerous to be directly beneath the
load because of the possibility of a
failure or error that would cause the
load to fall or be accidentally lowered
onto an employee. To minimize the risk
of such accidents, proposed
§ 1926.1425(e)(1) provides that no
employee shall be directly under the
load during a tilt-up or tilt-down
operation. Section 1926.1401 defines
‘‘directly under the load’’ to mean ‘‘a
part or all of an employee is directly
beneath the load.’’ This provision will
avoid having employees in the area that
presents the greatest danger in the event
of a loss of control of the load.
While C–DAC determined that tilt-up
and tilt-down operations can be
accomplished without anyone being
directly under the load, it also found
that the operation is at times infeasible
unless one or more employees
‘‘essential to the operation’’ needs to be
elsewhere within the fall zone.
Proposed § 1926.1425(e)(2) therefore
provides that employees ‘‘essential to
the operation’’ may be in the fall zone
(but not directly under the load) during
a tilt up or tilt down operation.
The C–DAC document does not
contain a definition of ‘‘essential to the
operation.’’ Consequently, the proposed
provision does not specify what job
functions would be permitted to be
performed from within the fall zone.
OSHA believes that examples of an
employee ‘‘essential to the operation’’ is
an employee who must be within the
fall zone because it is infeasible to
conduct the following operations from
outside the fall zone: (1) Physically
guide the load; (2) closely monitor and
give instructions regarding the load’s
movement; and/or (3) either detach it
from or initially attach it to another
component or structure. OSHA requests
public comment on whether there are
other activities that are essential to this
operation and are infeasible to be done
from outside the fall zone, and whether
it would be appropriate to add a
definition of ‘‘essential to the operation’’
to the standard.
A note to paragraph (e) refers to
§ 1926.1426, which addresses free fall of
the boom and the load. As discussed
below, it specifies that employees may
not be anywhere in the fall zone of a
boom that is designed to free fall, and
that employees are never to be directly
under the load during free fall of the
load line hoist.
Section 1426 Free Fall and Controlled
Load Lowering
This proposed section addresses the
hazards that can arise from free fall of
the boom (live boom) during lifts. Live
booms are those in which the rate of
lowering can be controlled only by a
brake; a failure of the brake will result
in a free fall (i.e., unrestricted lowering)
of the boom. In contrast, in equipment
that has a boom that is not ‘‘live,’’ there
is a mechanism or device other than the
brake which slows the boom’s lowering
speed.
The uncontrolled lowering of a boom
could result in an accident which could
injure or kill workers in proximity of the
load or hoisting equipment. This
proposed section would prohibit use of
live booms in most circumstances. An
exception is provided for older
equipment manufactured before the
ANSI B30.5 series prohibited free fall of
the boom for all hoisting operations, but
only under limited conditions that do
not create hazards to employees. A
limited exception is also provided for
floating cranes/derricks. This proposed
section includes many of the modern
protective methods and mechanisms
included in ASME B30.5–2004.
This section also, in § 1926.1426(d),
would specify the circumstances under
which free fall of the load line would be
prohibited.
Paragraph 1426(a)
Prohibitions
Under proposed paragraph (a)(1), the
use of equipment in which the boom is
designed to free fall would be
prohibited under six specified
conditions. C–DAC concluded that, in
these six circumstances, free fall of the
boom needs to be prohibited regardless
of what type of equipment is used and
when that equipment was
manufactured.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) would
prohibit the use of a live boom when an
employee is in the fall zone of the boom
or load (see the explanation of ‘‘fall
zone’’ in the discussion above of
proposed § 1926.1425(b). Section
1926.1425, Keeping clear of the load, of
this proposed standard recognizes that
there are some situations in which
certain employees need to be positioned
in the fall zone in order to perform their
assigned duties. However, the
likelihood that an employee would
sustain a serious injury or be killed in
the event of a falling boom is very high
when an employee is in the fall zone of
the boom or load.
Because the likelihood of a falling
boom is higher when a live boom is in
use, C–DAC believed it was necessary to
prohibit employees from being in the
fall zone whenever a live boom is being
used, without exception. Therefore, the
exceptions listed in proposed
§ 1926.1425 that would permit
employees to be in the fall zone in
certain circumstances apply only where
a non-live boom is being used.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would
prohibit use of a live boom when an
employee is being hoisted. This
continues the current prohibition in
§ 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(F) of subpart N of this
part, which is designed to prevent
hoisted employees from being seriously
injured or killed if the boom were to
fall.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would
prohibit the use of a live boom where
the load or boom is directly over a
power line, or over any part of the area
extending the Table A ( of proposed
§ 1926.1408) clearance distance to each
side of the power line. The diagram
below illustrates a situation in which a
load on a live boom is over the area
extending the Table A clearance
distance to each side of the power line:
60 Proposed § 1926.1401 defines ‘‘tilt up or tilt
down operation’’ as ‘‘raising/lowering a load from
the horizontal to vertical or vertical to horizontal.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Boom Free Fall
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
to fall into electrical contact with a
power line.
The C–DAC draft of this provision
stated: ‘‘The load or boom is directly
over a power line, or over the area
extending the Table A clearance
distance to each side of the power line.’’
Since C–DAC’s intent was to prohibit
the boom or load from being over any
part of the area extending the Table A
clearance distance to each side of the
line, OSHA has changed this language
to make clear that the prohibition
applies with respect to the boom or load
being above ‘‘any part of’’ that area.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
In reviewing this provision, OSHA
realized that there appears to be another
circumstance when a fall of the boom
could cause the load or boom to breach
the Table A clearance distance. This
would occur as follows: Neither the
boom nor load is over the power line or
over the Table A clearance area.
However, the Table A clearance
distance is within the radius of vertical
travel of the boom or load. This
circumstance is depicted in the
following illustrations:
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
EP09OC08.000 EP09OC08.001
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
As discussed above in relation to
proposed §§ 1926.1407 through
1926.1411, equipment making electrical
contact with power lines is one of the
primary causes of equipment-related
deaths on construction sites and, to
prevent such contact, those sections
would require equipment to maintain
minimum distances from power lines.
C–DAC recognized that a live boom
that is over a power line, or that is
suspending a load that is over any part
of the area extending the Table A
clearance distance to each side of the
power line, could fall or cause the load
59807
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
In Illustration A, neither the boom nor
the load is above the power line or any
part of the Table A zone. However, if the
boom were to fall, the boom would cross
into the Table A zone. In Illustration B,
neither the boom nor load is above the
power line or any part of the Table A
zone. However, if the boom were to fall,
the load would cross into the Table A
zone.
The Agency therefore requests public
comment on whether proposed
§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(iii) should be
modified to also prohibit the equipment
from being positioned such that the fall
path of the boom or load would breach
the Table A clearance distance.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would
prohibit use of a live boom where the
load is over a shaft. As discussed in
relation to § 1926.1426(a)(1)(i) of this
proposed section, C–DAC recognized
that there are situations where
employees must be in the fall zone of a
suspended load. One particular scenario
is when employees must receive a load
that is lowered into a shaft. Such
employees would be at a particularly
high risk of being killed or injured by
a free falling boom because the shaft
severely limits or eliminates any ability
to get out of the way.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(v) would
prohibit free fall of a boom when the
load is over a cofferdam, except where
there are no employees 61 in the fall
zone. Much like employees who must
receive a suspended load in a shaft,
employees have limited ability to escape
61 The C–DAC draft of this provision used the
term ‘‘workers;’’ this has been changed to
‘‘employees,’’ which is the more appropriate term
in light of the language in the Occupational Safety
and Health Act.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
a free falling boom or load in a
cofferdam. However, because
cofferdams are typically much larger
work spaces than shafts, the fall zone of
a falling boom or load may only affect
one part of the cofferdam. Therefore,
this provision contains an exception for
situations where there are no employees
in the fall zone.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) would
prohibit use of a live boom for lifting
operations in a refinery or tank farm.
C–DAC was concerned that a free falling
boom could strike pipes or a tank in a
refinery or tank farm. Such accidental
impact could cause a release of toxic
materials or conflagration.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) is an
exclusive list of conditions under which
the use of cranes with live booms would
be permitted. C–DAC believed that
cranes with live booms could be used
safely under some circumstances and
did not believe that the cost of replacing
or retrofitting all existing such
equipment was justified as long as the
use of live boom equipment was limited
to those circumstances.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) would
allow the use of equipment with a live
boom if that equipment was
manufactured prior to October 31, 1984
and none of the circumstances listed in
proposed § 1926.1426(a)(1) are present.
C–DAC noted that ANSI B30.5 first
prohibited live booms in its 1972
version and reiterated the prohibition in
the 1982 edition, which was published
on October 31, 1983 and became
effective on October 31, 1984.
C–DAC concluded that manufacturers
would have begun to phase out liveboom equipment when ANSI first
prohibited its use in 1972 and that little,
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
if any, live boom equipment would have
been manufactured after October 31,
1984. Moreover, during this period,
hydraulic hoisting equipment, the
design of which typically precluded
boom free fall even in its early designs,
became more prevalent.
In light of these factors, C–DAC
concluded that most equipment
manufactured after October 31, 1984
would not have live booms. Proposed
§ 1926.1426(a)(2) thus allows the older
live boom equipment to be phased out
safely by restricting its use to situations
in which none of the circumstances
listed in § 1926.1426(a)(1) are present.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would
allow use of a live boom if the
equipment is a floating crane/derrick or
is a land crane/derrick on a vessel/
flotation device and none of the
circumstances listed in proposed
§ 1926.1426(a)(1) are present.62 C–DAC
noted that equipment used on the water
commonly has a live boom. This is
because the dynamics of load transfer
while on water (from side to side), as
well as unexpected wave action, which
can cause rapid changes in list and trim,
sometimes necessitates that the operator
have a free fall boom system to
compensate for these effects. Non-live
systems are not fast enough for this
purpose. As a result, C–DAC concluded
that there is no need to alter current
industry practice in this regard as long
as none of the circumstances listed in
§ 1926.1426(a)(1) are present.
62 OSHA has modified the language used in the
C–DAC version of this provision to conform to the
terminology used in proposed § 1926.1437, Floating
cranes and land cranes on barges.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
EP09OC08.002
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59808
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Paragraph (b) Preventing Boom Free
Fall
Proposed paragraph (b) sets criteria
for preventing boom free fall. A boom
that meets this criteria is considered to
be designed to not free fall. The criteria
consist of requirements for a secondary
system for controlling the boom’s
descent in addition to the equipment’s
primary system. The Committee
believed that the hazard posed by a
failure of the primary system for holding
or regulating the boom is so significant
that the availability of a secondary
mechanism needs to be required.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i) specifies
that a friction drum must have both a
friction clutch and a braking device, to
allow for controlled boom lowering.
These provisions are similar to those in
section 5–1.3.2(a)(1) and (a)(4) of ANSI
B30.5–1968 and ASME B30.5–2004.
Proposed § 1926.1426(b)(1)(ii) would
require friction drums to also have a
secondary braking or locking device,
which is manually or automatically
engaged, to back-up the primary brake
while the boom is held (such as a
secondary friction brake or a ratchet and
pawl device). In the view of the
Committee these have been well
established as effective for this purpose.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would
require hydraulic drums to have an
integrally mounted holding device or
internal static brake to prevent boom
hoist movement in the event of
hydraulic failure. The requirements of
this proposed paragraph are similar to
those in section 5–1.3.1(d) of ASME
B30.5–2004. The hazard presented by
this type of hoisting system is that once
the hydraulic system fails, the boom
hoist drum could free spin and allow
the boom to free fall.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) states that
clutches or hydraulic motors do not
qualify as brakes or locking devices for
purposes of this subpart. C–DAC
believed the use of clutches or hydraulic
motors for such purposes would
accelerate the wear of these systems and
increase the risk they will fail when
they are needed to control the lowering
of the boom.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would
require hydraulic boom cylinders to
have an integrally mounted holding
device. An integrally mounted holding
device would secure the boom from
pivoting down in the event that
hydraulic pressure is lost. This
requirement is similar to section
5–1.3.1(d) of ASME B30.5–2004.
Paragraph 1426(c) Preventing
Uncontrolled Retraction
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
hydraulic telescoping booms (which are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
also referred to as hydraulic extensible
booms) to have an integrally mounted
holding device to prevent the boom
from retracting in the event of hydraulic
failure. This proposed provision is
similar to section 5–1.3.3(c) of ASME
B30.5–2004.
The C–DAC draft of this provision
stated that the purpose of this device
was ‘‘to prevent boom movement in the
event of hydraulic failure.’’ OSHA
believes that this language was
unintentionally broad in that it refers to
any ‘‘boom movement.’’ The purpose of
proposed § 1926.1426(b)(4) is, as
discussed above, to prevent the boom
from pivoting down in the event of
hydraulic failure. Therefore, there is no
need for proposed § 1926.1426(c) to also
require a device to prevent that type of
boom movement.
The Agency’s understanding is that
the purpose of proposed § 1926.1426(c)
is, as reflected in C–DAC’s heading
(‘‘Preventing uncontrolled retraction’’),
to prevent a telescoping hydraulic boom
from retracting in the event of hydraulic
failure. Therefore, OSHA has modified
the language to state that the purpose of
the integrally mounted holding device is
‘‘to prevent the boom from retracting’’ in
the event of hydraulic failure. OSHA
requests public comment on the
appropriateness of this change.
Paragraph1426(d) Load Line Free Fall
Proposed paragraph (d) lists
circumstances under which free fall of
the load line hoist is prohibited and
controlled load lowering is required.
‘‘Free fall (of the load line)’’ is defined
in § 1926.1401 to mean ‘‘where only the
brake is used to regulate the descent of
the load line (the drive mechanism is
not used to drive the load down faster
or retard its lowering).’’ ‘‘Free fall’’ is
contrasted with ‘‘controlled load
lowering,’’ which § 1926.1401 defines as
‘‘lowering a load by means of a
mechanical hoist drum device that
allows a hoisted load to be lowered with
maximum control using the gear train or
hydraulic components of the hoist
mechanism. Controlled load lowering
requires the use of the hoist drive motor,
rather than the load hoist brake, to
lower the load.’’
As with free fall of the boom, free fall
of the load line hoist presents a struckby hazard to employees. One difference
with boom free fall, however, is that free
fall of the load line endangers a smaller
area. When a boom free falls, its tip (and
any attached load) moves both
downward and outward. Because the
load will moving in at least two
directions simultaneously, the area that
will be affected by the fall is
comparatively large.
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59809
In contrast, if a load line free falls, the
load will tend to fall in a relatively
straight path downward (as long as the
boom is not being moved and the load
is not significantly affected by winds).
Thus the area affected will typically be
smaller. C–DAC therefore concluded
that it would be appropriate to have a
more limited prohibition compared with
use of a live boom. This is reflected in
the prohibition in proposed
§ 1926.1426(d)(1) against an employee
being directly under the load. That
provision is more limited than proposed
§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(i), which would
prohibit an employee from being in the
fall zone of the boom or load.
Similarly, unlike the live boom
provisions, proposed § 1926.1426(d)
does not include a prohibition against
use of load line hoist free fall in a
refinery or tank farm. Because of the
more limited affected area, the operator
can more readily set up the equipment
so that, in the event of a load line free
fall, the affected area will not include
safety critical refinery or tank
equipment.
However, paragraphs (d)(2), (3), and
(4) are similar to the boom free fall
prohibitions in that they prohibit free
fall of the load line when (1) an
employee is being hoisted; (2) the load
is directly over a power line or over any
part of the area extending the Table A
(of proposed § 1926.1408) clearance
distance to each side of the power line;
and (3) the load is over a shaft or
cofferdam.
The C–DAC draft of proposed
paragraph (d)(3) stated: ‘‘The load is
directly over a power line, or over the
area extending the Table A clearance
distance to each side of the power line.’’
As discussed above, C–DAC’s intent was
to prohibit the load from being over any
part of the area extending the Table A
clearance distance to each side of the
line, and OSHA has therefore changed
this language to make clear that the
prohibition applies with respect to the
load being above ‘‘any part of’’ that area.
In reviewing proposed paragraph
(d)(4), OSHA noted that it would
prohibit load line free fall over a shaft
or cofferdam, but contains no exception
regarding cofferdams in which there is
no employee in the fall zone. In this
respect this provision is broader than
the live boom provision in proposed
§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(v), which does contain
such an exception. OSHA requests
public comment on whether proposed
§ 1926.1426(d)(4) should be modified to
include such an exception.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59810
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Section 1427 Operator Qualification
and Certification
Proposed § 1926.1427 addresses the
safety concerns created by underqualified crane operators. In the
Committee’s experience, human error
resulting from insufficient operator
knowledge and capability is a
significant cause of fatal crane/derrick
accidents. It concluded that a verified
testing process is essential for ensuring
sufficient knowledge and capability of
crane/derrick operators and would be an
effective and efficient way to reduce
these accidents.
The Committee’s view was based on
the extensive collective experience of
the Committee members. Members
expressed the belief that crane/derrick
safety depends heavily on the operator
having the knowledge and ability to
implement safe operation practices. For
example, an operator who does not
know how to properly use load charts
could miscalculate the capacity of the
crane and inadvertently overload the
equipment. An operator who lacks the
knowledge and skill to control and
manipulate a load could lose control of
it, causing other employees to be struck
by the load or the equipment.
In addition, knowledge and skill are
needed to prevent electrical contact
with power lines (see the discussion
above regarding proposed §§ 1926.1407–
1926.1411). For example, an operator
who does not understand an
operational/performance characteristic
such as dynamic loading may
inadvertently allow the boom to get too
close to a power line. This could occur
where the operator failed to account for
the fact that, under certain conditions,
the boom would flex and so continue to
move towards the line after the operator
had stopped the superstructure’s
rotation.
Similarly, understanding and being
able to minimize such effects is
important in situations such as blind
picks, where the operator will be relying
on information relayed to him/her by a
signal person.
The Committee considered whether it
would be sufficient to set testing criteria
without a third-party (that is,
independent) verification mechanism,
and determined that such an approach
was not likely to be effective in ensuring
sufficient operator qualifications.
During the Committee’s deliberations,
members expressed a concern that
testing conducted without a check on
the quality of the test, with respect to
both its content and administration, has
been ineffective in ensuring that crane
operators are qualified to operate the
equipment safely. Members noted that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
operator ‘‘certification’’ cards are easily
obtained from various Internet sites
without having to pass a credible test.
They also noted that the current OSHA
standards, which require employers to
instruct employees on the hazards
involved with crane operation, and
require the employer to permit only
those employees qualified by training or
experience to operate equipment,63 but
do not require testing verified by a third
party, have been generally ineffective in
ensuring an adequate degree of
consistency with respect to crane
operator knowledge and ability. The
Committee concluded that significant
advances in crane/derrick safety would
not be achieved unless such testing was
required.
The Committee was aware that testing
of equipment operators by an impartial
party has been used in the past to
prevent fatal and other serious accidents
that result when operators lack the
knowledge and skills needed to operate
safely. An example is the Department of
Transportation’s requirements for overthe-road commercial drivers’ licenses
(‘‘CDL’’). These are designed to reduce
the incidence of serious accidents
caused by unqualified drivers of
vehicles such as trucks and buses. These
requirements, codified at 40 CFR part
383, require drivers of commercial
motor vehicles to have state licenses
that are issued in accordance with
federal standards for qualification,
training, and testing. To receive a
license, the driver must pass knowledge
and skills tests administered either by
the state or by a third party whose
examiners meet the same qualification
and training standards as state
examiners. 40 CFR 383.75(a).
The Committee’s view of the
importance of independent testing is
further buttressed by a study conducted
over a 34-year period (1969–2002), by
the Construction Safety Association of
Ontario. (OSHA–2007–0066–0009). The
study showed a substantial decrease in
crane and rigging fatalities in Ontario
beginning in 1979, when mandatory
training and certification requirements
for Ontario crane operators went into
effect.
The Ontario system requires
prospective or current crane operators
(referred to in Ontario as ‘‘hoisting
engineers’’) to either successfully
complete an apprenticeship program or
demonstrate sufficient previous
63 Section 1926.20(b)(4) states that ‘‘the employer
shall permit only those employees qualified by
training or experience to operate equipment and
machinery’’; § 1926.21(b)(2) states that ‘‘the
employer shall instruct each employee in the
recognition and avoidance of unsafe
conditions.* * *’’
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
experience before seeking certification
as a hoisting engineer. The
apprenticeship program includes inschool training in a number of topics
determined by the Ministry of
Education, a practical examination
administered at Ministry-designated
sites, and a written examination
administered by the Ministry. Upon
passing this examination and proving
completion of the requisite work hours,
an apprentice receives a certificate of
qualification as one of three types of
hoisting engineer from the Ministry.
(OSHA–2007–0066–0010).
Hoisting engineers already qualified
elsewhere must also obtain a
certification from the Ministry to
operate cranes in the province. These
candidates must sit for the written
examination and complete the practical
skills assessment required for
qualification of apprentices, but may
demonstrate sufficient previous
experience instead of completing the
number of work/training hours required
by the apprenticeship program, to
receive a certificate of qualification from
the Ministry in one of the three hoisting
engineer categories. (OSHA–2007–
0066–0011).
In the ten year period from 1969
through 1978, before Ontario’s
requirements went into effect, 85
Ontario construction workers suffered
crane and rigging fatalities, amounting
to 8.5 per year, or 19.8% of all
construction fatalities in Ontario. In the
24 year period from 1979 through 2002,
there were 51 crane and rigging
fatalities, or slightly more than two per
year. For this period, crane and rigging
fatalities equaled 9.6% of all Ontario
construction fatalities. In the 12-year
period from 1991 through 2002, the total
number of crane and rigging fatalities
was 9, or fewer than one per year.
During this period, crane and rigging
fatalities amounted to 4.1% of total
construction fatalities. (OSHA–2007–
0066–0009).
Proposed § 1926.1427 would afford
employers several options for ensuring
that operators have obtained sufficient
knowledge and ability. These options
are designed to provide employers
flexibility for meeting the proposed
requirement and to accommodate the
needs of the U.S. military.
Paragraph 1427(a)
As drafted by C–DAC, proposed
paragraph (a) would have required the
employer to ensure that the operator of
any equipment covered under
§ 1926.1400 is either qualified or
certified to operate the equipment in
accordance with the provisions of this
section or is operating the equipment
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
during a training period. OSHA notes,
however, that C–DAC provided for
exceptions to the general rule for
operator qualification/certification in
proposed §§ 1436, Derricks; 1926.1440,
Sideboom cranes; and 1926.1441,
Equipment with a rated hoisting/lifting
capacity of 2,000 pounds or less. To
make proposed § 1926.1427(a) reflect
the exceptions provided in these
sections, OSHA has added the following
language to proposed § 1926.1427(a):
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Exceptions: Operator qualification or
certification under this section is not
required for operators of derricks (see
§ 1926.1436), sideboom cranes (see
§ 1926.1440), and equipment with a rated
hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or
less (see § 1926.1441).
Paragraph 1427(b) Option 1:
Certification by an Accredited Crane/
Derrick Operator Testing Organization
Proposed paragraph (b) sets out
Option 1, in which the employee
becomes certified to operate equipment
of a certain type and capacity by passing
an examination administered by an
accredited testing organization.
Certification under this option would be
‘‘portable,’’ which means that any
employer covered by the proposed
standard could meet the requirements of
proposed § 1926.1427 by using an
operator who had this certification.
These certifications would be valid for
five years.
Proposed section § 1926.1427(b)
incorporates a number of safeguards to
ensure that the Option 1 certification
could be relied upon by any employer
to meet the requirements of § 1926.1427,
and adequately establishes the
employee’s ability to operate the types
and capacities of crane for which he/she
is certified. The first of these safeguards
is proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1)(i), which
would require that the testing
organization be accredited by a
nationally recognized accrediting
agency.
As defined in § 1926.1401, a
‘‘nationally recognized accrediting
agency’’ is ‘‘an organization that, due to
its independence and expertise, is
widely recognized as competent to
accredit testing organizations.’’ The
Agency notes that, under this definition,
new accrediting organizations would
meet this definition upon establishing a
national reputation based on
independence, use of widely recognized
criteria, and demonstrated competence
in applying those criteria.
For a testing organization to be
accredited, the accrediting agency
would have to determine that the testing
organization meets industry recognized
criteria for written testing materials,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
practical examinations, test
administration, grading, facilities/
equipment and personnel.
In its deliberations, the Committee
expressed concern about the need for
independent evaluation of certification
programs. It believed such evaluation is
necessary to ensure that the certification
programs are adequately and
consistently applying the requisite
criteria for safe crane operation when
testing operators. This accreditation
would ensure that the testing
procedures would accurately measure
whether the operator has met the
knowledge and skill criteria specified in
proposed § 1926.1427(j) (discussed
below).
Under proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1)(v),
the accreditation would be required to
be reviewed every three years, to ensure
continuing quality of testing materials
and administration. The Committee
believed that an entity that meets the
proposed definition for a nationally
recognized accrediting agency (‘‘an
organization that, due to its
independence and expertise, is widely
recognized as competent to accredit
testing organizations’’), would have both
the expertise and independence needed
to provide reliable assurance that a
testing organization meets the proposed
standard’s criteria.
The use of a nationally recognized
accrediting agency to provide an
independent, authoritative assurance of
a testing organization’s competence is a
well-established practice. For example,
for a number of years, the National
Commission for Certifying Agencies
(NCCA), the accreditation body of the
National Organization for Competency
Assurance (NOCA), has accredited
testing organizations in a wide variety of
fields, including those that provide
crane operator certification. (OSHA–
2007–0066–0021). Also, in 2003, the
American National Standards Institute
began accrediting personnel
certification entities. (OSHA–2007–
0066–0022).
Another safeguard is in proposed
§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(A), under which a
testing organization would be required
to administer both written and practical
tests addressing the criteria set forth in
proposed § 1926.1427(j). The Committee
believed that operator ability cannot be
assessed reliably unless both written
and practical tests are used. In its view,
operator ability depends both on
knowledge of a variety of subjects,
which the written test would address,
and the ability to apply that knowledge,
which would be addressed by the
practical test.
Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(ii)(B)
would require that different levels of
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59811
certification be provided, based on
varying equipment capacities and types.
This proposed requirement is designed
to ensure that the extent of knowledge
and skill required is commensurate with
the type and capacity of equipment the
employee operates. For example, an
employee who only operates a hydraulic
truck crane would not need to also have
the additional knowledge and skills
necessary to operate a lattice boom
crawler crane. Similarly, an employee
who operates only a 22 ton capacity
hydraulic truck crane would not need to
also have the additional knowledge and
skills necessary to operate a 300 ton
hydraulic truck crane.64
In its deliberations, the Committee
determined that requiring the
certification to be model-specific would
be unnecessarily restrictive, and instead
agreed on the term ‘‘type.’’ In the
SBREFA Panel Report, the Panel
recommended that OSHA solicit public
comment on whether the term ‘‘type’’ is
sufficiently clear for this purpose.
OSHA requests public comment on
whether this term is appropriate,
whether it needs to be defined (and if
so, what that definition should be),65
and suggestions as to what other terms
may be better.
During the SBREFA process, several
SERs described situations in which an
operator is very knowledgeable and
skillful with respect to one particular
model of crane, but has very limited
knowledge and ability regarding other
models and types of cranes. These SERs
were concerned that such operators
would be unable to obtain a certification
based on equipment capacity and type.
They believe that, since these operators
are well qualified to operate a particular
crane model, there should be a
mechanism for them to become certified
to operate that model. The Panel
recommended that OSHA consider and
solicit public comment on expanding
the levels of certification so as to allow
an operator to be certified on a specific
brand’s model of crane. Consistent with
the Panel’s recommendation, OSHA
seeks public comment on this issue.
The SBREFA Panel also received
comments from some SERs suggesting
that the standard should accommodate
crane operators who were fully capable
64 Note that certification on a more complex and/
or higher capacity piece of equipment would
typically qualify an operator to operate less
complex/lower capacity equipment of the same
type. For example, an operator certified for a 300
ton hydraulic truck crane would not need a separate
certification to operate a 22 ton hydraulic truck
crane.
65 One possible approach, referred to by the
SBREFA Panel, would define ‘‘type’’ by using the
categories of equipment represented in Figures 1–
10 of the ASME B30.5–2004 standard.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59812
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
of operating particular equipment in a
limited set of circumstances but who
would be unable to pass certification
tests that required knowledge and
abilities beyond those circumstances.
The Panel recommended that OSHA
consider and solicit public comment on
expanding the levels of operator
qualification/certification to allow such
operators to be certified for a specific,
limited type of circumstance defined by
a set of parameters that, taken together,
would describe an operation
characterized by simplicity and
relatively low risk. In response to the
Panel’s recommendation, OSHA
requests public comment on whether
such parameters could be identified in
a way that would result in a clear, easily
understood provision that could be
effectively enforced.
Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(iii)
would require that the testing
organization have procedures for
operators to re-apply and be re-tested in
the event an applicant fails a test. This
would help ensure that if the employee
initially failed to pass the test, the
employee would be able to retake the
test and still have the opportunity to
obtain the certification.
Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(iii)
would also require that the testing
organization have procedures for
operators to re-apply and be re-tested in
the event an operator was decertified.
This would similarly help protect an
employer’s expenditures for training
and certification testing.
Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(iv)
would require that the testing
organization have procedures for recertifying operators designed to ensure
that the operator continues to meet the
requirements of proposed
§ 1926.1427(j). The Committee believed
that testing for recertification would not
need to be as rigorous as for initial
certification. This proposed provision
was therefore included so that
recertification procedures appropriate
for those who have already been
certified would be available.
Under proposed paragraph (b)(2), the
certification would be ‘‘portable,’’
which means that any employer of an
operator certified under Option 1 would
meet the requirements of proposed
§ 1926.1427 with respect to that
operator.66 The Committee believed that
accredited testing organizations could
be relied upon to consistently adhere to
the criteria in § 1926.1427, since they
would be fully independent and their
business interest would depend on their
66 See the explanation of the proposed definition
of ‘‘portable’’ below in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1427(m).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
continued accreditation. Therefore, it
would be appropriate for all employers
to be able to rely on their certifications.
Under proposed § 1926.1427(b)(3), the
certification would be valid for five
years. The Committee believed that this
is an appropriate length of time to
assume that, absent a specific indication
to the contrary, an employee would
retain the knowledge and proficiency
demonstrated through the testing
process.
In the SBREFA Panel Report, the
Panel indicated that some Small Entity
Representatives were concerned that
there would be an insufficient number
of accredited crane operator testing
organizations and that many employers
would not be able to set up and
maintain an audited employer program
under Option 2 (see discussion of
Option 2 below). At present, there are
two testing organizations that have been
accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting organization to certify crane
operators.67
C–DAC considered this issue and was
of the view that, with a four-year phasein period, there would be sufficient time
for the market to respond to an
increased demand for certification
services. Some SERs expressed a similar
expectation. Nonetheless, the Panel
recommended that OSHA solicit public
comment on whether it would be
appropriate to expand Option 1 so that
an accredited educational institution
could be used to ‘‘administer’’ tests. In
other words, under this concept, Option
1 would be expanded so that an
accredited educational institution could
administer written and practical tests
that were developed or approved by an
accredited crane/derrick testing
organization. Many educational
institutions currently have an
accreditation through a national or
regional accrediting agency that is listed
by the U.S. Secretary of Education (SOE)
or have an accreditation by a State
agency that has been recognized by the
SOE for approval of public postsecondary vocational education. Such
an expansion could broaden the
availability of certification services.
C–DAC considered a related concept
in which an educational institution or
program accredited in this manner
could both develop and administer
tests. However, it rejected that concept
because the SOE-related type of
67 These organizations are the National
Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators
(NCCCO), which is accredited by the National
Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA)
(OSHA–2007–0066–0021) and by ANSI (OSHA–
2007–0066–0025), and the Southern California
Crane & Hoisting Certification Program (SCCHCP),
which is accredited by NCCA.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
accreditation would be more broadly
based on the institution as a whole,
rather than on its operator certification
program in particular.
It is the Agency’s understanding that
much of the Committee’s concern in this
regard was related to the development
of the tests rather than their
administration. In other words, while
considerable subject-specific expertise
is needed to develop accurate and
reliable crane operator tests, the
expertise needed to administer such
tests may be similar to the expertise
needed to administer tests in general.
However, there is a question as to
whether this is equally true for written
and practical tests.
Therefore, OSHA solicits public
comment on these issues. Specifically,
the Agency seeks comment on whether
Option 1 should be expanded so that an
accredited educational institution could
administer written and practical tests
that were developed or approved by an
accredited crane/derrick testing
organization.
Paragraph 1427(c) Option 2:
Qualification by an Audited Employer
Program
Proposed paragraph (c) sets out
Option 2, in which the employer would
determine, through its own audited
testing program, that its employee is
qualified to operate the equipment. The
Committee recognized that some
employers, including those that have
already established in-house testing
programs, may want to do their own
testing to meet the proposed
§ 1926.1427 requirements. The
Committee also recognized that, for
there to be a significant improvement in
the industry with respect to operator
qualifications, it is essential that there
be a mechanism to ensure that such
testing is accurate and reliable.
Therefore, under Option 2, the tests
would be required to be either
developed by an accredited crane
operator testing organization, or
approved by an auditor who is certified
by an accredited crane operator testing
organization. In addition, the
administration of the tests would be
audited.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) sets forth
the requirements that would apply to
the contents and design of the tests
(requirements for the administration of
the tests is dealt with separately in
proposed § 1926.1427(c)(2), discussed
below) used in an audited employer
program. To ensure that the tests meet
the industry standards for written and
practical examinations, they would have
to be developed by an accredited testing
organization (as described in proposed
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
§ 1926.1427(b)), or approved by an
auditor in accordance with the
requirements of proposed
§ 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii).
An employer choosing to use tests
other than those developed by an
accredited testing organization under
proposed § 1926.1427(c)(1)(i) would be
required to have the tests approved by
an auditor in accordance with the
criteria in proposed
§ 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii). The auditor would
have to be certified as a test evaluator
by an accredited testing organization. To
ensure that the auditor’s evaluation is
independent and impartial, the auditor
would be prohibited from being
employed by the employer seeking
evaluation of its qualification program.
Also, the audit would need to determine
that the program meets nationally
recognized test development criteria
and adequately assesses the criteria in
proposed § 1926.1427(j).
The Committee believed that these
requirements are necessary to ensure
that the contents and design of the tests
meet the criteria in proposed
§ 1926.1427(j) and generate valid and
reliable results.
The requirements for test
administration that would apply under
Option 2 of this section are set forth in
proposed § 1926.1427(c)(2). Proposed
§ 1926.1427(c)(2)(i) would require that
the auditor find that the administration
procedures meet nationally recognized
test administration standards. The
Committee believed that this proposed
provision is needed to ensure that the
test results would be valid and reliable.
Under proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)
and (c)(2)(iii), the auditor would have to
be certified by an accredited certifying
organization as described in
§ 1926.1427(b), and would be prohibited
from being employed by the employer
seeking the auditor’s approval for its
operator qualification program. Finally,
proposed paragraph
§ 1926.1427(c)(2)(iv) would require that
the audit be conducted in accordance
with nationally recognized auditing
standards. The Committee believed that,
to avoid a conflict of interest and assure
the integrity of the audit, it is necessary
to have the auditor be independent of
the employer and apply well recognized
procedures for conducting the audit.
The Agency notes that the proposed
requirement that the audit be conducted
in accordance with nationally
recognized auditing standards would
apply only to the audit of the
administration of the tests, and not to
the audit of the contents of the written
and practical tests. It appears to the
Agency that this was a drafting error,
and that the Committee intended that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
the entire audit be conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized
auditing standards. Therefore, the
Agency solicits public comment on
whether a new § 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(D),
reading as follows, should be added:
(D) The audit shall be conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized
auditing standards.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) addresses
the need for an audit of an employer’s
operator qualification program shortly
after its inception, as well as
periodically thereafter. This would
ensure regular and independent
oversight of employer-run qualification
programs to verify that operators are
being tested according to nationally
recognized standards, on at least those
qualifications set forth in proposed
§ 1926.1427(j).
Proposed paragraph (c)(4) would
require an employer’s program to
include re-qualification procedures,
which would have to be audited as
described in proposed § 1926.1427(c)(1)
and (c)(2). The Committee believed that
this is necessary to ensure the operators’
continued proficiency with, at a
minimum, the criteria set forth in
proposed § 1926.1427(j).
In the event an auditor discovers a
deficiency in an employer’s operator
qualification program, the employer
would have to meet the requirements set
forth in proposed § 1926.1427(c)(5).
Proposed § 1926.1427(c)(5)(i) requires
that no additional operators be qualified
until the auditor determines that the
deficiency has been corrected. Under
§ 1926.1427(c)(5)(ii), the program would
also have to be re-audited within 180
days of the deficiency’s correction to
ensure that the minimum qualifications
in proposed § 1926.1427(j) were being
adequately and consistently tested.
Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(iii) would
require the auditor to file a report of any
such deficiency with the appropriate
OSHA Regional Office within 15 days of
discovery. In addition, records of the
employer’s qualification program audits
would be required to be maintained by
the auditor for three years and, under
§ 1926.1427(c)(5)(iv), would have to be
made available at the request of the
Secretary of Labor or a designated
representative. The Committee believed
that these provisions are necessary to
facilitate enforcement of the Option 2
requirements.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(6)(i), a
qualification by an employer’s operator
qualification program (Option 2) of this
section would not be portable. It was the
Committee’s view that the degree of
consistency in adhering to the proposed
requirements of § 1926.1427 is likely to
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59813
be highest among accredited crane
operator testing organizations, since
they would be fully independent and
their business interest would depend on
their continued accreditation. That view
is reflected in full portability being
restricted to certification under Option
1 of this section.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(6)(ii), a
qualification by an employer’s operator
qualification program would be valid for
five years. The Committee believed that
this is an appropriate length of time to
assume that, absent a specific indication
to the contrary, an employee would
retain the knowledge and proficiency
demonstrated through the testing
process.
Paragraph 1926.1427(d) Option 3:
Qualification by the U.S. Military
Proposed paragraph (d) provides that
an operator would be deemed qualified
if he/she had a current qualification
issued by the United States military.
Under proposed § 1926.1427(d)(2), such
a qualification would be considered
valid for the length of time stipulated by
the United States military, and would
not be portable.
At the C–DAC meetings a
representative of the United States Navy
explained that, because of a variety of
potential exigencies associated with the
mission of the United States military,
i.e., national defense, the military needs
to be able to use its own qualification
program, the criteria for which may
have to vary based on the
circumstances. Consequently, the
criteria for qualification under Option 3
would be left to the military to
determine, including the length of time
for which such a qualification would be
valid.
Proposed § 1926.1427(d) must be read
in light of Executive Order (E.O.) 12196
(Feb. 26, 1980) and 29 CFR Part 1960,
which exclude military personnel
(uniformed members of the Armed
Forces) and uniquely military
equipment, systems, and operations
from OSHA coverage. Consequently,
uniformed military personnel would not
be covered by any of this proposed
standard and there would be no
obligation under this standard or E.O.
12196 for uniformed military personnel
operating cranes to be certified. Civilian
employees of the Defense Department
and Armed Forces engaged in work
encompassed by ‘‘uniquely military
equipment, systems and operations’’
similarly would not be covered by any
of the provisions of this proposed
standard, including the certification
provisions. Therefore, even in the
absence of Option 3, the Department of
Defense is free to impose whatever
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59814
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
qualifications it requires for crane
operators who are military personnel or
civilian employees engaged in such
work.
Under E.O. 12196, OSHA standards
apply with respect to a civilian
employee of the Department of Defense
and Armed Forces who is engaged in
work that falls beyond ‘‘uniquely
military equipment, systems and
operations.’’ Under that executive order,
proposed § 1926.1427 would be
applicable to those employees.
Therefore, the U.S. military could use
Option 3 by qualifying its own civilian
employee operators engaged in work
that falls beyond ‘‘uniquely military
equipment, systems and operations.’’
In reviewing this part of the C–DAC
consensus document, the Agency has
determined that there is an ambiguity in
the text of Option 3 in that it does not
clearly indicate whether it would also
cover employees of private contractors
of the Armed Forces or Defense
Department. With respect to such
private contractor employees, E.O.
12196 is inapplicable and OSHA has the
authority to promulgate qualification/
certification requirements regarding
them.
The Agency believes that C–DAC’s
intent was to have Option 3 be
applicable only with respect to civilian
employees of the U.S. military; it was
not intended to include private
contractor employees. This intent is
reflected in C–DAC’s use of the term
‘‘Not portable’’ in Option 3 and that
term’s definition. Proposed
§ 1926.1427(d)(2)(i) specifies that an
operator’s U.S. military-issued
qualification is not portable. Under the
definition of that term in
§ 1926.1427(m)(2), such a qualification
is valid ‘‘only where the operator is
employed by (and operating the
equipment for) the employer that issued
the qualification.’’ Since private
contractor employees are not ‘‘employed
by’’ the U.S. military, this indicates that
Option 3 was not intended to apply to
them. Instead, Option 3 was intended to
apply only with respect to the U.S.
military’s own employees.
Accordingly, OSHA is planning on
changing the regulatory language in
proposed § 1926.1427(d) to more clearly
reflect this intent. Specifically, the
Agency is considering making the
following changes to proposed
§ 1926.1427(d)(1):
(1) For purposes of this section, an operator
who is an employee of the U.S. military is
considered qualified if he/she has a current
operator qualification issued by the U.S.
military for operation of the equipment.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
In addition, in proposed
§ 1926.1427(m)(Definitions), the
following definition would be added:
(3) An ‘‘employee of the U.S. military’’ is
a federal employee of the Department of
Defense or Armed Forces and does not
include employees of private contractors.
OSHA requests public comment on
this issue.
Paragraph 1427(e) Option 4: Licensing
by a Government Entity
This option would allow a
government licensing department/office
to qualify crane operators. The
Committee included this option because
it believed that some States have
effective, reliable licensing procedures,
and that making use of them for
purposes of proposed § 1926.1427
would provide additional flexibility to
employers. However, in the experience
of Committee members, there is
significant variability in criteria and
administrative practices among
government licensing entities.
Therefore, under this option, the license
could be used to meet the requirements
of proposed § 1926.1427 only if the
government entity meets the licensing
criteria in proposed 1926.1427(e)(2).
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i) would
require that the criteria used by the
licensing department/office address the
knowledge and skill requirements listed
in proposed § 1926.1427(j). Proposed
§ 1926.1427(e)(2)(ii) would require that
the government entity follow the same
test content, test administration and
related criteria as required under Option
1. Proposed § 1926.1427(e)(2)(iii) would
require that the office with authority
over the licensing department/office
assess the tests and procedures used by
the licensing office/department and
determine that the requirements of
proposed § 1926.1427(e)(2)(ii) and
(e)(2)(iii) have been met. Also, the
government licensing office would have
to have re-certification procedures in
place as discussed in proposed
§§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(iv) and
1926.1427(c)(4). The Committee
believed that these provisions are
necessary to ensure that the government
licensing criteria and procedures yield
valid and reliable results.
Under proposed paragraph (e)(3)(i),
this qualification would be valid only
within the geographic jurisdiction of the
licensing entity. For reasons of federallocal government comity, the Committee
decided not to include a provision
requiring the government entity to be
accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting agency for purposes of
Option 4. In the absence of such
accreditation, there is an increased
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
potential for variability in the degree to
which the criteria in proposed
§ 1926.1427(e)(2) will be met.
Consequently, the Committee believed
that, for purposes of meeting the
requirements in proposed § 1926.1427,
the validity of the qualification under
Option 4 should not extend beyond the
geographical jurisdiction of the
government entity.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii) provides
that the licensing entity may determine
the time period for which the
qualification is valid, but cannot issue a
qualification intended to be valid for
more than five years. The five year
maximum was included in the
provision because the Committee
believed that this is an appropriate
length of time to assume that, absent a
specific indication to the contrary, an
employee would retain the knowledge
and proficiency demonstrated through
the testing process.
Paragraph 1427(f) Pre-Qualification/
Certification Training Period
This proposed paragraph addresses
the requirements that would have to be
met for a trainee to operate a crane on
the job while preparing for
qualification/certification assessment.
Proposed § 1926.1427(f)(1) would allow
for the operation of cranes by employees
who are not qualified or certified,
provided that they meet the
requirements in proposed
§ 1926.1427(f)(2). Proposed
§ 1926.1427(f)(2) would allow those
undergoing training in preparation for
qualification/certification tests to
operate equipment under the conditions
outlined in § 1926.1427(f)(2)(i) through
(f)(2)(v). The Committee believed that it
is necessary for there to be a process by
which operators who are not certified or
qualified can get experience working
with the equipment to help prepare for
obtaining a certification/qualification.
This proposed paragraph would require
appropriate oversight of such trainees to
ensure worksite safety.
In the C–DAC consensus document,
§ 1926.1427(f)(2) states that,
An employee who has passed neither the
written nor practical tests required under this
section is permitted to operate equipment as
part of his/her training where the following
requirements are met. * * *
It is the Agency’s understanding that
the intent of the Committee was to allow
trainees who had not yet obtained a
certification or qualification to operate
equipment on the job as part of the
training process as long as the criteria in
§ 1926.1427(f)(2) were met. However,
the C–DAC language would allow such
an operator to do this only if the
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
operator had passed not yet passed both
the written and practical tests.
The anomalous result of that language
would have been that an operator who
had passed one of those tests but not
both would have been prohibited from
operating the crane as a trainee under
this provision. Since that would have
been contrary to the Committee’s intent,
the Agency has modified that language
for the proposed rule, which now reads:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
An employee who has not passed both the
written and practical tests required under
this section is permitted to operate
equipment as part of his/her training where
the following requirements are met. * * *
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) would
require that the trainee/apprentice be
provided with sufficient training prior
to operating the equipment to enable
him/her to operate it safely under the
limitations listed in this proposed
section and any additional limitations
established by the employer. This
would ensure that, before beginning to
operate the equipment at the site, the
trainee/apprentice would have attained
sufficient knowledge and skills to
operate the equipment safely as a
trainee/apprentice.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(ii) would
restrict the trainee/apprentice’s
operation of the equipment to those
tasks currently within his/her ability.
The Committee believed that this is
necessary to ensure that, throughout the
training period, the tasks the trainee/
apprentice performs are always
commensurate with his/her ability. This
provision would also allow the trainee/
apprentice to perform progressively
more complex tasks as the trainee/
apprentice develops the necessary
ability.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii) sets
forth the requirements that an employee
would have to meet to be permitted to
supervise the trainee/apprentice’s
operation of the crane. The Committee
believed that setting the criteria for such
supervision is necessary to ensure that
the equipment is operated safely during
the training/apprenticeship period.
Under proposed paragraph
(f)(2)(iii)(A), the trainee/apprentice’s
supervisor would have to be an
employee or agent of the trainee’s/
apprentice’s employer. The Committee
believed that this is necessary to ensure
that the supervisor would have the
authority to direct the actions of the
trainee/apprentice.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(B)
would require that the trainee/
apprentice’s supervisor be either a
certified operator (in accordance with
proposed § 1926.1427), or have passed
the written portion of a certification test
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
under one of the Options in proposed
§ 1926.1427. In addition, whether the
supervisor is a certified operator or has
passed the written test, the supervisor
would have to be familiar with the
proper use of the equipment’s controls.
The SBREFA panel recommended
that OSHA consider whether the
trainee/apprentice’s supervisor should
have additional training beyond the
qualifications required under proposed
§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B). This
recommendation is addressed below in
the discussion of § 1926.1430, Training.
The Committee believed that this
provision is necessary to ensure that the
supervisor has sufficient knowledge
about the equipment to enable him/her
to effectively oversee the safe operation
of the crane. The Committee determined
that a supervisor who had passed the
written portion of a certification test
would not need to be sufficiently
proficient to pass the practical portion
in order to effectively supervise a
trainee/apprentice. However, both in the
instance where the supervisor is
certified and in the instance where he/
she is not certified but has passed the
written portion of the certification test,
the Committee believed that it is
necessary that he/she be familiar with
the proper use of the equipment’s
controls, since such knowledge is
essential to being able to effectively
supervise a trainee/apprentice.
The C–DAC consensus document
language refers to ‘‘certified operator’’
and the written portion of a
‘‘certification’’ test. However, under
proposed § 1926.1427, an operator may
be either ‘‘certified,’’ which would be
obtained under Option 1, or ‘‘qualified,’’
which would be obtained under any one
of the other options. The Agency
believes that the Committee intended
that as long as the supervisor meets the
qualification/certification criteria under
any of these options, or has passed the
written portion of a test used to obtain
a qualification/certification under any of
these options, and all other aspects of
proposed § 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii) have
been met, the employer should be
permitted to use that supervisor to
supervise the trainee/apprentice.
In addition, the C–DAC consensus
document language regarding this
provision states that a supervisor who is
a ‘‘certified operator’’ may, if the other
criteria listed in the provision are met,
supervise the trainee/apprentice.
Alternatively, the supervisor must have
‘‘passed the written portion of a
certification test * * *.’’ The Agency
believes that it was the Committee’s
intent that the certification or written
test that was passed be valid for the
equipment that the trainee/apprentice is
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59815
operating. However, the C–DAC
language, read literally, would permit a
supervisor with a certification or
passing score on a written test that was
valid only for equipment other than
what the trainee/apprentice was
operating to supervise that trainee/
apprentice.
To conform proposed paragraph
(f)(2)(iii)(B) to C–DAC’s intent, OSHA is
planning to modify that provision as
follows and requests public comment on
this change.
(B) The operator’s supervisor is either a
qualified/certified operator under this section
for the equipment the trainee/apprentice is
operating, or has passed the written portion
of a qualification/certification test for such
equipment under one of the Options in
paragraphs (b) through (e), and is familiar
with the proper use of the equipment’s
controls.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(C)
would require that the operator’s
supervisor perform no tasks that would
detract from his/her ability to supervise
the trainee/apprentice. The Committee
believed that permitting the operator’s
supervisor to engage in tasks that would
impinge on his/her ability to supervise
the trainee/apprentice would endanger
the trainee/apprentice and other
employees in the vicinity of the crane.
Under proposed paragraph
(f)(2)(iii)(D), for equipment other than
tower cranes, the operator’s supervisor
and the trainee/apprentice would be
required to be in direct line of sight of
each other, and would be required to
communicate either verbally or by hand
signals. The Committee believed that
this would ensure that the operator’s
supervisor could rapidly and effectively
give instructions to the trainee/
apprentice, especially for purposes of
correcting the trainee/apprentice.
With respect to tower cranes, it was
the Committee’s view that the height of
the operator’s station would typically
make it infeasible to maintain direct line
of sight between the operator’s
supervisor and the trainee/apprentice.
For the same reason, use of hand signals
is also often not feasible. Therefore, the
proposed provision would instead
require that they be in direct
communication with each other. For
example, direct communication could
be achieved by radio or other instant
electronic voice communication system.
The Committee believed that it would
be infeasible for the operator’s
supervisor to supervise the trainee/
apprentice 100 percent of the time.
Proposed § 1926.1427(f)(2)(iv) is
designed to set criteria that would
permit the trainee/apprentice to
continue operating the crane in the
absence of the operator’s supervisor for
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59816
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
short breaks under circumstances that
would result in safe operation. Those
criteria would be as follows:
Under proposed paragraph
(f)(2)(iv)(A), the break would be
restricted to no more than 15 minutes,
and no more than one break per hour.
The Committee believed that this
restriction is needed because otherwise
there would be a significant likelihood
that the other criteria (discussed below)
would not be followed, and that the
trainee/apprentice would not receive
the amount of supervision that is
needed to ensure safe operation.
Under proposed paragraph
(f)(2)(iv)(B), immediately prior to the
break, the operator’s supervisor would
have to inform the trainee/apprentice of
the specific tasks that the trainee/
apprentice would be authorized to
perform and the limitations that he/she
must adhere to during the break. Under
proposed § 1926.1427(f)(2)(iv)(C), the
specific tasks that the trainee/apprentice
would perform during the break would
have to be within the trainee/
apprentice’s ability. The Committee
believed that these provisions are
necessary to prevent injuries and
fatalities that could be caused by a
trainee/apprentice operating a crane
under circumstances that are beyond
his/her ability.
The Committee believed that there are
certain circumstances in which it is
inappropriate for a trainee/apprentice to
operate a crane because of the
complexity and/or heightened risks
involved. Therefore, for the
circumstances listed in proposed
§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(A)–(D), the trainee/
apprentice would be prohibited from
operating the equipment in all cases,
even if the operator’s supervisor
believed the trainee/apprentice had
attained the necessary knowledge and
skill.
With respect to operations involving
multiple-lift rigging, the Committee
believed that the difficulty and/or risk
involved is not at the same level as
those listed in proposed
§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(A)–(D).
Consequently, as reflected in proposed
§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(E), while there
would be a general prohibition against
a trainee/apprentice operating the
equipment when multiple-lift rigging is
involved, an exception would apply
where the operator’s supervisor
determined that the trainee/apprentice’s
skills are sufficient for this high-skill
work.
Paragraph 1427(g)
Proposed paragraph (g) would permit
a testing entity to provide training as
well as testing services as long as the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
criteria of the applicable accrediting
agency (in the Option selected) for an
organization providing both services are
met. The Committee was aware of an
impression among some people in the
industry that a testing entity could not
get accredited if it also provided
training. However, after some research,
the Committee determined that this was
not a bar to accreditation if certain
procedures were instituted. Specifically,
an industry consensus standard, the
International Organization for
Standardization (‘‘ISO’’) 17024,
addresses entities that offer
certifications to individuals. It requires
that no such entity offer training unless
the entity can demonstrate that the
training is independent of both
evaluation and certification. This is
intended to preserve both
confidentiality and impartiality in the
testing/certification process.
Therefore, at least with respect to
those accrediting agencies that apply the
ISO standard, a testing entity may also
conduct training as long as an adequate
‘‘firewall’’ exists between the two
functions. Proposed § 1926.1427(g)
reflects the Committee’s intent to make
clear that a testing entity is not be
prohibited from providing training, as
long as the applicable criteria have been
met.
Paragraph 1427(h)
The Committee deliberated about the
need for operators to be able to read to
operate a crane safely and how some
operators, even though they can read,
nonetheless have difficulty taking
written tests. The Committee believed
that it is crucial for operators to be able
to read the load chart and other
manufacturer procedures for the
equipment they operate. In its view, the
failure to be able to read that
information could result in injuries and
fatalities through a wide variety of
errors (for example, by overloading the
crane as a result of exceeding the crane’s
working radius, failing to deploy
outriggers in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions, or failing to
apply a footnote in a load chart that
explains that the capacity is lower when
a particular configuration of the crane is
used).
However, the Committee recognized
that some employees, while they have
sufficient literacy to be able to read this
type of material, for other reasons are
unable to take written tests effectively.
Therefore, under proposed
§ 1926.1427(h), the written
qualification/certification test could be
administered verbally, with the answers
given verbally, if two prerequisites are
met.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The first is that the qualification/
certification candidate pass a written
demonstration of literacy relevant to the
work (proposed § 1926.1427(h)(1)). The
second is that the candidate
demonstrate the ability to use the type
of written manufacturer procedures
applicable to the class/type of
equipment for which the candidate is
seeking qualification/certification
(proposed § 1926.1427(h)(2)). These
would typically include, for example,
the load chart and operator’s manual for
the crane the candidate would be
operating.
As reflected in the SBREFA Panel
Report, some SERs expressed a concern
that operators who are not proficient in
English would not be able to meet either
requirement. The Panel recommended
that OSHA solicit comment on whether
employers should be permitted to use
manuals that have been re-written to
accommodate the level of English
proficiency (that is, lower level or lack
of proficiency) of the operator.
C–DAC considered this same concern
in designing § 1926.1427(h). Neither the
demonstration in § 1926.1427(h)(1) nor
(h)(2) would necessarily have to be
made in English as those provisions are
currently drafted. As an example, under
these proposed provisions, an employer
could obtain a Spanish-language version
of the load charts and operator’s manual
from the manufacturer, and arrange to
have the literacy test administered in
Spanish. An operator able to meet the
requirements of proposed
§ 1926.1427(h) using these Spanish
language materials would have
demonstrated adequate literacy under
the proposed rule.
However, it may be necessary to
modify proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1), (c)
and (e) so that, in such instances, the
qualification/certification is limited to
the use of equipment that is equipped
with such translated materials. In
addition, there is an issue with respect
to whether the rule needs to incorporate
safeguards to ensure that a translation of
manufacturer-supplied materials
conveys the same information as in the
original. OSHA requests comment on
these issues.
Some SERs also expressed a concern
that many operators are not sufficiently
literate in any language to meet the
proposed requirements in
§ 1926.1427(h)(1) and (h)(2). As
discussed above, C–DAC determined
that it is essential for ensuring safe
crane operation that operators have
sufficient literacy to read and
comprehend written materials that
relate to critical aspects of operation,
such as load charts and manufacturer’s
manuals. However, the Panel
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
recommended that OSHA solicit
comment on whether employers should
be permitted to use manuals that have
been re-written to accommodate the
literacy level of operators.
The concept underlying this
recommendation is that a lower level of
literacy may be sufficient as long as that
level still enables the operator to read
and understand the simplified language
(and perhaps greater use of illustrations)
in the re-written manual. If this were to
be allowed, it would be necessary to
modify proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1), (c)
and (e) so that the certification is
limited to the use of equipment that is
equipped with a suitably re-written
manual. Another issue that such a
change would raise is whether the rule
would need to incorporate safeguards to
ensure that the modified materials
conveyed the same information as in the
original, manufacturer-supplied
materials. OSHA requests comment on
the Panel’s recommendation and these
related issues.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1427(i) [Reserved.]
Proposed paragraph (i) would be
reserved because it is inconvenient for
readers to determine whether ‘‘i’’ is
being used as a letter or a roman
numeral.
Paragraph 1427(j) Certification Criteria
Proposed paragraph (j) sets out the
qualification and certification criteria
applicable to the options described in
proposed §§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(A),
1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(C), and
1926.1427(e)(2)(iv). The Committee
determined that these are the criteria
needed to address the knowledge and
skills that are fundamental to safe crane
operation. As stated in the introductory
language in proposed § 1926.1427(j),
these would constitute ‘‘minimum’’
criteria; the accredited certifying
entities, employers, or local or state
licensing offices would not be
precluded from adding additional
requirements to their certification or
qualification programs.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1) describes
the criteria that would have to be
covered by the written examination
portion of a qualification/certification
program. As stated above in the
discussion of examination
administration, the written portion of
the examination may be administered
orally, so long as the candidate has
demonstrated sufficient literacy relevant
to the work (e.g., load charts and
equipment manual).
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i) states that
the individual seeking qualification or
certification must know ‘‘the
information necessary for safe operation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
of the specific type of equipment the
individual will operate * * *’’ As
discussed above with respect to
proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B)
(requirement that different levels of
certification be provided, based on
varying equipment capacities and
types), during the SBREFA process,
several SERs described situations in
which an operator is very
knowledgeable and skillful with respect
to one particular model of crane, but has
very limited knowledge and ability
regarding other models and types of
cranes. These SERs were concerned that
such operators would be unable to
obtain a certification based on
equipment capacity and type. They
believe that, since these operators are
well qualified to operate a particular
crane model, there should be a
mechanism for them to become certified
to operate that model. The Panel
recommended that OSHA consider and
solicit public comment on expanding
the levels of certification so as to allow
an operator to be certified on a specific
brand’s model of crane. Consistent with
the Panel’s recommendation, OSHA
seeks public comment on this issue.
Also, as discussed above with respect
to proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B), the
SBREFA Panel received comments from
some SERs suggesting that the standard
should accommodate crane operators
who were fully capable of operating
particular equipment in a limited set of
circumstances but who would be unable
to pass certification tests that required
knowledge and abilities beyond those
circumstances. The Panel recommended
that OSHA consider and solicit public
comment on expanding the levels of
operator qualification/certification to
allow such operators to be certified for
a specific, limited type of circumstance
defined by a set of parameters that,
taken together, would describe an
operation characterized by simplicity
and relatively low risk. In response to
the Panel’s recommendation, OSHA
requests public comment on whether
such parameters could be identified in
a way that would result in a clear, easily
understood provision that could be
effectively enforced.68
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(A) would
require that the written examination
address the candidate’s knowledge of
the equipment controls and operational/
performance characteristics of the
specific type of equipment. Operational/
68 The SBREFA Panel also recommended that
OSHA ask for public comment on whether the
standard should state more clearly that more
limited training is required for operators of smaller
capacity equipment than for more complex
equipment. This recommendation is addressed
below in the discussion of § 1926.1430, Training.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59817
performance characteristics would
include, for example, the deflection
characteristics of the boom, including
how deflection affects the positioning of
the load and the extent to which
deflection varies with boom angle and
length as well as load weight. Also,
equipment with lattice/cable supported
booms has different deflection
characteristics than equipment with
non-lattice booms (that is, hydraulic
ram supported booms). Meeting these
criteria would ensure that the person
controlling the equipment would be
able to make necessary judgments and
adjustments for safe crane operation.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(B) was
included to ensure that operators would
be able to use load capacity information
on a variety of configurations of the
capacity and type of equipment. Such
information is typically contained in
load charts and manuals. This would
ensure that the operator would be able
to accurately determine, independently,
the capacity of the equipment in each
situation that he/she might encounter.
The Committee believed that this ability
is critical to helping prevent injuries
and fatalities caused by overloading the
equipment.
The Committee considered whether it
is also necessary for the operator to be
able to use the load information without
the aid of a calculator. It determined
that calculators are now so commonly
available and used that it is not
necessary for the operator to be able to
use the load information without one.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(C)
addresses the need for crane operators
to know how to prevent power line
contact. In the Committee’s experience,
electrocutions and electrical injuries are
typically caused when the operator
unintentionally brings the boom, load
line or load in electrical contact with a
power line. Operator knowledge of the
procedures that are necessary for
preventing such contact (see the
discussions of proposed §§ 1926.1407
through 1926.1411 above) is essential
for preventing these injuries and
fatalities.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(C) also
addresses the need for crane operators
to know how to respond to a power line
contact if one occurs. For example, the
Committee determined that some
electrocutions of operators occur while
an operator attempts to exit the
equipment. After realizing that the
equipment is in electrical contact with
a power line, the operator is
electrocuted when he/she creates a
grounding path by touching the
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59818
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
equipment while stepping on the
ground.69
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(D)
addresses the need for crane operators
to have technical knowledge on a range
of subjects that, if not sufficiently
understood, could cause injuries and
fatalities. The list of subjects in
proposed Non-Mandatory Appendix E
of this subpart serves as an example of
that set of knowledge. The Committee
believed that a degree of flexibility
should be accorded in terms of what
specific subjects need to be included.
For example, a subject relevant only to
an extensible boom crane would not
need to be covered for a certification for
a traditional lattice boom crane.
Therefore, the proposed provision states
that the testing criteria must include
technical knowledge ‘‘similar’’ to the
subject matter criteria listed in
Appendix E of this subpart. To
accommodate those who have less of a
need for such flexibility and more of a
need for specificity in this regard, the
proposed provision also makes clear
that, when the subjects listed in
Appendix E are used, the requirements
of the provision would be met.
In addition to the technical
knowledge that would be required
under proposed § 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(D),
technical knowledge applicable to three
specific subjects would also be required
under proposed § 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(E).
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(E)(1)
would require that an operator be able
to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of
how to assess ground conditions to
identify potential hazards. The operator
would therefore be able to assess ground
conditions through inspection, and
would also be aware of the potential for
unseen hazards such as sewers, water
mains, and other underground
installations or conditions that might
affect the ability of the ground to
support the equipment and expected
load.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(E)(2)
would require operators to demonstrate
sufficient knowledge of site hazards so
that the operator would be able to
identify them and understand their
significance to safe operation of the
equipment. Examples of typical site
hazards include electrical hazards posed
69 Note that, as provided in proposed
§ 1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(A) on power line safety,
operators must be aware of the danger of
electrocution if they simultaneously touch
energized equipment and the ground. They must
also, pursuant to proposed § 1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(B),
be trained to understand that when the equipment
makes electrical contact with a power line, the
operator’s safety requires him or her to remain
inside the cab except where there is an imminent
danger of fire, explosion, or other emergency that
necessitates their leaving the cab.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
by underground electrical or cable lines
and aboveground telephone poles and
power lines, and ground-support
hazards posed by manholes, drains and
trenches, which can lead to tip-overs.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(E)(3)
would require operators to demonstrate
sufficient technical knowledge to ensure
that conditions at the entrance to the
site are sufficient to enable the
equipment to travel safely onto the site.
For example, where equipment must
descend or ascend a dirt ramp, the
operator needs to be able to assess the
effect of the ramp’s steepness and to
detect signs of instability.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(F) would
require operators to demonstrate a
thorough knowledge of this subpart,
including incorporated materials. The
Committee believed that operators play
a key role in the application of these
requirements and it is therefore
essential that they understand them.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(ii) is
intended to ensure that operators have
the ability, at a minimum, to
demonstrate sufficient literacy to locate
and understand information both in the
equipment manual as well as in other
sources which address the information
discussed in proposed
§ 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(A) through
(j)(1)(i)(F). Since the Committee
determined that safe crane operation
depends on applying that information,
the operator needs to be able to locate
and understand it.
Proposed paragraph (j)(2) would
require a practical test and sets criteria
for such a test. Safe crane operation
depends on an operator having
sufficient skill to operate the equipment
safely. The Committee felt that a
successful demonstration of ability to
perform the operations discussed below
is essential to ensuring that the operator
will be able to apply the requisite
knowledge in the field. The practical
test under this proposed paragraph
would be conducted using equipment of
the capacity and type for which the
candidate seeks certification.
Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(i) would
require an operator to demonstrate the
ability to recognize, from visual and
audible observation, the items listed in
proposed paragraph § 1926.1412(d)(shift
inspection). Irrespective of whether the
operator or someone else conducts the
shift inspection, the operator needs to
be able to recognize apparent
deficiencies associated with these parts
and mechanisms. First, the operator
needs to be able to identify indications
of safety problems that may arise after
the shift inspection has been completed.
In addition, this ability is important
since the operator needs to be able to
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
effectively exercise his/her authority
under proposed § 1926.1418, Authority
to stop operation to stop lifting
operations (see discussion of that
proposed section above).
Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(ii) addresses
the need for operators to have
demonstrated proficiency with
operational and maneuvering skills.
Lack of such proficiency could result in
a wide range of accidents that could
cause injuries or fatalities. For example,
without this level of skill, the operator
could unintentionally exceed the
crane’s capacity (such as by booming
out too far) and overturn the equipment,
make electrical contact with power
lines, or cause struck-by injuries and
fatalities (such as by losing a load or
losing control of the load).
Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(iii) requires
that the operator demonstrate the ability
to apply load chart information. The
Committee believed that if an operator
is unable to apply load chart
information, there is a significantly
heightened risk of the crane
overturning. This is because an operator
without this ability may fail to keep the
crane within the required operational
parameters called for by the load chart
(for example, by failing to recognize that
proceeding with the lift will result in
exceeding the maximum allowable
boom radius as specified in the load
chart).
As with proposed paragraph (j)(2)(i)
(ability to recognize inspection items),
this ability is also important since the
operator needs to be able to effectively
exercise his/her authority under
proposed § 1926.1418 (Authority to stop
operation) to stop lifting operations (see
discussion of that proposed section
above). For example, if the only way to
land the load with the crane in its
current position would be to exceed the
allowable radius specified in the chart,
the operator would need to be able to
recognize that this would happen and
stop the lift.
Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(iv) would
require that an operator be able to shut
down and secure equipment safely. This
ability is necessary to ensure that the
shut down procedure is done safely and
the equipment is properly secured to
prevent unintended movement of the
equipment after shut down.
Paragraph 1427(k) Phase-In
Under proposed paragraph (k), the
qualification/certification requirements
in proposed § 1926.1427 would not
become effective until four years after
the effective date of the final rule. The
Committee believed that this four year
period would provide time for operators
to get additional training (where
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
needed) to prepare them for the testing,
for additional testing organizations to
become accredited for purposes of
Option 1 (proposed § 1926.1427(b)), for
additional organizations to become
nationally recognized accrediting
agencies, for employers (who so choose)
to develop audited programs for use
under Option 2 (proposed
§ 1926.1427(c)), for accredited testing
organizations to develop programs to
certify auditors as described under
Option 2, and for state and local
government entities (who so choose) to
make preparations to meet the criteria
under Option 4 (proposed
§ 1926.1427(e)). It would also give
employers time to plan which of the
qualification/certification options
would be most suitable for them.
Under proposed paragraph (k)(1),
during this four year period, proposed
paragraphs § 1926.1427(k)(1)(i) and (ii)
would address operator qualifications
and training. Specifically, proposed
§ 1926.1427(k)(1)(i) would require that
operators be competent for the purposes
of operating the equipment safely. This
would require that the operator have the
requisite knowledge and skill to
identify, anticipate, and avoid actions
which could result in hazardous
conditions related to the equipment and
job site.
Proposed paragraph (k)(1)(ii) would
require employers to ensure that
operators who do not already have
sufficient knowledge or skill to operate
the equipment safely undergo training
prior to engaging in operations. In
addition, the employer would be
required to ensure that the operator is
evaluated to confirm that he/she
understands the information provided
in the training. These interim measures
are not significantly different from
current requirements under Subpart N
of this part, § 1926.20(b)(4) (‘‘the
employer shall permit only those
employees qualified by training or
experience to operate equipment and
machinery’’) and § 1926.21(b)(2) (‘‘the
employer shall instruct each employee
in the recognition and avoidance of
unsafe conditions * * * ’’). However,
they would ensure that there would not
be a gap with respect to this issue
between the termination of the
requirements under Subpart N of this
part and the effective date of proposed
§ 1926.1427(a) through (j) and (m). The
four-year phase-in period discussed
above is set out in proposed
§ 1926.1427(k)(2).
Paragraph 1427(l) [Reserved.]
Proposed paragraph (l) would be
reserved because of the inconvenience
that would result from the use of ‘‘l’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
both as a small Arabic numeral and as
the letter ‘‘l.’’
Paragraph 1427(m) Definitions
Proposed paragraph (m) defines two
terms used in the qualification/
certification provisions in
§ 1926.1427(b) through (e) (addressed
above). Proposed § 1926.1427(m)(1)
explains that, if an operator has a
‘‘portable’’ certification, any employer
may rely on that certification. The
employer of an operator who carries a
portable certification (which can be
obtained only through the method
described in proposed § 1926.1427(b))
has ensured that the operator has been
qualified or certified, and has met the
requirements of proposed
§ 1926.1427(a).
Proposed paragraph (m)(2) explains
that, if an operator has a qualification
that is ‘‘not portable,’’ only the
employer who issued that qualification
may rely on it for purposes of meeting
the requirements of proposed
§ 1926.1427(a). As discussed above,
OSHA is considering adding a third
definition for the term ‘‘employee of the
U.S. military’’ (see the discussion above
of proposed § 1926.1427(d)).
Dissenting View of C–DAC Member
Brian H. Murphy
Under the C–DAC ground rules
(OSHA–S030–2006–0663, Ex. 36–1–8),
the Committee reaches consensus if no
more than two non-federal members
dissent on a particular issue. The
ground rules also provide that, upon the
request of a dissenting member, OSHA
will include the member’s reasons for
dissenting in the preamble to the
proposed rule. Two members of C–DAC,
Mr. Brian H. Murphy and Mr. Craig
Steel, dissented from the Committee’s
draft of proposed § 1427. Mr. Murphy
asked that his reasons for dissenting be
included in the preamble, and provided
them in the letter reprinted below
(OSHA–2007–0066–0007). Note that,
pursuant to the ground rules, OSHA has
not reprinted comments in the letter
regarding issues upon which the
member did not dissent.
Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary Snare:
Thank you for providing an opportunity for
the Associated General Contractors of
America (AGC) to serve on the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s)
Crane and Derrick Advisory Committee (C–
DAC). AGC welcomed and appreciated the
chance to explore OSHA’s several options for
a new standard on cranes and derricks with
the other knowledgeable members of that
committee. In addition, it was a personal
privilege for me to represent AGC’s 33,000
members.
AGC is a nationwide trade association of
general contractors, specialty contractors,
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59819
material suppliers, equipment dealers and
other firms that collectively form the core of
the construction industry. The association
was formed in 1918 at the express request of
President Woodrow Wilson, and today, AGC
maintains a network of 98 state and local
chapters throughout the United States. Its
members engage in the construction of
commercial buildings, factories, warehouses,
highways, bridges, airports, waterworks
facilities, waste treatment facilities, dams,
water conservation projects, defense facilities
and multi-family housing projects, and on
site preparation and utilities installation for
housing development.
AGC shares and strongly supports OSHA’s
mission. While AGC occasionally disagrees
with OSHA’s views on the best and most
effective means and methods of improving
construction safety and health, AGC is and
will remain equally committed to that goal.
Indeed, from its very inception, AGC has
taken a great interest in the safety and health
of construction workers. Its bylaws expressly
provide that ‘‘[t]he members of [AGC] shall
work to develop good relations with
employees * * * and shall make every effort
to provide safe working conditions on
construction projects and to promote safe
working habits by their employees.
AGC has long taken a very proactive
approach to construction safety and health.
Over the last 15 years, AGC has produced
over 100 videos and publications on the
various practices and procedures that may be
necessary, on any given jobsite, to protect
construction workers from occupational
injury or illness. Each year, AGC sponsors
two nationwide safety award programs.
Regularly, AGC also offers safety
management training courses and other
safety training programs. In 2003, AGC used
a Susan Harwood Training Grant to train
1,800 construction workers on OSHA’s new
steel erection standard. In 2004, AGC will
use a third grant to train another 600
construction workers on fall protection. AGC
was proud to receive these grants, and today,
AGC is even prouder that an overwhelming
number of its trainees gave these programs
excellent reviews. These efforts demonstrate
AGC’s commitment to partnering with OSHA
to make construction work-sites safer.
AGC also supports OSHA’s very specific
effort to set new standards for the men and
women operating cranes and derricks. AGC
agrees that systematically increasing the
knowledge and improving the skill of these
construction workers will reduce the number
of accidents involving cranes and derricks
and limit the closely related risks of injury.
Long before serving on C–DAC, AGC
collaborated with the St. Paul Companies on
an exemplary training program on the
essentials of crane safety. AGC also signed a
cooperative agreement with the National
Commission for the Certification of Crane
Operators (NCCCO), recognizing the
‘‘importance of safe crane operations on our
nation’s construction sites’’ and ‘‘the CCO
written and practical examination is a
method of documenting the qualifications
criteria outlined in ASME B30.5–3.1–1995,
‘‘Qualifications for and Conduct of Operators
and Operating Practices.’’
As a member of C–DAC, fully committed
to its goals and objectives, AGC worked long
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59820
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
and hard to find common ground with the
other members of that group. At the end of
the day, both AGC and the others did reach
agreement on a vast majority of the issues
that the group had to confront. The group
wrote forty-two sections and two appendices
into the new standard that it proposed to
OSHA, developing a document that totaled
one-hundred-nineteen pages in length.
During its deliberations, the group reached
agreement on forty-one of those sections and
both appendices, which collectively
accounted for one-hundred-twelve of the
pages of text. On only one of the sections,
and only seven pages of the text, did
everyone fail to agree. On only that one
section, and those few pages of text, did AGC
find it necessary to part company with the
others. (Endnote 1).
AGC would not, however, suggest that the
disagreement was a trivial one. Quite to the
contrary, AGC believes that the disagreement
was a serious one that OSHA needs to
address. C–DAC accomplished most but not
all of its mission. It is now incumbent upon
OSHA to correct the one significant error that
C–DAC made.
The disagreement between AGC and the
other members of the committee was over
section 1427 of the committee’s proposal.
That section is entitled ‘‘Operator
qualification and certification.’’ In paragraph
(a), it requires an employer to ‘‘ensure’’ that
its crane and derrick operators are either:
• ‘‘Qualified or certified * * * in
accordance with’’ one of four procedures,
found in the following paragraphs (b), (c), (d)
and (e); or
• ‘‘Operating the equipment during a
training period in accordance with paragraph
(f)
Paragraph (b) of section 1427 provides for
‘‘[c]ertification by an accredited crane/
derrick operator testing organization.’’
Paragraph (c) provides for ‘‘[q]ualification by
an audited employer program.’’ Paragraph (d)
provides for ‘‘[q]ualification by the U.S.
military.’’ And paragraph (e) provides for
‘‘[l]icensing by a government entity.’’
(Endnote 2)
AGC opposes section 1427 primarily
because its requirements for the qualification
and certification of crane and derrick
operators are too restrictive. For many and
perhaps the vast majority of construction
contractors, none of the four options for
operator qualification or certification are
practical to pursue. At the same time, section
1427 omits several requirements that would
far more directly affect crane and derrick
safety. If adopted as currently written,
section 1427 would disrupt the construction
industry and might actually hinder the broad
effort necessary to ensure that crane and
derrick operators are knowledgeable,
competent and well prepared, every day, to
perform their work.
Following are AGC’s more specific
comments on each of the four options that
Section 1427 provides, on the risks that this
provision would create for any employer that
chose to implement an operator training
program, and on several significant
omissions from the proposed standard.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Certification by an Accredited Crane/Derrick
Operator Testing Organization
While less restrictive than paragraph (d),
paragraph (b) fails to provide an option for
many and perhaps most of the small to
medium-sized firms that dominate the
construction industry. Paragraph (b) would
permit employers to engage third parties to
test and certify their crane and derrick
operators, but in the process, paragraph (b)
would severely restrict the number of
organizations qualified to perform those
tasks. The proposed standard would permit
employers to rely on only those organizations
‘‘accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting agency.’’
To the best of AGC’s knowledge,
information and belief, only two
organizations are ‘‘accrediting’’ agencies
within the meaning and for the purposes of
Section 1427, and only one of the two
agencies has actually accredited any other
organization to test and certify crane and
derrick operators. During the lengthy
deliberations among the members of C–DAC,
the National Commission for Certifying
Agencies (NCCA) and the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) were the only two
organizations said to be such ‘‘accrediting’’
agencies. The NCCA was the only one of the
two said to have actually accredited any
other organization to test and certify
operators.
To make matters worse, it was
acknowledged and agreed that the NCCCO is
the only testing organization that the NCCA
has accredited. If other organizations are also
accredited to test and certify crane and
derrick operators, within the meaning and for
the purposes of Section 1427, then neither
the other members of C–DAC nor OSHA
identified them, and AGC is unaware of
them.
AGC would emphasize that it holds the
NCCCO in high regard. As already
mentioned, AGC has gone so far as to sign
a cooperative agreement with the NCCCO.
Nevertheless, AGC doubts that the NCCCO
could meet the enormous demand that
section 1427 would generate for crane and
derrick operator testing and certification. If
adopted, Section 1427 would take that
demand to an entirely new level. It should
be noted that NCCCO has largely succeeded
in meeting the much more limited demand
for voluntary certification.
In fairness, AGC believes that other
members of C–DAC harbor the same doubt.
Something had to motivate the authors of
section 1427 to include paragraph (k),
delaying the mandate for operator testing and
certification for four years. It is certainly
possible that the other members of C–DAC
supported section 1427 in the belief that
other testing organizations would use this
time to seek accreditation—in the hope of
profiting on a dramatic increase in the
demand for operator testing and certification.
The problem is that neither the other
members of C–DAC nor OSHA undertook any
study of the costs that such organizations
would have to incur to qualify for
accreditation, or to provide testing or
certification services on the massive scale
that section 1427 contemplates. Nor did the
other members identify the sources of capital
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that these other testing organizations would
require, or the prices they would have to
charge for their services, or how they could
even begin to sustain themselves until testing
and certification became mandatory. There
were no business plans or business models
for either the committee or OSHA to review.
It might be appealing to suppose that future
demand for testing and certification would
call forth the necessary supply, but it would
remain little more than speculation. There is
no factual record to support any such
conclusions.
However logical it may be, AGC maintains
that OSHA cannot simply suppose that the
supply of the necessary services would
materialize. The stakes are much too great. If
other testing organizations did not enter the
market, or they subsequently failed for
financial or other reasons, or they simply
found it necessary to charge more than most
contractors could bear, the construction
industry could quickly find itself in gridlock.
AGC also doubts the wisdom of giving any
private organization—whether the NCCA,
ANSI, the NCCCO or any other accrediting
agencies or testing organization—such a
dominant role in the implementation of a
federal regulation. Section 1427 would set
minimal standards for accreditation, leaving
most of that process in private hands. OSHA
would not have any direct oversight over (or
other relationship with) any testing
organization. The agency would be two steps
removed from that process.
Qualification by an Audited Employer
Program
Paragraph (c) also fails to provide an
option for many and perhaps most
construction companies. That provision
would permit an employer to test and qualify
its own employees to operate cranes and
derricks, but only if inter alia (1) the
employer’s written and practical tests were
‘‘developed by an accredited crane/derrick
operator testing organization,’’ (2) the
employer’s ‘‘program’’ were approved by an
auditor ‘‘certified,’’ in turn, by such an
organization, and (3) the ‘‘circumstances’’
under which the employer administered the
tests were also approved by such an auditor.
As noted, the NCCCO appears to be the
only ‘‘accredited crane/derrick operator
testing organization’’ at this time. AGC
doubts that small or medium-sized
construction contractors would have the
resources necessary to self-administer the
NCCCO’s written and practical tests,
particularly ‘‘under circumstances * * *
meeting nationally recognized test
administration standards.’’ In addition, it
appears that neither the NCCCO nor any
other testing organizations would have any
business incentive to develop a large pool of
certified auditors. To the contrary, they
would have an obvious interest in
maintaining the demand for their own testing
services, and their own certifications.
Nothing in the proposed standard would
compel or even encourage the NCCCO or any
other testing organization to help
construction employers develop practical
alternatives.
Further eroding paragraph (c) are
provisions that would require the employer
to have its ‘‘program’’ re-audited every three
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
years, and suspend the employer’s
‘‘program’’ for any ‘‘significant deficiency.’’
Though it would expressly forbid the auditor
of the employer’s program to be the
employer’s employee—and therefore subject
to the employer’s control—paragraph (c)
would also render the employer liable for the
auditor’s failure to file a ‘‘documented
report’’ of any ‘‘significant deficiency’’ to
OSHA within 15 days, to maintain records of
his or her audits for three years, or to make
such records available to the U.S. Department
of Labor.
For all of these reasons, AGC believes that
paragraph (c) would not be a practical and
dependable option for any significant
number of construction employers.
Qualification by the U.S. Military
As a threshold matter, paragraph (d) is
limited to the men and women in uniform.
By its terms, it is ‘‘[n]ot portable,’’ meaning
that it ‘‘meets the requirements of paragraph
(a) only where the operator is employed by
(and operating the equipment for) the
employer that issued the qualification.’’ See
Section 1427(m). To any operator to which
paragraph (d) might apply, the military
would be ‘‘the employer that issued the
qualification.’’ It follows that any operator
qualified by the military would be qualified
to operate a crane or derrick only for the
military. (Endnote 3).
Licensing by a Government Entity
Whether paragraph (e) provided any
practical option for construction contractors
would depend entirely on how state and
local governments responded to it. This
provision would permit employers to use
state or local government agencies to test and
license their crane and derrick operators.
Employers, however, could use only the
government agencies that had volunteered to
perform those tasks.
In some ways, paragraph (e) is superior to
paragraphs (b) and (c). The state or local
agency would have to be the one that
‘‘issue[d] operator licenses for operating
[relevant] equipment,’’ and it would have to
qualify for accreditation as a ‘‘government
accredited crane/derrick operator testing
organization.’’ But the ‘‘government authority
that overs[aw]’’ the agency, and not any
private entity, would determine whether the
agency met the substantive criteria for
accreditation. Unlike paragraphs (b) and (c),
paragraph (e) makes no direct or indirect
reference to a ‘‘nationally recognized
accrediting agency.’’
Paragraph (e) does not, however, go far
enough to save Section 1427. It would not—
and probably could not—require any state or
local agency to test or license operators. It
would not—and probably could not—provide
any positive incentives for any such agency
to perform those tasks. It would not—and
probably could not—even reimburse any
government agency that volunteered to
perform those tasks.
Many state and local budgets are already
tight, and neither OSHA nor other members
of C–DAC have given AGC any reason to
expect that any significant number of state or
local agencies would be likely to step
forward. AGC believes that some would do
so but doubts that the number would be high
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
enough, or their distribution broad enough,
to meet what would be a truly nationwide
demand for the testing and certification of
crane and derrick operators. A government
license issued under paragraph (e) would
satisfy section 1427 ‘‘only within the
jurisdiction’’ of the agency that issued it, and
at best, AGC would expect an irrational
patchwork of options for crane and derrick
operators and their employers across the
country.
Operator Training
AGC also believes that Section 1427 would
put employers that provided hands-on
training for crane or derrick operators at great
and ultimately uncontrollable risk of liability
for any accidents that their trainees or
apprentices might cause, and could become
a legal deterrent to such training. The
relevant paragraph of the proposed standard
is paragraph (f), entitled ‘‘Pre-qualification/
certification training period.’’ In
subparagraph (f)(2)(i), that provision states
that a trainee or apprentice ‘‘shall be
provided with sufficient training prior to
operating the equipment to enable the trainee
to operate the equipment safely* * *’’ In
subparagraph (f)(2)(ii), that provision adds
that ‘‘[t]he tasks performed by the trainee/
apprentice while operating the equipment
shall be within the trainee’s ability.’’ In
subparagraph (f)(2)(iv)(C), that provision
further provides that ‘‘[t]he specific tasks that
the trainee/apprentice will perform during
[any fifteen minute] break’’ that his or her
supervisor may take ‘‘are within the trainee/
apprentice’s abilities.’’
If these were merely statements of
principle, AGC would wholeheartedly
support them. AGC completely agrees that
trainees and apprentices should have any
prior training that they require to operate the
equipment safely. AGC completely agrees
that all tasks that a trainee or apprentice
actually performs—at any time—should be
within his or her ability.
The problem is that these would be legal
requirements, and not merely goals to which
contractors should aspire. As written, they
would render contractors legally liable not
for failing to make every reasonable effort—
or even every conceivable effort—to provide
such prior training, or to limit the tasks that
a trainee or apprentice actually performed. In
substance and effect, paragraph (f) would
render contractors strictly liable for outcomes
that contractors could not guarantee. If a
trainee or apprentice caused an accident, it
would necessarily follow that the individual
did not have prior training ‘‘sufficient’’ to
operate the equipment safely. It would also
follow that the trainee or apprentice had
actually performed a task not ‘‘within’’ his or
her ‘‘ability.’’
Neither construction workers nor their
supervisors are any less human than anyone
else. No one can guarantee that others will
not make mistakes, or that they will always
follow instructions. Nor is an individual’s
prior training, or his or her current abilities,
something that one can measure with great
precision. Of course, all construction
contractors should make a very strong effort
to prevent accidents. The human toll of any
accident involving a crane or derrick can
easily exceed anything that anyone would
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59821
ever want to bear. Holding employers strictly
liable for any accident that a trainee or
apprentice may cause would, however,
punish the good as well as the bad actors,
and in the end, AGC fears that it would
discourage useful training and hinder the
effort to protect construction workers. One
could well expect employers to provide no
more than the minimum training necessary to
satisfy the proposed standard, and whenever
feasible, to engage third parties to perform
that function.
Significant Omissions From the Proposed
Standard
AGC also encourages OSHA to reconsider
the broader question that Section 1427 raises.
At the heart of that provision lies the
assumption that elaborate procedures for
testing and certifying crane and derrick
operators would have benefits commensurate
with their cost. The proposed requirements
for such testing and certification are above
and beyond the broader training
requirements that C–DAC embedded—with
AGC’s concurrence—in Section 1430. In
many other instances, OSHA requires
employers to train their employees, and even
to ensure that the individuals employed to
perform certain functions are ‘‘competent
persons.’’ In these other instances, OSHA has
not, however, found it necessary to go so far
as to require sophisticated testing and formal
certification.
Paragraph (k) of Section 1427 contemplates
a four-year ‘‘phase-in’’ for the testing and
certification procedures, and indeed, for that
substantial phase-in period, even the authors
of Section 1427 considered it sufficient to
require operators ‘‘to be competent,’’ to ‘‘be
provided the necessary training,’’ and to be
‘‘evaluated to confirm that he/she
understands the information provided in the
training.’’ Under these circumstances, AGC
would consider it more than fair to request
that OSHA take a hard look at the actual
costs and benefits of ever going beyond
paragraph (k)—to the point of requiring
testing and certification by third parties
beyond the federal government’s supervision
or direct control. (Endnote 4).
AGC would simply add that the costs of
the proposed testing and certification could
be social as well as financial. The
construction workforce is not entire Englishspeaking. AGC is also concerned that Section
1427 could have the unintended but clearly
detrimental effect of limiting employment
opportunities for competent crane operators
who do not speak English. AGC is unaware
of any organization that currently provides
nationally recognized testing for crane or
derrick operators in any language other than
English.
*
*
*
*
*
Conclusion
In closing, AGC would like to thank you
for the opportunity to serve on C–DAC. Crane
and derrick safety is extremely important to
AGC’s members, and the association greatly
appreciated the chance to participate in the
committee’s deliberations.
In the end, C–DAC succeeded in reaching
agreement on all but one of the provisions
included in the standard that the committee
proposed to OSHA. AGC could not support
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59822
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
that one provision because it is too
restrictive. AGC supported the proposed
requirements for the training of crane and
derrick operators, and AGC could even
support a carefully tailored and clear
requirement that construction contractors
employ ‘‘competent’’ operators for their
cranes and derricks. AGC is far less certain
that the benefits of mandating elaborate
procedures for the sophisticated testing and
formal certification of crane and derrick
operators would ever outweigh the great cost
of doing so.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
AGC supports OSHA’s effort to improve
crane and derrick safety, and believes that C–
DAC has greatly contributed to that effort, but
maintains that Section 1427 of the proposed
standard requires serious reconsideration.
Sincerely,
/S/
Brian H. Murphy, P.E., C.S.P. AGC C–DAC
Representative.
Endnote 1: On that one section, the
National Association of Home Builders also
parted company with the other members of
the committee.
Endnote 2: Presumably, the authors of this
provision intended to equate ‘‘licensing’’
with ‘‘qualification’’ or ‘‘certification.’’
Endnote 3: AGC has received reports that
some members of C–DAC were led to believe
that a military certification would be valid
for a construction contractor working for the
military on a military installation. The
wording of paragraph (d) is, however, clear
and makes no reference to military projects
or installations, or to the contractors
construction such projects at such locations.
By the express and unambiguous terms of
paragraph (d), a military certification is
‘‘[n]ot portable’’ and in paragraph (m) by
definition applies ‘‘only where the operator
is employed by (and operating the equipment
for) the employer that issued the
certification.’’
Nor is it clear that OSHA could justify such
awkwardly limited portability for military
certifications. If OSHA rewrote paragraph (d)
to provide for portability then whether a
construction contractor could use a military
certification to satisfy section 1427 would
depend entirely on (1) whether the project
owner is a branch of the military and (2)
whether the project is located on a military
installation. Those two factors would not,
however, have any obvious bearing on the
merits of the process that the military used
to certify crane or derrick operators, or the
knowledge or skills that such operators
actually possessed. AGC cannot readily
identify any rational basis for rendering a
military certification portable to a contractor
working for the military project on one of its
installations but not portable to even the
same contractor when working for a different
owner, or simply across the street.
In any event, paragraph (d) could not begin
to solve the larger problem. Even if it
provided for portability to construction
contractors working for the military on
military installations, paragraph (d) would
remain far too limited to provide an option
for the overwhelming majority of
construction contractors. The military and its
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
installations account for only a small fraction
of the contractors and projects that the new
standard would cover.
Endnote 4: AGC would also encourage
OSHA to compare paragraph (k) with other
standards that require construction
contractors to employ ‘‘competent persons’’
to perform certain functions. AGC believes
that many if not most of those other
provisions define the required competence
far more precisely. AGC presumes that
paragraph (k) refers to competence in dealing
with the various subjects listed in paragraph
(j) of section 1427, or perhaps paragraph (c)
of Section 1430, but paragraph (k) of section
1427 does not cross-reference either of those
other provisions or otherwise define the
required competence. Nor does it define the
‘‘required training.’’
[End of Murphy comments.]
OSHA notes that Mr. Murphy
indicated in his letter that proposed
§ 1926.1427 would apply to derricks.
However, under paragraph (q) of
proposed §§ 1926.1436 Derricks,
§ 1926.1427 would not apply to
derricks. This is explained in more
detail below in the discussion on
proposed § 1926.1436.
Operator qualification/certification
was the only section of the C–DAC
document for which there were
dissenting committee members (as
noted above, two members dissented:
Mr. Murphy and Mr. Steele). In his
letter, Mr. Murphy addressed a number
of issues associated with this subject,
such as questioning the need for, and
practicality of, limiting an employer’s
operator qualification/certification
options to those that require the
involvement of independent third
parties. There was considerable
discussion by C–DAC on this subject
and its many associated issues,
including the degree of portability of a
qualification/certification. The Agency
requests public comment on these
issues.
Physical Qualifications and Substance
Abuse Testing
Physical Qualifications
Section 5–3.1 of ANSI B30.5–1968
contains criteria for operator vision and
hearing, disqualification for a ‘‘history
of epilepsy’’ or a ‘‘disabling heart
condition,’’ and a general statement that
‘‘when he is physically or mentally
unfit, an operator shall not engage in the
operation of his equipment.’’ Subpart N
at § 1926.550(b)(2) states that ‘‘all
crawler, truck, or locomotive cranes in
use shall meet the applicable
requirements for design, inspection,
construction, testing, maintenance and
operation as prescribed in the ANSI
B30.5–1968 * * *.’’
In a May 8, 1981 letter of
interpretation to Mr. A. Bennett Hill Jr.
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(OSHA–2007–0066–0016), OSHA stated
that:
It is the interpretation of OSHA that the
physical qualifications requirements
incorporated by reference in 29 CFR
1926.550 do not apply to operators of
equipment covered by those standards.
In other words, OSHA interpreted the
incorporation by reference in
§ 1926.550(b)(2) for ‘‘operation’’ as
referring to how the crane was to be
operated, not to who was operating it.
The Agency therefore has taken the
position that the incorporation by
reference excludes the physical criteria
listed above.
C–DAC considered whether to
include in this proposed standard
provisions that would require
equipment operators to meet particular
physical qualifications. After
considering various possible
approaches, including those in current
industry consensus standards, the
Committee decided that it would be
very difficult, and likely unnecessary, to
identify minimum physical
requirements that would be appropriate.
First, the physical demands of
equipment vary significantly depending
on the type and, in some cases, age of
the equipment. For example, some
equipment is operated largely by
electronic controls. In contrast, older
‘‘friction cranes’’ have pedal controls
that can require significant strength and
stamina to operate. Some equipment is
air conditioned whereas other
equipment is not. A requirement
regarding physical qualifications would
have to account for these types of
differences.
Second, establishing physical
qualifications that would appropriately
account for the effect of medical
conditions would be a complex
undertaking. The Committee ultimately
determined that, in light of its members’
experience that accidents caused by
problems associated with the operator’s
physical/medical condition are rare, the
issue of physical qualifications did not
need to be addressed by this standard.
Substance Abuse Testing
The Committee also considered
whether to include mandatory
substance abuse testing for equipment
operators and others, such as signal
persons, whose jobs affect safety. OSHA
informed the Committee that the case
law requires that any substance abuse
testing requirements included in the
proposal would have to meet
constitutional safeguards.70 Because the
70 See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n,
109 S. Ct. 1402 (1989) and International
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) already has substance abuse
requirements and designed them to
meet these safeguards, C–DAC
considered whether to incorporate DOT
regulations on controlled substance
testing, Title 49 CFR part 382 and Title
49 CFR part 40, into the proposed rule.
The DOT regulations govern
commercial drivers and are designed to
protect public highway safety. Under
these requirements an employer is
required to establish a program for
substance abuse testing. This program
must include an employer’s policy
statement, supervisory education and
training, controlled substances and
(optional) alcohol testing program,
evaluation of driver, and recording
keeping. Under the DOT requirements
the controlled substances and alcohol
testing program must include six
different types of testing, which include:
Pre-employment, reasonable suspicion,
post-accident, random, return to duty
and follow up testing.
After researching the DOT regulations
and several discussions with DOT
representatives, OSHA presented
information to C–DAC on the
procedural and substantive aspects of
the DOT regulations, including the
administrative requirements, the types
of testing by employers, and optional
alcohol testing. Committee members
discussed implementation and
enforcement concerns such as an
employer’s inability to ‘‘stand down’’ a
crane operator based on an unconfirmed
test result, until a positive result is
verified by a medical review officer. The
parallel DOT requirement prohibits an
employer from:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
temporarily removing an employee from the
performance of a safety-sensitive function
based only on a report from a laboratory to
the MRO (medical review officer) of a
confirmed positive test for a drug or drug
metabolite, an adulterated test, or a
substituted test, before the MRO has
completed verification of the test result.
Committee members were concerned
that including a substance testing
provision in this standard would restrict
an employer’s ability to suspend an
operator who tested positive pending
confirmation of the result. Committee
members believed that many employers
already have voluntarily instituted
substance abuse testing programs. They
believed that employers are able to
judge whether an operator who tested
positive presents a risk to workers on
the site and should be able to remove an
operator immediately if, in the
Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Department of
Transportation, 932 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1991).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
employer’s judgment, the operator
presents such a risk.
In short, the Committee balanced the
potential benefits from a requirement for
substance abuse testing that would have
more restrictive procedures against the
fact that many employers already have
their own programs in place that, in C–
DAC’s view, may be more protective
than what could be enacted as an OSHA
requirement. C–DAC concluded that it
would be better not to include a
substance abuse requirement.
Section 1428 Signal Person
Qualifications
As discussed under § 1926.1419,
Signals—general requirements, the
safety of equipment operations depends
in many situations on signals given to
the operator. It is critical that the
operator understand the signals given,
and the signal person must therefore be
able to give clear, accurate and
appropriate signals that unambiguously
convey the needed information to the
operator. The Committee was concerned
that some signal persons are not able to
recognize the hazards involved with
certain crane operations, do not, in
some cases, understand what it is that
the crane needs to do to accomplish the
task, and do not know how to give the
appropriate signals. This poses hazards,
such as struck-by and crushed-by
hazards, due to either
miscommunication or the
communication of instructions that are
inappropriate.
An example of the type of accident
that can be caused by
miscommunication from not knowing
the appropriate signals is as follows:
The signal person intends to indicate to
the operator to hoist up, since the load
needs to be raised straight up. However,
the signal person uses the standard
signal for booming up in the mistaken
belief that this signal is for hoisting up.
A struck-by or crushed-by incident
could result because, when booming up,
the load will move laterally as well as
vertically.
A failure to understand what it is that
the crane needs to do to accomplish a
task can also lead to struck-by or
crushed-by incidents. For example, as a
crane booms down, boom deflection
tends to increase, which has the effect
of lowering the load more than if there
were no boom deflection. If the signal
person is unfamiliar with this boom
characteristic, he or she may fail to
signal in time for the load to stop at the
correct point or may cause the load to
descend too quickly.
The Committee concluded that to
prevent such accidents it is necessary to
establish qualification criteria that
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59823
would have to be met in order for an
individual to serve as a signal person
(that criteria is set out in proposed
§ 1926.1428(c), discussed below). The
employer would have the option of
using one of two methods for ensuring
that these criteria were met. Under
Option (1) (proposed § 1926.1428(a)(1)),
the signal person would have
documentation from a third party
qualified evaluator showing that the
evaluator had determined that the signal
person meets the requirements of
§ 1926.1428(c).
This qualification would be portable,
that is, any employer could rely on such
documentation to show that a signal
person meets the criteria. C–DAC
believed that such portability would be
appropriate because of the
independence and expertise of the third
party evaluator.
Under Option (2) (proposed
§ 1926.1428(a)(2)), an employer’s own
qualified evaluator would have
determined that a signal person meets
the qualification requirements. Since
such a determination would not be done
by an independent entity, other
employers would not have a basis to
assume that the assessment had been
done correctly. Therefore, a
qualification under this option would
not be portable; other employers would
not be permitted to rely upon it to show
that the signal person meets these
requirements.
The term ‘‘qualified evaluator’’ used
in proposed § 1926.1428(a)(2) is defined
in proposed § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a person
employed by the signal person’s
employer who has demonstrated that
he/she is competent in accurately
assessing whether individuals meet the
Qualification Requirements in this
Subpart for a signal person.’’ In
reviewing the C–DAC document, the
Agency realized that the Committee had
not provided a definition for the term
‘‘third party qualified evaluator,’’ which
is used in proposed § 1926.1428(a)(1).
OSHA has therefore added the following
definition for this term:
An entity that, due to its independence and
expertise, has demonstrated that it is
competent in accurately assessing whether
individuals meet the Qualification
Requirements in this Subpart for a signal
person.
The Agency requests public comment
on whether this is an appropriate
definition for this term.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(3), the
documentation for whichever Option is
used (that is, Option (1) or (2)) of this
section, would have to be available
while the signal person is employed by
the employer. With respect to an
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59824
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
employer using Option (1) of this
section, the signal person’s
documentation from the third party
qualified evaluator would have to be
available. The Committee believed that
this documentation is essential for this
to be a viable and effective Option.
Under this option the employer would
be permitted to rely on someone else’s
assessment of the signal person rather
than its own. In such a circumstance
such documentation is essential for this
to be a reliable means of assuring the
signal person has the requisite ability.
In reviewing these provisions, the
Agency noted that C–DAC used the term
‘‘available,’’ rather than ‘‘available at the
site.’’ It is OSHA’s understanding that
C–DAC’s intent was that the
documentation be available at the site
by, for example, the documentation
being physically present at the site or
through use of an on-site computer. For
clarity, OSHA is planning on changing
the term ‘‘available’’ to ‘‘available at the
site.’’ OSHA requests public comment
on this issue.
In addition, in reviewing the C–DAC
draft of Option (2) of this section, the
Agency noted that it does not explicitly
state that documentation of the signal
person’s qualification by this method is
required. However, proposed
§ 1926.1428(a)(3) states that ‘‘the
documentation for whichever Option is
used shall be available * * *.’’ It is not
clear to the Agency if C–DAC intended
to require documentation under Option
(2) as it did for Option (1), or if it only
intended that any documentation the
employer chose to create under Option
(2) would have to be made available.
One reason to require documentation
under Option (2) is the Committee’s
concern that, at present, the operator’s
employer has no ready means of
determining if the signal person (who is
typically a different employer’s
employee) has the necessary knowledge
and skill for signaling until after
hoisting operations have begun. In other
words, a problem with the signal
person’s ability may not become evident
to the operator until a hazardous
situation has already arisen. Requiring
documentation, which would have to be
available at the site, would enable that
determination be made before hoisting
operations begin.
Requiring documentation under
Option (2) of this section would address
C–DAC’s concern. Therefore, the
Agency has expanded the first sentence
of the C–DAC version of proposed
§ 1926.1428(a)(2) to clarify that
documentation would be required under
Option (2). The proposed paragraph
now reads, with the added language
highlighted:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
(2) Option (2)—Employer’s qualified
evaluator. The employer has its qualified
evaluator assess the individual and
determine that the individual meets the
Qualification requirements (see
§ 1926.1428(c)) and provides documentation
of that determination. An assessment by an
employer’s qualified evaluator under this
Option is not portable—other employers are
not permitted to use it to meet the
requirements of this section.
The Agency requests public comment
on whether this revision is appropriate.
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses
circumstances in which a signal person
who had been qualified under
§ 1926.1428(a) subsequently acts in a
manner that indicates that he or she
may not meet the qualification
requirements. Such an indication would
result, for example, where the use of
Standard Method signals have been
agreed to but the signal person does not
give a Standard Method signal. Another
example would be where the signal
person gives inappropriate signals (such
as indicating to the operator to boom up
when the action that is needed is to
hoist up).
In such circumstances the employer
would be prohibited from allowing the
individual to continue working as a
signal person until he or she is retrained and has been requalified in
accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1428(a).
Proposed paragraph (c) sets forth the
qualification requirements for signal
persons. Proposed paragraph (c)(1)
would require that the signal person
know and understand whatever signal
method will be used for that particular
job site.
In addition, if hand signals are used,
the signal person must know and
understand the Standard Method for
hand signals. Hand signals are widely
used in this industry. As discussed
above with respect to proposed
§ 1926.1419(c), C–DAC believed that
accidents due to miscommunication
could be reduced if there were more
widespread use of standardized hand
signals. C–DAC concluded that this
provision would promote greater use of
standardized hand signals through the
use of the Standard Method.71
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would help
prevent miscommunication between the
signal person and the crane operator by
requiring the signal person to be
competent in the application of
whatever signals are used.
71 As discussed above with respect to proposed
1926.1419(c), there are circumstances when it
would be permissible to use hand signals other than
the Standard Method signals. Also, under proposed
§ 1926.1419, signals other than hand signals could
be used.
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would
require the signal person to have a basic
understanding of crane operation and
limitations, including crane dynamics
involved in swinging and stopping
loads and boom deflection from hoisting
loads. As explained above in the
beginning of this discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1428, it is critical that a signal
person understand how the crane and
load will move in response to the
various signals he or she gives so that
the signal person will give the most
appropriate signals and reduce the
occurrence of struck-by, crushed-by and
other hazards.
Proposed paragraph (c)(4) specifies
that signal persons must know and
understand the relevant requirements in
proposed §§ 1926.1419–1926.1422,
which address the types of signals that
may be used and the circumstances
surrounding their use, and the
requirements of proposed § 1926.1428.
C–DAC included the phrase ‘‘relevant
requirements’’ to make clear that a
signal person’s qualification could be
limited with regards to the use of a
particular type of signal and associated
information.
For example: A crane operation is going to
use Standard Method hand signals. The
signal person knows and understands all
aspects of proposed § 1926.1419 that are
relevant when using hand signals, as well as
§ 1926.1422, Signals—hand signal chart. In
addition, the signal person meets the
proposed requirements in proposed
§ 1926.1428(c)(1) and (2) with respect to the
use of Standard Method hand signals. The
signal person also has the knowledge
necessary to meet the provision in proposed
§ 1926.1428(c)(3), and demonstrates through
a verbal or written test, and through a
practical test, that he/she has this knowledge
and capabilities. However, the signal person
is unfamiliar with the contents of proposed
§ 1926.1420, Signals—radio, telephone or
other electronic transmission of signals, or of
proposed § 1926.1421, Signals—voice
signals—additional requirements.
In this example, it would be appropriate
for the signal person to be qualified under
either Option (1) or Option (2) (see proposed
1926.1428(a)) so long as that qualification
was limited to signaling with Standard
Method hand signals. Since the signal person
would be qualified only for Standard Method
signaling, there would be no need for that
person to have the knowledge or capabilities
associated with other types of signaling. In
such a situation employers, though, would be
precluded from using such a person if other
types of signals were to be used.
Proposed paragraph (c)(5) would
require that the signal person pass
knowledge and practical tests to
demonstrate that he or she meets the
qualification requirements. It would
allow the knowledge test to be either
verbal or written. Reading or writing is
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
not normally necessary when working
as a signal person. Therefore, C–DAC
believed that administering the
knowledge test verbally, without a
separate demonstration of literacy,
should be permitted.
Section 1429 Qualifications of
Maintenance and Repair Workers
This proposed section addresses the
qualifications that the workers who
maintain and repair cranes/derricks
must possess. Subpart N of this part
currently contains no provisions
concerning the qualifications of
maintenance and repair workers.
The Committee had two basic
concerns regarding maintenance and
repair work. First, it was aware of
accidents that had occurred when the
equipment that was being maintained or
repaired was operated improperly. For
example, a maintenance worker who
booms down a mobile hydraulic crane
to one side without following the
manufacturer’s instructions for
deploying outriggers may overturn the
equipment. C–DAC believed that
placing restrictions on equipment
operations during such work would
help prevent such accidents.
Second, the Committee sought to
avoid hazards that can result from
maintenance and repair work that is
done improperly by ensuring that
maintenance and repair workers are
sufficiently qualified to perform their
work. For example, if a load-bearing
component is removed for maintenance
or repair and re-installed incorrectly,
unintended movement of the load or
even a collapse could occur during
operations.
Paragraph 1429(a)
The Committee was aware that
maintenance and repair workers
sometimes need to operate equipment in
order to perform maintenance, inspect
or verify the performance of the
equipment. This work typically involves
operating the equipment to get access to
components, diagnose problems and
check repairs.
C–DAC did not believe it necessary
for maintenance, inspection and repair
personnel to meet the requirements in
proposed § 1926.1427, Operator
qualification and certification, when
operating equipment for such purposes.
The operations involved for these
purposes are almost always done
without a load on the hook. The only
instance when there is a load on the
hook is if the equipment is load tested.
However, even when load testing, the
operation is very limited, since the load
is not moved about as it would be
during crane operations.
While such limited operation does
not, in C–DAC’s view, necessitate the
maintenance, inspection or repair
personnel to meet the proposed
§ 1926.1427 requirements, a failure to
operate the equipment properly even in
these limited circumstances can result
in accidents from, for example,
unintended movement or tip-over.
Therefore, this proposed paragraph
would permit maintenance and repair
workers to operate equipment during
their work only under specific
restrictions designed to ensure safety.
Specifically, under proposed
paragraph (a)(1), maintenance and
repair workers would be permitted to
operate the equipment only to the extent
necessary to perform maintenance,
inspect or verify the performance of the
equipment. Under this provision,
maintenance and repair workers would
not be permitted to operate the
equipment during regular operations.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would
require the maintenance and repair
worker who operates equipment to
either (i) do so under the direct
supervision of an operator who meets
the requirements of § 1926.1427,
Operator qualification and certification,
or (ii) be familiar with the operation,
safe limitations, characteristics and
59825
hazards associated with the type of
equipment involved.
Paragraph 1429(b)
Proposed paragraph (b) provides that
maintenance and repair personnel must
meet the definition of a qualified person
with respect to the equipment and
maintenance/repair tasks they perform.
Proposed § 1926.1401 defines ‘‘qualified
person’’ as ‘‘a person who, by
possession of a recognized degree,
certificate, or professional standing, or
who by extensive knowledge, training,
and experience, successfully
demonstrated the ability to solve/
resolve problems relating to the work,
the subject matter, or the project.’’ In
light of the safety hazards that could
result from maintenance and repairs
that are performed improperly, C–DAC
believed that it was necessary for
maintenance and repair workers to meet
the ‘‘qualified person’’ criteria.
The Committee believed that many
current maintenance and repair workers
have received comprehensive, in-depth,
on-the-job training from highly
experienced supervisors and/or coworkers and have become highly
experienced themselves. Because of
such extensive training, long experience
and high level of knowledge, the term
‘‘qualified persons’’ under this
provision would include such workers
under the prong for ‘‘extensive
knowledge, training, and experience.’’
1430 Training
This proposed section both references
training criteria that would be required
by other sections of this subpart and sets
forth training criteria and requirements
not otherwise included in the proposed
standard. Additionally, paragraph
§ 1926.1430(g) of this section would
require employers to evaluate
employees’ understanding of the
training. The following chart
summarizes the location of the training
requirements in this proposed rule:
Paragraph
Training requirement
§ 1926.1408(g) ....................
Power line safety: The operator and crew assigned to work with the equipment, including spotters, must be trained
in specified topics relevant to power line safety.
Swing radius hazards: Employees assigned to work on or near the equipment must be trained to recognize struckby and pinch/crush hazard areas of rotating superstructures. Also, where the employer protects against swing
radius hazards by using warning signs and high visibility markings, the employer must train employees to understand what the markings signify.
Swing radius hazards (floating cranes): Where the employer protects against swing radius hazards on floating
cranes by using warning signs and high visibility markings, the employer must train employees to understand
what the markings signify.
Crush/pinch points: Employees who work with equipment must be instructed to keep clear of holes, crush/pinch
points, and the hazards addressed in § 1926.1424.
Tag-out: Operators and other employees authorized to start/energize equipment or operate equipment controls
(such as maintenance and repair workers), shall be trained in the tag-out procedures in § 1926.1417(f).
Competent and Qualified Persons: Competent persons and qualified persons must be trained in the requirements
of this subpart applicable to their respective roles.
§ 1926.1424(a)(2) ...............
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
§ 1926.1437(c)(2)(ii) ...........
§ 1926.1430(e) ....................
§ 1926.1430(f) .....................
§ 1926.1430(d) ....................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59826
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Paragraph
Training requirement
§ 1926.1430(g)(2) ...............
Refresher training (general): Refresher training in relevant topics shall be provided when the employee’s conduct
or an evaluation of the employee’s knowledge indicates that retraining is necessary.
Signal person training: Employees who will be assigned to work as signal persons who do not meet the requirements of § 1926.1428(c) shall be trained in the areas addressed in that paragraph.
Signal person re-training: A signal person whose actions indicate that he or she does not meet the qualification requirements of § 1926.1428 must be retrained before being allowed to continue to work as a signal person.
Operator trainee/apprentice: Before a trainee/apprentice is assigned to operate equipment, the employee must be
provided with sufficient training for operating the equipment safely under the limitations established under
§ 1926.1427.
Operator training during phase-in period: An employee assigned to operate the equipment during the phase-in period of § 1926.1427 who does not have the knowledge or ability to operate the equipment safely must be provided with necessary training prior to operating the equipment.
Operator training for qualification or certification: Operators who have not yet been qualified or certified under
§ 1926.1427 must be trained in the areas addressed in § 1926.1427(j). An operator who does not pass a qualification or certification test must be retrained as necessary.
Operator training—boom hoist brake test: Operators must be trained to determine if the boom hoist brake needs to
be adjusted or repaired by first raising the boom a short distance and testing the brake.
Operator training—emergency procedures (halting unintended movement): Where a manufacturer’s emergency
procedures for halting unintended equipment movement are available, operators must be trained in those procedures.
Operator training (2,000 pound maximum rated capacity): Operators of equipment with a rated hoisting-lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or less must be trained in the safe operation of the equipment the operator is using.
§ 1926.1430(b) ....................
§ 1926.1428(b) ....................
§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(i) .............
§ 1926.1427(k) ....................
§ 1926.1430(c)(1) ...............
§ 1926.1430(c)(2)(i) ............
§ 1926.1430(c)(2)(ii) ...........
§ 1926.1441(e) ....................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
The Committee believed that both
training and testing of certain
employees are critical to the safety of
equipment use on construction sites.72
With respect to training, the Committee
concluded that there is a need to
improve upon the current general
requirement for construction industry
training established by § 1926.21, Safety
training and education, which requires
the employer to (1) ‘‘establish and
supervise programs for the education
and training of employers and
employees in the recognition, avoidance
and prevention of unsafe conditions in
employments covered by the [OSH]
Act,’’ § 1926.21(a), and (2) ‘‘instruct
each employee in the recognition and
avoidance of unsafe conditions and the
regulations applicable to his work
environment to control or eliminate any
hazards or other exposure to illness or
injury,’’ § 1926.21(b).
C–DAC found that more specific
provisions were needed to ensure that
employees are able to work safely with
and around cranes. First, greater
specificity would highlight the
particular tasks (and the hazards
associated with them) for which certain
types of training are necessary. Second,
training tailored to the specific hazards
faced by particular employees would be
an efficient and effective means of
preventing injury.
72 With respect to operator testing, as discussed
in connection with § 1926.1427, Operator
qualification and certification, this proposed
standard places special emphasis on ensuring that
equipment operators have acquired the knowledge
and skills necessary to operate their equipment
safely. This proposed standard also includes
specific assessment requirements for signal persons
(see proposed § 1926.1428(a)).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Proposed paragraph (a), Overhead
powerlines, states that employees must
be trained as outlined at proposed
§ 1926.1408(g) (see the explanation of
hazards and training requirements in
the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1408(g)).
Under proposed paragraph (b), Signal
persons, employees who will be
assigned to work as signal persons who
need training in order to meet the
requirements of § 1926.1428(c) must be
trained in the areas addressed in that
paragraph. As discussed in relation to
proposed § 1926.1428(c), each employee
who will serve as a signal person must
pass a verbal or written test and a
practical test demonstrating the required
knowledge and skills. Any such
employee who does not pass those tests
must receive additional training in the
areas of deficiency.
Proposed paragraph (c), Operators,
provides, at proposed paragraph (c)(1),
that an equipment operator who is
neither qualified nor certified under
§ 1926.1427, Operator qualification and
certification, would be required to be
trained in the areas addressed in
§ 1926.1427(j).
This proposed paragraph applies to
operators who will need to be qualified
or certified under § 1926.1427 but who
are not yet qualified or certified or who
have lost their qualification or
certification. Operators in this category
would include those who, during the
four-year phase-in period of
§ 1926.1427, would not yet be required
to be qualified or certified. Also in this
category would be employees who the
employer has decided will be assigned
to work as operators and will need to be
qualified or certified under § 1926.1427,
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
as well as operators who need such
training in order to become re-qualified
or re-certified, or who failed to pass a
qualification or certification test.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would
require operators to be trained in two
practices. Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would
require training in the testing of the
boom hoist brake on friction equipment
prior to moving a boom off a support to
determine whether the brake requires
adjustment or repair. The purpose of
this procedure is to ensure that the
brake is sufficient before the boom is at
too great an angle or height. Using this
procedure, if the brake is deficient, the
boom will fall only a very short
distance. This provides an additional
safety practice related to the hazards
resulting from an uncontrolled boom.
Moving the boom when the brake is not
working properly can result in
uncontrolled lowering of the boom,
which can endanger workers in the
proximity of the hoisting equipment.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would
require the operator to be trained in the
manufacturer’s emergency procedures,
when available, for stopping unintended
equipment movement. This provides
another level of protection to minimize
employee injury resulting from
unintended equipment movement. The
Committee recognized that
manufacturer’s emergency procedures
for halting unintended equipment
movement may not always be available
and therefore this training would be
required only when the procedures are
available.
The C–DAC version of
§ 1926.1430(c)(2) began: ‘‘In addition to
training in the areas addressed in
§ 1926.1427(j), operators shall be trained
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
in the following practices.’’ This
wording implied that all operators must
be trained in the topics listed in
§ 1926.1427(j). However, § 1926.1427(j)
is not a training requirement but sets
forth criteria that must be addressed in
a qualification or certification test.
Operators who are sufficiently
knowledgeable in these topics through
prior training and/or experience need
not receive additional training under
this proposed standard. To avoid any
confusion in this regard, OSHA has
changed C–DAC’s wording to read, in
proposed § 1926.1430(c)(2): ‘‘Operators
shall be trained in the following
practices.’’
The SBREFA Panel recommended
that OSHA seek public comment on
several issues related to operator
training. Several Small Entity
Representatives (SERs) believed that the
training requirements in the proposed
standard are too broad and should
instead be keyed to the particular
operations the operator performs and
the particular equipment he/she
operates. The SBREFA Panel also
recommended that OSHA consider and
ask for public comment on whether a
more limited operator training program
would be appropriate for operations
based on the capacity and type of
equipment and nature of operations.
The Panel noted that proposed
§ 1926.1427(j)(1)(i) requires operator
training in ‘‘the information necessary
for safe operation of the specific type of
equipment the individual will operate’’
and understood this to address the
SERs’ concern that operators of smaller
capacity equipment used in less
complex operations should require less
training than those operators of higher
capacity, complex equipment used in
more complex situations. The Panel
recommended that OSHA seek public
comment on whether this point should
be made more clearly, and OSHA
welcomes such comment.
The Panel further recommended that
OSHA consider and ask for public
comment as to whether the supervisor
responsible for oversight for an operator
in the pre-qualification period described
at § 1926.1427(f) should have additional
training beyond that required at
§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B). The discussion
was focused on the issue of whether the
supervisor should be trained to be able
to take over the controls, if necessary,
while supervising the operator in the
pre-qualification period.
As the proposed rule is written, when
the supervisor is not a certified operator,
he/she must be certified on the written
portion of the test and be familiar with
the proper use of the equipment’s
controls; the supervisor is not required
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
to have passed a practical operating test.
In accordance with the Panel’s
recommendation, OSHA requests
comment on whether the supervisor
needs additional training in this regard
than the proposal would require.
Paragraph (d), Competent persons and
qualified persons, would require that
competent persons and qualified
persons be trained regarding the
requirements of this Subpart applicable
to their respective roles. See
§ 1926.1401, Definitions, for a
description of what is necessary to be a
competent person or a qualified person.
A person assigned by an employer to
be a ‘‘competent person’’ or ‘‘qualified
person’’ under this proposed rule must
already have had a certain level of
training (or, in the case of a competent
person, training or experience) in order
to meet the criteria applicable to such a
designation. This paragraph does not
address such training—it would not
require the employer to provide the
training needed for an employee to meet
those criteria in order to become a
competent or qualified person. The sole
purpose of this paragraph is to require
the employer to ensure that both
competent persons and qualified
persons are trained on the requirements
of this Subpart that are applicable to the
person’s role and responsibility. For
example, a ‘‘competent person’’
assigned to conduct shift inspections
under § 1926.1412(d) must be trained
under proposed § 1926.1430(d) in the
required elements of a shift inspection.
This training is necessary to ensure the
competent person or qualified person is
aware of his/her responsibility under
this subpart for finding/correcting
hazardous conditions.
Proposed paragraph (e), Crush/pinch
points, provides that employees who
work with equipment covered by this
Subpart must be instructed to stay clear
of holes, crush/pinch points and the
hazards that are addressed in
§ 1926.1424, Work area control. See the
discussion of hazards and requirements
in the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1424.
Proposed paragraph (f), Tag-out, states
that operators and other employees
authorized to start or energize
equipment or operate equipment
controls (such as maintenance and
repair workers) must be trained
according to the tag-out procedures in
§ 1926.1417(f). See the discussion of tagout procedures discussed in proposed
§ 1926.1417(f).
Proposed paragraph (g), Training
administration, would require that
employers ensure employees
understand required training and
provide refresher training when
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59827
necessary. Specifically, proposed
§ 1926.1430(g)(1) would require that the
employee be evaluated to verify that he/
she understands the information
provided in training required by this
Subpart. The Committee determined
that training without any follow-up
measure to determine understanding or
effectiveness would not achieve the goal
of a safe work environment.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) would
require the employer to provide
refresher training of an employee when,
based on evaluation or employee
conduct, it is indicated that retraining is
needed.
Section 1431 Hoisting Personnel
Cranes and derricks are designed to
move materials, not personnel.
However, situations arise when a crane
or derrick can be the safest means to
move employees to their work area and/
or to hold them in position while they
do their work.
Although there are situations when
using a crane or derrick to lift personnel
to work areas is the safest means of
accomplishing the task, there are
inherent dangers in such an operation
because of the heights, equipment and
environment involved. A number of
workers have been killed and seriously
injured while being lifted by a crane or
derrick when the equipment’s lifting
mechanism malfunctioned and they did
not have adequate fall protection. The
height to which the workers are lifted
means that any instability in their
supporting platform creates a serious
fall hazard. See 53 FR 29116, 29117–18
(Aug. 2, 1988) (discussing accidents that
occurred when cranes were used to lift
personnel). Because of that risk, in 1988
OSHA added regulations to subpart N of
this part to both limit the use of cranes
for lifting personnel and increase
employee protection when it is
necessary to use cranes for this purpose.
See 29 CFR 1926.550(g), Crane or
derrick suspended personnel platforms.
Because of the inherent hazards such
operations present, OSHA currently
permits cranes and derricks to be used
to lift personnel only ‘‘when the
erection, use, and dismantling of
conventional means of reaching the
worksite, such as a personnel hoist,
ladder, stairway, aerial lift, elevating
work platform or scaffold, would be
more hazardous, or is not possible
because of structural design or worksite
conditions.’’ 29 CFR 1926.550(g)(2).
When a crane or derrick is used to lift
personnel, a personnel platform that
complies with requirements in
§ 1926.550(g) must be used.
The Committee concluded that the
current subpart N standards governing
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59828
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
personnel hoisting by equipment have
resulted in a reduction of accidents and
determined that their fundamental
substance should be maintained in the
proposed standard. Accordingly, the
Committee proposal largely continues
the current requirements of subpart N,
§ 1926.550(g). Some changes have been
made to provide additional safety and to
eliminate ambiguity. Requirements
specific to certain activities, such as
personnel hoisting in pile-driving
operations, drill shafts, storage tanks
and marine transfer have been added.
The discussion below focuses on these
changes and additions.
One of the resources the Committee
consulted in developing this proposed
paragraph was ASME B30.23–1998,
‘‘Personnel Lifting Systems.’’ Since the
Committee finished its work, that
industry consensus standard was
superseded by ASME B30.23–2005.
OSHA has compared the two versions
and found no substantive differences in
the provisions that correspond to
paragraphs in this proposal. Where the
ASME standard is cited in this section,
the citations will refer to the 2005
version.
OSHA stresses that the proposed
provisions in this section would be
additional requirements that must be
met when equipment is used to lift
personnel. During such use, all other
applicable requirements of this
proposed standard would also be
required to be met.
Paragraph 1431(a)
This proposed paragraph states that
equipment may be used to hoist
personnel only when all other means of
reaching the work area would present a
greater hazard or would not be possible
because of the project’s structural design
or worksite conditions. The same
limitation is currently found in Subpart
N’s § 1926.550(g)(2). It reflects OSHA’s
longstanding recognition that using
cranes and derricks to lift personnel is
inherently hazardous and should only
be done when it is either the least
hazardous means or when, in light of
the configuration of the worksite, it is
the only means of performing required
work.
This proposed paragraph differs from
the current § 1926.550(g)(2) by
substituting the word ‘‘equipment’’ for
‘‘crane or derrick.’’ The terms ‘‘crane’’
and ‘‘derrick’’ do not represent the full
spectrum of equipment that would be
covered by this standard. See
§ 1926.1400, Scope for a description of
the equipment covered by this Subpart.
Additionally, this proposed paragraph
would not apply to work covered by 29
CFR part 1926 subpart R, Steel Erection.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Subpart R, at § 1926.753(c)(4), allows
the use of equipment to hoist personnel
in a platform that complies with
§ 1926.550 without the need for a
showing that other means of reaching
the work area would create a greater
hazard or are impossible. This provision
was included in Subpart R because steel
connectors must often work at high
locations before there is a solid structure
to stand on and where a personnel
platform suspended from a crane is the
safest place for them to work. OSHA’s
reasons for including this exception in
Subpart R are discussed in detail in the
preamble to the steel erection standard,
66 FR 5196, 5209 (Jan. 18, 2001).
Paragraph 1431(b)
Platform
Use of Personnel
This proposed paragraph would
generally require the use of a personnel
platform when hoisting employees and
require that criteria specified in
proposed § 1926.1431(e) be met for such
platforms. It also provides for
exceptions to the use of personnel
platforms that are not currently allowed
by § 1926.550(g)(2).
For reasons discussed above,
proposed § 1926.1431(b)(1) would
generally require that a personnel
platform be used when hoisting
employees and that the platform meet
the requirements of § 1926.1431(e) of
this proposed section. As discussed
below, the requirements of
§ 1926.1431(e) are comparable to
requirements currently found in
§ 1926.550(g).
Proposed paragraph (b)(2),
Exceptions, sets forth the construction
activities in which hoisting personnel
without using a personnel platform
would be allowed because, in the
Committee’s view, use of a personnel
platform might be infeasible or more
hazardous than an alternative means of
hoisting personnel. These activities are:
Hoisting employees into and out of drill
shafts 8 feet and smaller in diameter,
pile driving operations, marine
worksites, storage tanks (steel or
concrete), and shaft operations and
chimney operations. This proposed
section contains specific requirements
for hoisting personnel during these
operations at § 1926.1431(o), (p), (r), and
(s) that provide for alternatives to the
use of a personnel platform. For drill
shafts, pile driving operations, storage
tanks, and shaft and chimney
operations, which present access
restrictions, the alternative to a
personnel platform would be a
boatswain’s chair. For marine worksites,
it would be a marine hoisted personnel
transfer device, which is designed to
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
facilitate exit in the event it enters the
water.
For the purposes of this proposed
standard, a ‘‘marine worksite’’ is a
construction worksite that is located in,
on or above the water (see proposed
§ 1926.1401, Definitions). The
Committee determined it was necessary
to clearly define this term since marine
worksite conditions and hazards differ
significantly from non-marine
worksites. In particular, with respect to
equipment covered by this section, the
marine worksite presents unique
hazards for equipment stability and
environmental conditions affecting
operations.
Section 1926.1401 defines a ‘‘marine
hoisted personnel transfer device’’ as a
device, such as a ‘‘transfer net’’ used to
hoist an employee to or from a marine
worksite that is designed to protect the
employee during a marine transfer and
that allows for rapid entry/exit from the
device. Such devices do not include a
boatswain’s chair when hoisted by
equipment covered by this standard.
The Committee determined it was
necessary to clearly specify the type of
device that will or will not be
considered a marine hoisted personnel
transfer device for this standard, as
marine worksites involve unique
conditions and hazards with respect to
hoisting employees. The Committee
determined that it was necessary to
require a device designed for such
conditions while allowing flexibility so
the employer may select the most
appropriate device based on the site and
working conditions.
Each of the exceptions is discussed
below under the particular paragraph
that addresses it. Subpart N of this part
does not currently address these
worksite activities (nor does ASME
B30.23–2005 address these particular
topics).
Paragraph 1431(c) Equipment Set-Up
This paragraph sets forth the basic
criteria for equipment set-up for
personnel hoisting. The requirements
continue and refine those currently in
Subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(D).
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would
require the equipment to be on level,
firm and stable footing. It differs from
the current standard at
§ 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(D) in that a qualified
person must determine if the footing is
‘‘sufficiently firm and stable.’’ Stable
footing is essential to minimize the
hazard of the equipment tipping while
hoisting personnel. ASME B30.23–
3.2.2(a)(4)–2005 has a similar
requirement, with the operator of the
equipment determining equipment to be
level within one percent during set-up
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
and hoisting operations. The Committee
believed that the danger of equipment
potentially tipping when hoisting
personnel justifies the need for a
qualified person to examine and
approve the equipment’s stability. See
§ 1926.1401, Definitions for the criteria
for a qualified person.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) specifies
that each outrigger be both extended
and locked. The amount of extension
must be the same and also be in
accordance with the manufacturer’s
specifications. This is similar to the
current requirement of
§ 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(D); however, the
current requirement that outriggers be
‘‘fully deployed’’ has been changed to
require that outriggers be equally
extended and in accordance with
manufacturer’s procedures and load
charts. Equal extension eliminates the
hazard of the operator forgetting that
one or more outriggers has a shorter
extension and swinging into that area
with a load that exceeds the crane’s
capacity in that area. The Committee
determined that a requirement of full
extension of all outriggers would not be
appropriate for all worksite conditions.
Nor is it necessary, as long as partial
extension is within the manufacturer’s
procedures; the critical factor is to have
each outrigger extended equally,
whether it is a full or shorter extension.
Proper placement and deployment of
outriggers is essential to prevent the
hazard of equipment tipping while
hoisting personnel.
Paragraph 1431(d) Equipment Criteria
This paragraph sets forth
requirements for the equipment used to
hoist personnel. These requirements
refine and expand the equipment
requirements currently in Subpart N.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1): Capacity:
use of suspended personnel platform,
would continue the requirement at
§ 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(E) to limit the total
load to 50 per cent of the equipment’s
rated capacity. It would clarify the
current standard by specifying that the
total load includes the hook, load line,
and rigging. The 50 percent capacity
limit would not apply during equipment
proof testing.
The 50 percent limit reflects that
using this equipment to hoist personnel
requires additional safety precautions
than when lifting materials. The limit
provides for an extra margin of safety to
prevent overloading the equipment,
which could cause tip-over or structural
collapse.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2), Capacity:
use of boom-attached personnel
platforms, establishes the load limit at
50 percent of rated capacity for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
platforms that are attached to the boom.
It also provides an exception to the 50
percent capacity limit during equipment
proof testing. The same reasons for the
50 percent limit in § 1926.1431(d)(1)
also apply here.
The Committee considered
prohibiting the use of boom attached
personnel platforms for hoisting
personnel. However, the Committee
concluded that it was unaware of any
reason to prohibit their use. As
discussed above under § 1926.1400,
Scope, Committee members were
concerned that boom-attached platforms
may present additional hazards not
addressed in this proposed standard,
and OSHA is requesting comment on
whether additional requirements should
apply when using them.
In reviewing the C–DAC consensus
document, the Agency determined that
the Committee did not address the issue
of capacity when no personnel platform
is used. Since there are several
situations where no platform will be
used at all (these are listed in proposed
§ 1926.1431(b)(2) of this section), the
Agency believes that a capacity limit
similar to those set by the Committee
when using a personnel platform is
needed. Therefore, OSHA has added
proposed § 1926.1431(d)(3), Capacity:
hoisting personnel without a personnel
platform, which establishes the load
limit at 50 percent of rated capacity. In
calculating the load, the weight of the
personnel, including the hook, load
line, rigging and any other equipment
that imposes a load must be included.
The addition of this proposed paragraph
has resulted in the renumbering of the
remaining paragraphs in proposed
§ 1926.1431(d) (as compared to the
numbering in the C–DAC document).
Proposed paragraph (d)(4) would
require engaging all the equipment’s
locking or braking devices when the
platform has reached its stationary work
position. The purpose is to minimize
sudden and unintended movement or
tipping of the platform when employees
have reached the work area.
This differs from current provision
§ 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(C) in Subpart N in
that the proposed provision adds a
requirement to use operator actuated
secondary braking/locking features,
when available, in addition to other
braking systems. This is similar to
sections 1.2.2(f) and 3.2.2(a)(19) of
ASME B30.23–2005 for automatic brake
systems and setting of brakes before
work begins from the platform.
The subsections of proposed
paragraph (d)(5), Devices, would require
certain safety devices for equipment
addressed by this proposed section.
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59829
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(i) would
address the requirements for equipment
with a variable angle boom. Such
equipment would be required to be
equipped with both a boom angle
indicator and boom hoist limiting
device (except for derricks). Use of these
devices minimizes the potential for
hoisting personnel at an unsafe angle,
which could result in the platform or
equipment tipping.
A boom angle indicator is currently
required in § 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(A).
Proposed § 1926.1431(d)(4)(i) would
add a requirement for a boom hoist
limiting device. The Committee
believed that both a boom angle
indicator and a boom hoist limiting
device are necessary to prevent the
boom from being moved to unsafe
angles. A boom hoist limiting device
would be required when hoisting
personnel, even though it would not
otherwise be required for equipment
manufactured before December 17, 1969
under proposed § 1926.1416(d)(1) (see
discussion of proposed § 1926.1416(d)—
Operational aids). This reflects the need
for equipment used to hoist personnel to
have additional safety features.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(i) would
not apply to derricks. This is consistent
with C–DAC’s recommendation that
boom hoist limiting devices and boom
angle indicators not be required on
derricks. See proposed § 1926.1436(f),
which addresses operational aids for
derricks. As discussed below, the
Committee believed that these devices
were not needed on derricks because the
current practice in the industry of
marking the boom hoist cable of
derricks with visible caution and stop
marks corresponding to maximum and
minimum allowable boom angles is a
safe work practice. Accordingly,
paragraph § 1926.1436(f) permits
employers to use this practice.
Alternatively, it permits employers to
use an electronic or other device that
either signals the operator in time to
prevent the boom from moving past its
minimum and maximum angles or
automatically prevents such movement.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(ii) would
address the requirements for equipment,
including derricks, when a luffing jib is
used for personnel hoisting. This
paragraph would require all equipment
to have both a jib angle indicator and jib
hoist limiting device. Use of these
devices minimizes the likelihood of
platform tipping and equipment failure.
Neither the current Subpart N nor
ASME B30.23–2005 addresses the use of
luffing jibs for personnel hoisting. The
Committee believed that this proposed
requirement is needed to help improve
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59830
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the safety of crane and derrick
operations.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(iii) would
require a telescoping boom to either
have a device indicating the boom’s
extended length or measuring marks
that are clear and visible to the
equipment operator. This would allow
the operator to easily ascertain the
extension length in order to stay within
safe operating parameters. This
requirement would address the hazard
of equipment or platform tipping or
equipment failure that can result when
a telescoping boom is extended beyond
appropriate operating parameters.
Currently, § 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(B)
permits, as an alternative to equipping
the boom with a device to indicate the
boom’s extended length, an ‘‘accurate
determination’’ to be made of the load
radius to be used prior to hoisting
personnel. Proposed
§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(iii)’s provision for
measuring marks on the boom would
enable this determination to be made
accurately if the boom is not equipped
with a device indicating its extended
length.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(iv), Antitwo-block, would require a device that
automatically prevents contact between
a component on the hoist line (load
block, overhaul block, etc.) with the
boom tip, which can damage or sever
the load line or cause other forms of
equipment failure. This contact between
the hoist line component and the boom
tip is referred to as two-blocking. The
purpose of the anti-two-blocking device
is to prevent this condition, which can
result in a sudden drop of the personnel
platform. See the discussion of twoblocking in proposed § 1926.1416,
Operational aids.
Paragraph (d)(5)(iv) is similar to
current § 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(C) and adds
an exception for pile driving operations.
The proposed requirement would not
apply when hoisting personnel in pile
driving operations due to the fact the
vibration of the pile driving activity
makes use of an anti-two-block device
ineffective.
In reviewing this portion of the C–
DAC document, the Agency has noted
that the use of alternative measures for
preventing two-blocking during pile
driving operations would be required
under proposed § 1926.1431(p)(2).
However, the C–DAC language for
proposed provision
§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(iv) did not refer to the
requirement for alternative measures.
Therefore, OSHA has added a reference
to the exception in § 1926.1431(d)(5)(iv)
advising the reader that alternative
measures are required under
§ 1926.1431(p)(2).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(v),
Controlled load lowering, would require
a system or device on the load line hoist
drum that positively regulates the
lowering speed. It would require this
system to be used when hoisting
personnel, in addition to a load line
hoist brake. The purpose is to minimize
the likelihood of free fall of the
personnel that could lead to hitting the
ground from a sudden fast descent.
Additionally, the proposed paragraph
would note that free fall of the load line
hoist is prohibited and use of equipment
in which the boom hoist mechanism can
free fall is prohibited. Refer to proposed
§ 1926.1426, Free fall/controlled load
lowering, for additional information.
Currently, 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(D)
similarly requires a system or device
that positively regulates the lowering
speed. Proposed § 1926.1431(d)(5)(v)
would explicitly specify that the system
must be used when hoisting personnel.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(vi), Proper
operation required, specifies that
personnel hoisting would only occur
when and if all the devices required in
§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(i) through (v) are in
proper working order. It would also
mandate that if a required device stops
working while personnel are being
hoisted, all personnel hoisting
operations must be stopped and not
resumed until all devices are working
properly. Alternative measures would
not be allowed.
The purpose of this paragraph is to
clearly establish that personnel hoisting
may only be done when all necessary
safety devices are working properly. The
hazards addressed by this requirement
include: structural failure, equipment
tipping, dropping personnel, and
platform tipping. These are severe
hazards, so safeguards to prevent them
are clearly needed.
This paragraph does not have a
specific corollary in the current Subpart
N, although the Subpart N provisions
that require safety devices implies that
they be working properly. Sections
3.2.2(a)(23) and 1.2.2 of ASME B30.23–
2005 are comparable to this
requirement.
Proposed paragraph (d)(6) would
prohibit the use of a personnel platform
directly attached to a luffing jib. Thus,
only a suspended type of personnel
platform may be used on a luffing jib.
The Committee determined that it
would be dangerous to use a boomattached personnel platform if attached
to a luffing jib and that a complete
prohibition of use of a boom-attached
personnel platform to a luffing jib is
appropriate.
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Paragraph 1431(e)
Criteria
Personnel Platform
This proposed paragraph would
establish the minimum criteria for a
personnel platform. The criteria are
similar to those currently in 29 CFR part
1926 subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(4)(i) and
(ii). However, § 1926.1431(e)(2) would
add the requirement that the connection
system keep the platform within 10
degrees of level and § 1926.1431(e)(10)
would add a visibility requirement for
the overhead protective cover to the
personnel platform.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would
require that both the platform and its
attachment/suspension system be
designed by a qualified person who
understands structural design and be
designed for the particular function of
personnel hoisting. The purpose of this
paragraph is to clearly stipulate that the
platform must be designed for employee
safety. This would address the hazards
of structural failure of the platform,
failure of the attachment/suspension
system, and preclude the use of designs
that would be inappropriate for hoisting
people. This is similar to the current 29
CFR part 1926 subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(i)(A), which states that
either a ‘‘qualified engineer or a
qualified person competent in structural
design’’ shall design the platform, but
clarifies that even if the platform is
designed by a qualified engineer, that
engineer must understand structural
design. See § 1926.1401, Definitions, for
the definition of ‘‘qualified person.’’
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) would
require the system used to connect the
personnel platform to the equipment to
be within 10 degrees of level. This
would address the hazard of platform
tipping by maintaining the platform
close to level. This requirement is not
currently in subpart N.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would
require the platform designer to
consider the movement of employees on
the platform and design the suspension
system to minimize platform tipping
from such movement. The purpose is to
design the platform in such a way as to
limit the likelihood of platform tipping
while employees are working from the
platform. This continues the
requirement of subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(i)(B).
Proposed paragraph (e)(4) would
require the platform to support its own
weight plus a minimum of five times the
maximum intended load without
failure. This limit would provide an
adequate margin of safety for employee
protection from structural failure of the
platform. The guardrail system and
personal fall arrest system anchorages
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
would not be subject to this requirement
but instead would be subject to
proposed § 1926.1431(e)(6). This
continues a requirement in proposed
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(i)(C).
Proposed paragraph (e)(5) would
require that welding of any part of the
platform or its component parts be
performed by a welder who is certified
and familiar with the weld grades, types
and material specified in the particular
platform’s design. This requirement is
designed to prevent structural failure of
the platform due to improper welding.
‘‘Certified welder’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a welder that meets the
nationally recognized certification
requirements that are applicable to the
task being performed.’’ The requirement
for a ‘‘certified’’ welder modifies the
current requirement of Subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(H), which requires a
‘‘qualified’’ welder. It is similar to
section 1.2.1(b)(2) of ASME B30.23–
2005 welding standards for personnel
platforms. The Committee believed that
because proper platform welding is so
critical to employee safety, it is
necessary for the welding to be done by
a certified welder.
Proposed paragraph (e)(6) would
detail the requirements of the platform
for guardrails, fall arrest anchorage
points and enclosure of the platform
between the toeboard and mid-rail.
Proper guardrails and fall arrest
anchorage points are critical fall
protection devices, and the required
platform enclosure is needed to protect
employees below from falling objects.
Proposed paragraph (e)(6) adds to the
current requirements of 29 CFR part
1926 subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(A)
in specifying that ‘‘points to which
personal fall arrest systems are attached
must meet the anchorage requirements
in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart M.’’ This
is similar to the guardrail and anchorage
specifications in sections 1.1.1(b)(2) and
(3) of ASME B30.23–2005. This would
update the requirements for the
anchorage so that the same degree of
protection currently required under
Subpart M would be required under this
standard.
Proposed paragraph (e)(7) would
require the placement of a grab rail
within the entire perimeter of the
personnel platform except for access
gates/doors, where a grab rail would be
impractical. The grab rail provides a
place for the employee to hold onto
while in the platform instead of using a
guardrail as a hand hold. Use of the
guardrail for this purpose exposes the
employee’s hand to being smashed by
external objects. This would modify the
current requirement of Subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(B) by clarifying that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
grab rails are not required on the access
gates/door. It is similar to ASME
B30.23–1.1.1(b)(4)–2005.
Proposed paragraphs (e)(8)(i) and (ii),
Access gates/doors, would specify that
access gates/doors be designed to not
swing outward and must also have a
mechanism that will keep the gate/door
from being opened unintentionally. A
door that swings outward or opens
unexpectedly puts the employee at risk
of fall from the platform. This modifies
the current requirements of Subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(C) and (D) by
requiring that access doors not swing
outward at any time and expands the
list of types of gates/doors to include
‘‘swinging, sliding, folding, or other
types.’’ Section 1.1.1(b)(8) of ASME
B30.23–2005 has similar requirements
for access gates.
Proposed paragraph (e)(9) would
require adequate headroom to allow
employees to stand upright in the
personnel platform. This would provide
adequate space for the employee to
work from the platform while keeping
his/her entire body within the platform,
and would also contribute to greater
stability during platform movement.
This continues the current requirement
at § 1925.550(g)(4)(ii)(E).
Proposed paragraph (e)(10) would
require an overhead protective cover
attached to the platform when an
employee is exposed to falling objects.
It would mandate that the overhead
cover of the platform be of such material
and design to provide visibility for both
the operator and the employees on the
platform, while maintaining adequate
protection from falling objects. The
reference to a wire mesh with 1⁄2 inch
openings is an example of a type of
material and design that could be used
for the platform cover. The nature of the
worksite conditions and foreseeable
falling objects would determine the type
of material and design to provide the
necessary protection for the platform
occupants. Full overhead protection
(i.e., no visibility through the protective
cover) would be allowed when
conditions are such that a full protective
cover is necessary to protect employees
from falling objects. The visibility
requirement is similar to section
1.1.1(b)(11) of ASME B30.23–2005. This
proposed paragraph would change
current § 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(F) by
clarifying the type of overhead
protection that is required.
Proposed paragraph (e)(10) explicitly
states that the protection provided by
the cover would be supplemental to the
protection provided by hard hats—the
use of hard hats would not obviate the
requirement for the cover. While a hard
hat provides some protection to an
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59831
employee’s head from overhead
hazards, it does not protect the rest of
an employee’s body from such hazards.
Proposed paragraph (e)(11) would
require that all edges of the platform be
smooth enough to prevent injury. The
purpose is to protect the employee from
injuries such as lacerations and
puncture wounds. A similar
requirement is found in Subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(G).
Proposed paragraph (e)(12) would
require conspicuously posting a plate or
other permanent written notice on the
personnel platform listing the weight of
the platform itself and the platform’s
rated load capacity. The purpose is to
make employees aware of the platform’s
limits to prevent overloading, which
could result in structural failure of the
platform or equipment, and to facilitate
compliance with § 1926.1431(f)(1),
which prohibits loading the platform in
excess of its rated capacity.
Proposed paragraph (e)(12) would
modify the current requirement of
Subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(I) by
deleting the phrase ‘‘or maximum
intended load.’’ That phrase was
included in Subpart N because
platforms made on the worksite did not
have a manufacturer’s rated capacity.
However, under proposed
§ 1926.1431(e)(1), all personnel
platforms would be required to be
designed by a qualified person familiar
with structural design, and such a
person will be able to determine the
rated capacity for the platform.
Paragraph 1431(f) Personnel Platform
Loading
Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would
prohibit loading the platform in excess
of its rated load capacity. Proposed
§ 1926.1431(f)(1) differs from current
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(A) by deleting a
provision stating that if a personnel
platform does not have a rated load
capacity it shall not be loaded in excess
of its maximum intended load. The
‘‘maximum intended load’’ provision
was deleted for the same reason
previously discussed under
§ 1926.4131(e)(12).
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) would
require that the platform be used
exclusively for personnel hoisting and
not for hoisting materials. However, it
would allow the necessary materials
and tools for the work activity to be
hoisted along with the employees. Using
a personnel platform to hoist materials
can lead to damage of the platform due
to materials shifting or excessive
loading. This can subject the platform to
structural stresses that may not be
visible and contribute to platform
structural failure. This would continue
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59832
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
the current requirement of
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(iii)(C).
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(ii) would
provide an exception to (f)(2)(i) to allow
materials and tools on the personnel
platform during the trial lift as long as
the materials/tools are properly secured
and distributed as specified in
§ 1926.1431(f)(3). Since the materials
and tools would be secured, they would
not damage the platform. Subpart N, at
§ 1926.550(g)(5)(i), currently allows
materials/tools to be on the platform
during the trial lift but does not specify
that they need to be properly secured
and distributed.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii)
would require that any materials and
tools that are on the platform during the
hoist be secured, and evenly distributed
within the platform itself while the
platform is suspended. These
precautions are designed to prevent
platform tipping and injury to
employees due to movement of
materials or tools during the hoist.
These requirements would continue
those in Subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(iii)(D) & (E).
Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would limit
the number of employees on a personnel
platform to the lesser of either the
number needed to perform the work or
the maximum number for which the
platform was designed. The purpose is
to expose the fewest possible number of
employees to the hazards presented
when hoisting personnel and to
minimize the load on the platform to the
extent possible. This would provide
greater clarity than the current
requirement of Subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(iii)(B) by noting that the
number of platform occupants is limited
not only by work requirements but also
the platform’s design.
Paragraph 1431(g) Attachment and
Rigging
Proposed paragraph (g)(1) would
establish the requirements for the device
used to connect the personnel platform
to the hoist line. It would expand and
clarify the requirements of Subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(B).
The nature and type of connector
used is critical to the overall safety of
the suspended personnel platform.
Under the proposed paragraph, a hook
used to connect the hoist line and
personnel platform must be the type
that can be closed/locked and must be
closed/locked when attached to the
platform. When a shackle is used in lieu
of a hook, it must be of the alloy anchor
type with either: a bolt, nut and
retaining pin in place; or: the screw type
with the screw pin secured against
accidental removal. Any detachable
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
device other than a shackle or hook that
is used must be closable and lockable to
the same extent a hook or shackle would
be when in compliance with this
proposed section. When used to connect
the personnel platform, such a device
must be closed and locked to ensure
that the platform is secured to the hoist
line.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) would
require that each bridle leg in a rope
bridle be connected to the master link/
shackle in a manner that would allow
the platform’s load to be equally
distributed among each bridle leg. The
purpose of this type of attachment is to
avoid platform tipping. The proposed
requirement differs from current
Subpart N at § 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(A) by
changing the phrase ‘‘wire rope’’ to
‘‘rope.’’ Currently, the only type of rope
that Subpart N permits to be used for
bridles is wire rope, and it is C–DAC’s
and OSHA’s understanding that no
other type of rope suitable for this
purpose is currently available. However,
the Committee believed that synthetic
ropes now under development could
someday meet the safety factor
requirement in § 1926.1431(g)(3) and it
did not want to preclude the potential
use of sufficiently strong synthetic rope.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3) would
continue the current requirement of the
first sentence of § 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(C)
that all hardware used for rigging must
be able to support five times the
maximum intended load applied to or
transmitted to that component.
However, the C–DAC consensus
document omitted the second sentence
in current § 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(C), which
requires slings using rotation resistant
rope to be able to support at least ten
times the maximum intended load. In
promulgating § 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(C),
OSHA arrived at the safety factor of ten
for rotation resistant rope by doubling
the normal design factor of five for such
rope (see discussion of the design factor
for rotation resistant rope above under
§ 1926.1414, Wire rope—selection and
installation criteria) to add an extra
margin of safety when hoisting
personnel. 53 FR 29116, 29122, 29132
(Aug. 2, 1988). OSHA believes that C–
DAC did not intend to lower the safety
factor for rotation resistant rope used for
personnel hoisting and inadvertently
omitted the requirement that slings
using rotation resistant rope to have a
safety factor of ten. OSHA has therefore
restored that requirement to proposed
1926.1431(g)(3). As modified,
1926.1431(g)(3) reads:
(3) Rigging hardware (including wire rope,
shackles, rings, master links, and other
rigging hardware) and hooks must be capable
of supporting, without failure, at least five
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
times the maximum intended load applied or
transmitted to that component. Where
rotation resistant rope is used, the slings
shall be capable of supporting without failure
at least ten times the maximum intended
load.
Proposed paragraph (g)(4) would
require the eyes in wire rope slings to
be fabricated with thimbles, continuing
the current Subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(D) requirement. The
purpose of this requirement is to
prevent excessive wear to the eyes and
possible failure of the platform’s rigging.
Proposed paragraph (g)(5) would
require that bridles and rigging used to
suspend the personnel platform be used
exclusively for hoisting personnel
operations, continuing the current
requirement of § 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(E).
Rigging components must be dedicated
for the sole use of personnel hoisting to
provide maximum safety. Materials
hoisting can lead to damage of the
rigging components due to material
shifting or excessive loading. This can
make the rigging components
susceptible to structural stress that may
not be visible, yet contribute to
structural failure.
Paragraph 1431(h) Trial Lift and
Inspection
The proposed requirements of
paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) generally
continue the current requirements of
Subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(5)(i) through
(v). The proposed requirements have
been reorganized and reworded for
clarity. Requirements for removal of the
test weight, checking for wire rope
deficiencies, and use of a competent
person for trial lifts are not currently in
29 CFR part 1926 subpart N.
Proposed paragraph (h)(1) continues
the requirement of § 1926.550(g)(5)(i) for
a trial lift without occupants with the
platform loaded to at least the
anticipated liftweight. The purpose of
the trial lift is to confirm that: the lift
set-up works properly; the lift route is
free of obstacles; the accessibility of the
work location; no work locations will
place the crane or derrick in such a
configuration where the intended load
would exceed 50 percent of the
equipment’s rated capacity; the soil or
other supporting surface is stable; and
that the lift route is suitable for the
intended lift.
The path of the trial lift would be
required to begin at the point the
employees enter the platform and end at
the ultimate location the platform is
being hoisted to and positioned (end
point). When there are multiple
destination locations from a single setup point, the trial lift would be required
to be conducted in one of two ways.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
First, individual lifts may be
conducted in which the platform is
moved to one of the end points from the
starting point, returned to the starting
point, moved to a second end point,
again returned to the starting point, and
the process repeated until each end
point has been reached. Second, a single
lift may be conducted from the starting
point to all of the end points in
sequence, without returning to the
starting point until after the last end
point has been reached.
Upon reviewing § 1926.1431(h)(1) in
the C–DAC document, OSHA believes
that the phrase ‘‘a single trial lift for all
locations,’’ which was taken from
current § 1926.550(g)(5)(i), may not be
sufficiently clear to describe the
intended meaning. In addition, OSHA is
concerned that allowing the trial lift to
be conducted in either of these two
ways, irrespective of how the personnel
will actually be hoisted, may result in
the trial lift failing to reveal problems
that would be encountered in the actual
lift. OSHA believes that the following
language would more clearly reflect the
intent of the provision and requests
public comment on whether the
language should be clarified in this
manner:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
(h) Trial lift and inspection.
(1) A trial lift with the unoccupied
personnel platform loaded at least to the
anticipated liftweight shall be made from
ground level, or any other location where
employees will enter the platform, to each
location at which the platform is to be
hoisted and positioned. Where there is more
than one location to be reached from a single
set-up position, either individual trial lifts for
each location, or a single trial lift, in which
the platform is moved sequentially to each
location, shall be performed; the method
selected must be the same as the method that
will be used to hoist the personnel.
Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would
require that the trial lift take place
immediately prior to each shift when
hoisting personnel, and each time the
equipment is moved and set up in a new
location or a previously used location.
Additionally, a trial lift must be done
when the lift route is changed, unless a
competent person determines the new
lift route does not present new factors
affecting safety. Similar requirements
are found in Subpart N’s
§ 926.550(g)(5)(i) and (ii).
Proposed paragraph (h)(3) would
require a competent person to ensure
that all required safety devices and
operational aids required by this
proposed section are activated and
properly functioning, that nothing
interferes with the equipment or
personnel platform during the trial lift,
that the lift load does not exceed 50
percent of the equipment’s rated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
capacity, and that the load radius used
is accurately determined. These
requirements would ensure that
necessary safety measures are in place
and validated by a competent person for
the trial lift. The proposed paragraph
differs from the current requirements at
§ 1926.550(g)(5)(i) as it would require a
competent person to make the
determination rather than the operator.
Under sections 3.2.2(a)(9) and (a)(10) of
ASME B30.23–2005, the operator is also
required to determine that the trial lift
has been conducted properly. It is
important for this to be the
responsibility of a competent person
because such a person not only has the
knowledge necessary to make the
determinations, but also has the
authority to take any necessary
corrective action.
Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would
establish the duties of the competent
person immediately after the trial lift. It
would require the competent person to
conduct a visual inspection of the
personnel platform and equipment to
determine if there is any problem or
defect resulting from the trial lift or if
it produced any adverse effect. In
addition, the competent person must
ensure that the test weight used during
the trial lift has been removed prior to
personnel loading.
The purpose of these requirements is
to ensure that any defects in the
equipment, base support or ground and
personnel platform revealed by the trial
lift are seen by a competent person prior
to hoisting personnel (note that, under
proposed § 1926.1431(h)(6), any
condition found during the trial lift that
fails to meet a requirement of this
proposed standard or otherwise
constitutes a safety hazard must be
corrected before hoisting personnel).
Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would
continue the current requirements of
§ 1926.550(g)(5)(iv) while adding the
requirement that the competent person
ensure that the test weight is removed.
This has been added because the
Committee was aware of incidents in
which overloading of the personnel
platform occurred due to use of the
platform to hoist personnel with the test
weights still on board.
Under proposed paragraph (h)(5)(i),
immediately prior to each personnel lift,
the competent person must inspect the
platform while it is lifted a few inches
to ensure that the platform is secure and
properly balanced.
It is the understanding of the Agency
that the purpose of this procedure is to
ensure that, with the occupants and
materials/tools to be hoisted on the
platform immediately before the hoist is
to take place, the platform is secure and
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59833
properly balanced. The purpose of
having the occupants and materials/
tools on board during this check is
twofold. First, it ensures that the check
takes place just before the personnel lift,
which minimizes the chance that
damage or other problems affecting the
platform’s security will occur after the
check. In addition, it would be difficult
to ensure that the platform will be
properly balanced when in actual use
without having the employees and
materials/tools on board.
However, while the text of this
proposed provision implies that the
check is to be done with the personnel
and materials/tools on board, it does not
specifically so state. The Agency plans
to add language to that effect so that
proposed § 1926.1431(h)(5)(i) would
read as follows:
(i) The platform shall be hoisted a few
inches with the personnel and materials/
tools on board and inspected by a competent
person to ensure that it is secure and
properly balanced.
The Agency requests public comment
on such a change.
Proposed paragraph (h)(5)(ii) would
require a competent person to determine
that hoist ropes are free of defects, that
multiple part lines are not twisted
around each other, and that the primary
attachment is centered over the
platform. If the load rope is slack, the
competent person must inspect the
hoisting system to ensure the rope lines
are properly seated on drums and in
sheaves. Proposed paragraphs (i) and (ii)
continue the current requirements of
§ 1926.550(g)(5)(iii), with the additional
clarification that hoist ropes must be
free of deficiencies (that is, not just free
of ‘‘kinks,’’ as required by existing
§ 1926.550(g)(5)(iii)(A)). The purpose of
these requirements is to mandate an
additional final review by a competent
person to evaluate the personnel
platform, the balance of the load, and
the lifting devices to ensure that
necessary safety requirements are met.
Proposed paragraph (h)(6) would
establish that any condition that fails to
meet any requirements of this standard
or otherwise creates a safety hazard
must be corrected before personnel are
hoisted. This includes such conditions
found during the trial lift or in any
inspection or subsequent review of the
equipment, platform or rigging. This is
similar to the requirement of Subpart
N’s § 1926.550(g)(5)(v).
Paragraph 1431(i)
[Reserved.]
This proposed paragraph is reserved
because it is inconvenient for readers to
determine whether ‘‘(i)’’ is being used as
a letter or a roman numeral.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59834
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Paragraph 1431(j)
Proof Testing
This proposed paragraph would
delineate the requirement of and
method for proof testing the personnel
platform and rigging. It would require
the proof test to be done at each jobsite
prior to hoisting personnel and after any
repair or modification of the platform.
The proof test would be at 125 percent
of the platform’s rated capacity, with an
evenly distributed test load. The
platform must be lowered by controlled
load lowering, braked, and held in a
suspended position for at least five
minutes. After this proof test, the
competent person must inspect the
platform and rigging to determine if it
has passed the proof test. If not, all
deficiencies that pose a safety hazard
must be corrected and another proof test
performed. The competent person must
determine that the platform and rigging
have successfully passed the proof test
before any personnel hoisting begins.
The purpose of this proposed
paragraph is to determine if the
structural integrity of the personnel
platform is intact or if it has been
affected by any condition, damage,
repair or modification which could
result in structural failure or other safety
hazards of the platform or rigging.
Proposed paragraph § 1926.1431(j)
contains requirements similar to those
in Subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(5)(vi). It
adds the requirement in proposed
§ 1926.1431(j)(2) that the platform be
lowered by controlled load lowering
and braked before being held in position
for five minutes. This provision was
added to ensure that the load lowering
and braking mechanisms are
functioning properly before personnel
are lifted. In addition, proposed
§ 1926.1431(j)(3) clarifies that only
deficiencies that present a safety hazard
need be corrected to avoid any
implication that minor deficiencies
bearing no relation to safety need to be
corrected.
The Committee discussed requiring
the employer to document the proof test
but determined that documentation of
the proof test would not add to
employee safety.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1431(k)
Work Practices
Proposed paragraph (k)(1) would
require hoisting of the personnel
platform in a slow, controlled, cautious
manner, with no sudden movements of
the equipment or platform. This
precaution would minimize the
likelihood of platform tipping, loss of
footing, and loss of control of the
platform by the operator during
hoisting. A comparable requirement is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
now contained in Subpart N at
§ 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(A).
Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(i) would
require that all occupants of the
personnel platform keep all parts of the
body inside the platform while it is
being raised, lowered or moved
horizontally. This would not apply
when a platform occupant must position
the platform. Additionally, this does not
apply while performing the duties of a
signal person. The purpose of this
requirement is to prevent an employee
from having a body part struck or caught
in between the personnel platform and
another object. This differs from the
current requirement of Subpart N at
§ 1926.550(g)(6)(i) by providing an
exception for a platform occupant
positioning the platform. The
Committee believed that such
positioning can be important to safety,
and therefore an exception in this regard
would be appropriate.
Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(ii) would
add a new provision by prohibiting
platform occupants from standing on,
sitting on, or working from any surface
other than the floor of the personnel
platform during hoisting or when
working from the platform. It would
prohibit working from a railing or
toeboard or the use of any means or
device to raise the employee’s working
height. The purpose is to ensure that the
occupants receive the protections of the
guardrail system and do not destabilize
the platform.
Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(iii) would
add a new provision by prohibiting
platform occupants from pulling the
platform out of plumb in relation to the
hoisting equipment. The purpose is to
prevent tipping of the platform with
employees on board, which could
exacerbate the fall hazard.
Proposed paragraph (k)(3) would
require a personnel platform that is not
landed to be secured to the structure
before employees enter or exit the
platform. It would allow an exception
when a greater hazard would be created
by securing the platform to the
structure. The purpose is to provide a
stable surface to prevent loss of footing
when entering or exiting the platform.
This provision is similar to Subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(6)(ii) but replaces the
words ‘‘unsafe condition’’ with ‘‘greater
hazard’’ to clarify that the exception
only comes into play when the hazard
that would be created by securing the
platform to the structure is greater than
would exist if it were not secured.
Proposed paragraph (k)(4) would add
a new requirement that the operator
receive confirmation that the platform is
no longer tied to the structure and is
freely suspended before the operator
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
moves the platform. This requirement
would prevent structural damage to the
platform and/or rigging and prevent the
fall hazard that could result from
pulling the platform out of plumb if
there is an attempt to move it while it
is still attached.
Proposed paragraph (k)(5) would
require the use of tag lines when
necessary to control the personnel
platform. The purpose is to provide an
additional way to control platform
stability to decrease the risk of injury
from loss of footing or from the platform
striking an object. This would modify
the current requirement of Subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(6)(iii), which requires the
use of tag lines unless their use would
create an unsafe condition. The
Committee believed it is not always
necessary to use tag lines even when
their use would not create an unsafe
condition and was of the view that this
change would not decrease safety.
Under proposed paragraph (k)(6),
where the platform is not equipped with
controls, the equipment operator would
be required to remain at the equipment
controls at all times while the personnel
platform is occupied. Since there are no
controls in the personnel platform, the
equipment operator must be available to
make any necessary adjustments to
protect the employees from injury from
any condition arising after the platform
is placed at the working location.
Subpart N at § 1926.550(g)(6)(iv)
currently contains a similar requirement
but requires the operator to remain at
the controls ‘‘when the crane engine is
running and the platform is occupied.’’
Proposed § 1926.1431(k)(6) specifies
that the operator must stay at the
controls at all times the platform is
occupied, whether or not the crane
engine is running.
Proposed paragraph (k)(7), Platforms
with controls, and its subsections apply
when a personnel platform has controls.
At present, platforms being
manufactured with controls are boomtip mounted platforms. Controls on
certain personnel platforms enable a
platform occupant to articulate both the
platform and the boom. Other platform
designs enable an occupant to control
only the platform/basket itself, for
example to level the basket as it is
boomed up or down. Currently, Subpart
N of this part does not distinguish
between platforms with controls and
platforms without controls, so the
requirement of § 1926.550(g)(6)(iv) that
the operator remain at the equipment
controls when the engine is running and
the platform is occupied applies to both
types of platform.
Proposed paragraph (k)(7)(i) would
require the platform occupant using the
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
platform’s controls to be a qualified
person with respect to their use,
including the safe limitations of the
equipment and hazards associated with
its operation. Such knowledge and skill
is essential for the safety of the platform
occupants and employees in the
surrounding area.
Proposed paragraph (k)(7)(ii) would
require the equipment operator to be
either at the equipment controls, in the
personnel platform, or onsite in view of
the equipment. It is OSHA’s
understanding that the purpose of this
proposed provision is to require the
equipment operator to be available to
take action if necessary, such as where
there is unexpected or inadvertent
platform or equipment movement, a
sudden change in wind conditions, or
an injury to a platform occupant.
It is also OSHA’s understanding that
C–DAC intended this provision to give
employers the flexibility to position the
operator where he or she is needed in
certain common situations. For
example, if the controls on the platform
are designed to control both the
platform and the boom, the operator
could be the qualified person on the
platform who operates the controls. If
the controls allow only limited control
of the platform itself, the operator will
be needed at the equipment controls, as
under proposed § 1926.1431(k)(6). The
Agency also believes that C–DAC
intended the option of having the
operator onsite and in view of the
equipment to accommodate radiocontrolled operations, in which the
operator controls the equipment from a
position off the equipment but within
its line of sight.
Upon reviewing proposed paragraph
(k)(7)(ii), OSHA is concerned that the
proposed provision would not operate
in this manner. Specifically, it would
not limit the employer’s choices to
situations where they are suitable. For
example, under the provision as written,
the operator could be on the platform
even if the controls on the platform
allow only limited control of the
platform, and the operator would
therefore not be available at the
equipment controls to move the boom
when it is necessary to do so. OSHA
requests public comment on whether it
is necessary to reword proposed
§ 1926.1431(k)(7)(ii) to clarify the
circumstances under which employers
can use the three options for positioning
the equipment operator and, if so, how
the provision should be worded to
achieve that goal.
Proposed paragraph (k)(7)(iii) would
require the platform operating manual
to be on the platform or on the
equipment while the platform is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
occupied. The purpose is to have ready
access to manufacturer’s operating
information when employees are on the
platform.
Proposed paragraph (k)(8)(i),
Environmental conditions—Wind,
would require a qualified person to
determine if it is unsafe to hoist
personnel when the wind speed (gust or
sustained) exceeds 20 mph. High winds
increase the likelihood of platform
tipping, sudden unexpected movement
of the platform, or structural failure of
the equipment. If the qualified person
determines that hoisting personnel is
unsafe, hoisting operations must not
begin or, if already in progress, must be
terminated.
Subpart N at § 1926.550(g)(6)(v)
currently requires personnel hoisting
operations to stop when there is
indication of any dangerous weather
conditions or other impending danger.
The Committee believed that it was
necessary to establish a clearer
guideline with respect to hoisting
personnel under windy conditions. C–
DAC discussed setting a particular wind
speed at which hoisting personnel
would be prohibited (it considered, for
example, that section 3.2.1(e) of ASME
B30.23–2005 prohibits personnel
hoisting operations when wind speed
exceeds 20 mph). It determined that the
number of variables involved at each
site precludes establishing a single wind
speed threshold at which, in each
instance, it could be said that hoisting
personnel is not safe. It did, however,
determine that 20 mph is an appropriate
point at which a determination, in all
cases, needs to be made. Therefore, it
found that it was appropriate to have
the qualified person evaluate all
relevant factors in order to determine if
conditions are such that hoisting
personnel with wind speed over 20 mph
is unsafe.
Proposed paragraph (k)(8)(ii),
Environmental conditions—Other
weather and environmental conditions,
would require a qualified person to
determine if it is not safe to hoist
personnel when there are indications of
dangerous weather or any other
impending/existing dangerous
environmental condition. Upon
determination that it is unsafe,
personnel hoisting operations must not
be started or must be terminated if
already in progress.
The purpose of this paragraph is to
require evaluation of all environmental
conditions, including weather, by a
qualified person, to determine if the
conditions make it unsafe to hoist
personnel. Dangerous conditions, such
as those presented by severe weather,
may contribute to the hazards of
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59835
platform tipping, unexpected platform
movement, dropping the platform, or
structural failure of the platform or
equipment. Examples of non-weather
environmental dangers would be a
neighboring fire that threatens the area
of the crane operations or a chemical
release from a neighboring
manufacturing facility that threatens to
drift into the area. Section 3.2.1(c) of
ASME B30.23–2005 lists electric storms,
snow, ice, sleet, or other adverse
weather conditions that could affect the
safety of personnel as reasons for
suspending operations. Rather than
listing specific dangers or events, C–
DAC believed that the determination of
whether conditions were dangerous was
best left to the assessment of the
qualified person.
As noted above, § 1926.550(g)(6)(v)
requires personnel hoisting operations
to stop when there is indication of any
dangerous weather conditions or other
impending danger. The proposed
paragraph continues that requirement;
however, it adds the requirement that a
qualified person must make the
determination.
Proposed paragraph (k)(9) would
require employees being hoisted to
remain in direct communication with
either the signal person (where used) or
equipment operator at all times. In some
instances the platform occupants are in
a better position to see potential
problems developing than the operator,
or to recognize that there is some other
safety-related need for the operator to
take action. In addition, there are
instances when the operator becomes
aware of a developing problem and
needs to communicate that to the
employees being hoisted. This provision
would ensure that such information can
be communicated quickly between the
hoisted employees and operator.
Currently, Subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(6)(vi) requires hoisted
employees to remain in continuous
sight of and in direct communication
with the operator or signal person.
Reliance on direct communication alone
(such as by radio) is only permitted
when visual contact with the operator is
not possible and the use of a signal
person (to relay information by hand
signals) would create a greater hazard.
The Committee believed that direct
communication, either with a signal
person (when used) or with the
operator, is an effective way for the
hoisted employees to communicate with
the operator and that
§ 1926.550(g)(6)(vi)’s preference for
visual contact does not add to safety.
Accordingly, proposed § 1926.1431(k)(9)
would allow direct communication with
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59836
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
a signal person or the operator in all
instances.
Proposed paragraphs (k)(10)(i) and
(ii), Fall protection, would require
employees on the personnel platform to
be provided with and use a personal fall
arrest system attached to a structural
member within the personnel platform.
The fall arrest system (including the
attachment point) must comply with
§ 1926.502, Fall protection systems
criteria and practices. When hoisting
personnel over water, a personal fall
arrest system would not be required
since, in the event that an error or
failure occurred that resulted in the
employees being in the water, being
tied-off would exacerbate the drowning
hazard. However, the requirements of
§ 1926.106, Working over or near water,
would apply.
The purpose of this requirement is to
protect employees from a fall hazard
while in the personnel platform in the
event of sudden movement, tipping, or
other circumstance in which a fall
would not be prevented by the
platform’s guardrail system. This is
similar to the requirements of Subpart
N’s § 1926.550(g)(6)(vii). However, it
replaces use of a ‘‘body belt/harness
system with lanyard’’ with ‘‘personal
fall arrest system’’ to reflect current
technology, terminology and practice for
personal fall protection and to be
consistent with 29 CFR part 1926
subpart M’s personal fall arrest system
requirements. Additionally, the
Committee determined that the
requirement in the current standard to
attach a personal fall arrest system to
the ‘‘lower load block or overhaul ball’’
was no longer considered good industry
practice and, instead, an employee
needs to be tied off to ‘‘a structural
member within the personnel platform.’’
Tying off to the lower load block or
overhaul ball places the employee at
risk of being pulled through the top of
the personnel platform and into the
rigging attached to the personnel
platform.
Proposed paragraph (k)(11)(i), Other
load lines, would mandate that while
hoisting personnel no other lifts may be
made with any of the equipment’s other
load lines. This proposed provision has
several purposes. First, it would prevent
platform tipping due to entanglement
with other load lines or loads. Second,
it would reduce the chance that the
equipment would be overloaded. Third,
when hoisting personnel, it is essential
that the operator’s full attention be
devoted to the personnel; use of another
load line would necessarily divert his/
her attention. This is comparable to the
requirement of Subpart N’s
§ 1926.550(g)(6)(viii), with the addition
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
of an exception for pile driving
equipment. In pile driving operations,
personnel have to be hoisted at times as
part of the pile driving operation while
the pile driving apparatus is being
suspended on another load line.
In reviewing this aspect of the C–DAC
document, the Agency noted that under
the C–DAC language, the provision
would have applied only when
personnel were ‘‘suspended on a
platform.’’ Since there are specified
exceptions to the proposed requirement
to use a personnel platform, there will
be specific instances where personnel
will be hoisted without a platform. The
Agency believes that it is equally
important to safety that the prohibition
against using any other load lines apply
in these instances (with the exception of
pile driving operations, in which it is
not feasible to use only one load line),
and that this was a textual oversight by
the Committee. Therefore, OSHA has
modified the C–DAC language of this
provision so that the prohibition would
apply ‘‘while personnel are being
hoisted. * * *’’ OSHA requests
comment on this change.
Proposed paragraph (k)(11)(ii), Other
load lines, would allow the use of a
winch line while hoisting personnel
when all of the following factors are
present: the personnel platform is a
factory-produced boom-mounted
personnel platform incorporating a
winch as original equipment, the load
on the winch line does not exceed 500
pounds, and the load on the winch line
itself does not exceed the rated capacity
of the winch and platform. The
Committee believed that, when all of
these factors are present, there is little
chance that the use of the winch line
would compromise safety.
Proposed paragraph (k)(12)(i),
Traveling—equipment other than
derricks, would prohibit any traveling
by equipment with hoisted employees
except in two circumstances. The first is
where the equipment is traveling on
fixed rails. The second is where the
employer demonstrates that there is no
less hazardous way to perform the work
than by traveling. However, this second
exception does not apply to rubber-tired
equipment, for which traveling is
always prohibited. Traveling with
hoisted employees is also always
prohibited for derricks, as set forth
under proposed § 1926.1431(k)(13),
discussed below.
Traveling while hoisting personnel is
generally prohibited due to several
additional risks that it presents. The
platform will tend to swing when the
equipment is traveling, which presents
an increased likelihood of employee
injury from platform tipping or loss of
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
footing. If the swing is pronounced, the
equipment could become unbalanced
and its capacity exceeded. Also, the
chance of an unplanned circumstance or
event increases when the equipment
travels, which heightens the risk to the
employees being hoisted. Therefore, the
exception to this prohibition is narrowly
drawn.
Traveling would be permitted with
equipment that travels on fixed rails, as
travel on fixed rails is relatively stable
and predictable, which reduces the
chance of significant uncontrolled
movement. Traveling may be done with
equipment that is not on fixed rails and
not rubber-tired, but only where the
employer can demonstrate that there is
no less hazardous way to perform the
work.
However, traveling would be
prohibited with rubber-tired equipment.
The Committee was of the view that
traveling with such equipment while
hoisting personnel is inherently
dangerous due to the bouncing and
swaying of the equipment that is
inherent in this type of equipment
because of the tires and suspension.
The current requirements of Subpart
N at § 1926.550(g)(7)(i), prohibit
hoisting employees while a crane is
traveling ‘‘except for portal, tower or
locomotive cranes, or where the
employer demonstrates that there is no
less hazardous way to perform the
work.’’ The proposed paragraph would
have a clearer restriction on equipment
traveling by establishing a complete
prohibition on traveling while hoisting
employees for any rubber-tired
equipment. Instead of referring to
particular types of cranes, the proposed
paragraph allows for hoisting personnel
by equipment that travels on fixed rails,
which more directly relates to what
makes the use of such equipment
acceptable for this purpose. The
proposed paragraph still allows for
hoisting personnel if there is no less
hazardous means to do the work, but
this exception does not apply to rubbertired equipment.
Proposed paragraph (k)(12)(ii),
Traveling—equipment other than
derricks, would establish certain criteria
that would have to be met when
traveling with employees is allowed.
The purpose of this proposed paragraph
is to establish the conditions necessary
to minimize the effect of traveling on
the stability of the equipment and
personnel. In order to hoist employees
while traveling, the following would be
required: travel restricted to a fixed
track or runway; distance of travel
limited to the length of the boom,
including any attached jib; the boom
parallel to the direction of travel (unless
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
it is safer otherwise); and a complete
trial run performed to test the travel
route before employees occupy the
platform.
In proposed § 1926.1401, a ‘‘runway’’
is defined as a firm level surface
designed, prepared and designated as a
path of travel for the weight and
configuration of the equipment being
used to lift and travel with the
personnel platform, including an
existing surface. For the purposes of this
proposed paragraph, OSHA believes it is
necessary to clearly define what
constitutes a runway since its purpose
differs, for example, from a runway on
a gantry crane. The function of the
runway required by this proposed
paragraph would be to provide a stable
surface for equipment during travel to
minimize unexpected movement. This
definition is included to remain
consistent with the term, without
change, as it is used in Subpart N of 29
CFR part 1926. The required trial run
may be done at the same time as the trial
lift testing the lift route (see proposed
paragraph (h)).
This continues the requirements of
Subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(7)(ii) with
three exceptions. Currently, ‘‘the boom
must be parallel to the direction of
travel’’; the proposed paragraph allows
an exception when it is safer to travel
with the boom not parallel to the
direction of travel. For example, if the
work was being done to the side of the
crane, and booming to parallel would
take the personnel platform closer to a
power line, and the manufacturer
permits the crane to travel with the
boom to the side, it would be safer to
travel with the boom to the side in this
instance. Next, the Committee
determined that the current travel limit
of ‘‘the load radius of the boom’’ was
confusing terminology and found that a
clearer and equally safe restriction
would be to limit the distance of travel
to the ‘‘boom length.’’ Finally, as
discussed above, the proposed
paragraph would prohibit all traveling
while hoisting personnel with rubbertired equipment. The current standard
(§ 1926.550(g)(7)(ii)(E)) in effect allows
use of rubber-tired equipment in limited
conditions.
Proposed paragraph (k)(13),
Traveling—derricks, would prohibit a
derrick from traveling while it is
hoisting personnel. The current
requirements of Subpart N that address
traveling refer only to cranes. C–DAC
believed that the intent of Subpart N
was to prohibit derricks from traveling
with hoisted employees and decided it
was necessary to note this exclusion to
eliminate any ambiguity. Hoisting
employees on a traveling derrick is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
dangerous because derricks are not
sufficiently stable when traveling. This
proposed paragraph reflects the current
industry practice as reflected in section
3.3.4(a)(14) of ASME B30.6–2003,
‘‘Derricks.’’
Paragraph 1431(l) [Reserved.]
This proposed paragraph is reserved
because it is inconvenient for readers to
distinguish the letter ‘‘l’’ from the
number ‘‘1.’’
Paragraph 1431(m) Pre-Lift Meeting
This proposed paragraph would
require a meeting prior to the trial lift
at each new work location to review the
requirements of this section and the
procedures to be followed when
hoisting personnel. The pre-lift meeting
would be attended by the equipment
operator, signal person (when one is
used for the lift), employees to be
hoisted, and the person responsible for
the task to be performed.
Also, this paragraph would require
this meeting to be repeated when an
employee is newly assigned to the
operation. The purpose of this
requirement is to make all employees
involved in the personnel hoisting
operation aware of the requirements of
this section and the plan for the
personnel lift. This would provide an
opportunity for all employees involved
to have a common and complete
understanding of the hoisting operation
and to give uniform information and
instructions immediately prior to the
lift. This would address hazards which
could result from misunderstanding of
the requirements, particular lift
conditions or procedures.
The provisions of proposed paragraph
(m) are comparable to the requirements
of § 1926.550(g)(8).
Paragraph 1431(n) Hoisting Personnel
Near Power Lines
This proposed paragraph would
prohibit hoisting personnel within 20
feet of a power line 350 kV and below
or within 50 feet of a power line over
350 kV, except for work that is covered
by 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart V, Power
Transmission and Distribution.
The purpose of this requirement is to
establish a safe clearance distance from
power lines to protect employees from
an electrocution hazard that would
result if the personnel, a personnel
platform, or equipment made electrical
contact with a power line. The clearance
distances are similar to those in
proposed § 1926.1407 and § 1926.1408
for equipment operating near power
lines. However, under § 1926.1407 and
§ 1926.1408, clearances less than 20 and
50 feet are permitted for certain voltage
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59837
ranges. Here, the Committee believed
that the extra risk that arises when
personnel are hoisted near a power line
justifies the requirement to maintain the
minimum distances of 20 feet for lines
350 kV or less and 50 feet for lines over
350 kV regardless of whether operations
at closer distances without hoisting
personnel would be permitted.
Currently, Subpart N at § 1926.550
has no specific requirement for hoisting
personnel near power lines, and the
normal minimum distances established
by that standard apply.
Paragraph 1431(o)
in Drill Shafts
Hoisting Personnel
This proposed paragraph would
provide requirements when hoisting
personnel in drill shafts that are 8 feet
and smaller in diameter. C–DAC noted
that drill shafts of this size may be
either too small to use a personnel
platform, or that use of a personnel
platform might not allow the room
needed to perform the necessary work.
As a result, the Committee determined
that, due to the limitations of a drill
shaft of this size, use of a personnel
platform would typically be infeasible
and a boatswain’s chair may be the only
practical means of hoisting personnel
and performing the necessary work.
‘‘Boatswain’s chair’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a single-point
adjustable suspension scaffold
consisting of a seat or sling (which may
be incorporated into a full body harness)
designed to support one employee in a
sitting position.’’ Except for the
parenthetical, this definition is identical
to that in OSHA’s construction
scaffolding standard, § 1926.450(b). The
parenthetical has been added to clarify
that a boatswain’s chair in which the
seat or sling is incorporated into a full
body harness complies with the
standard.
Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(1) would
allow the employer to use either a
personnel platform or a boatswain’s
chair; the employer would have the
option of choosing which one to use.73
When the employer elects to use a
boatswain’s chair in lieu of a personnel
platform, particular supplementary
73 Note that, under proposed § 1926.1431(a), an
employer may only use equipment to hoist
personnel when other means of reaching the work
area would present a greater hazard or would not
be possible because of the project’s structural
design or worksite conditions. C–DAC provided, in
paragraphs (o)(2) and (o)(3)(i), that paragraph (a)
applies to the use of either a personnel platform or
a boatswain’s chair. Therefore, before using either
means to hoist personnel in drill shafts, the
employer would need to determine that hoisting
personnel in lieu of using other means of access to
the work area is the least hazardous, or the only,
means to gain access to the work area.
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59838
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
requirements in proposed paragraph
(o)(3) would have to be met. These
particular requirements address the
heightened danger that the employee
may fall from the chair or contact the
wall of the drill shaft. Subpart N does
not have requirements that specifically
address hoisting personnel in drill
shafts.
Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(1) would
require that the employer use either a
personnel platform or boatswain’s chair.
Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(2) would
require the employer to follow
requirements (a) through (n) of
§ 1926.1431 when using a personnel
platform to hoist employees. This would
make clear that the provisions in
proposed paragraph (o) are
supplementary requirements.
Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3) would
establish the requirements when the
employer elects to use a boatswain’s
chair in lieu of a personnel platform for
hoisting personnel.
Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(i) would
establish which of the previous
proposed paragraphs in § 1926.1431
would continue to apply when using a
boatswain’s chair. For these applicable
paragraphs, the reader would substitute
the phrase ‘‘boatswain’s chair’’ for either
‘‘personnel platform’’ or ‘‘platform,’’
and the employer must comply with
these requirements.
The proposed paragraphs omitted
from proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(i)
would not apply when a boatswain’s
chair is used. This is because the
requirement is either specifically
applicable to personnel platform design
and use, or generally not applicable
when hoisting personnel in a drill shaft.
Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(ii) would
require a signal person to be stationed
at the opening of the shaft during
personnel hoisting. The purpose is to
have the signal person at the best
position to watch the employee being
hoisted and signal the equipment
operator, since the employee would be
out of visual range of the operator.
Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(iii) would
require the employee to be hoisted in a
slow, controlled descent and ascent.
This is to limit swinging or sudden
movement of the boatswain’s chair to
prevent fall from the chair or impact
with the walls of the drill shaft.
Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(iv) would
require the employee in the boatswain’s
chair to use personal fall arrest
equipment, including a full body
harness, that is attached independent of
the crane/derrick. The purpose of
requiring a tie off point independent of
the equipment is to protect the
employee from a sudden drop or fall
due to equipment failure or other
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
problem associated with the operation
of the crane/derrick and to protect the
employee from falls when accessing and
egressing the boatswain’s chair.
Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(v) would
require fall protection equipment to
comply with § 1926.502, Fall Protection
Systems Criteria and Practices.
Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(vi) would
require the boatswain’s chair (excluding
the personal fall arrest anchorages) to be
capable of supporting, without failure,
its own weight plus a minimum of five
times the maximum intended load. This
is similar to the requirement for
personnel platforms at proposed
§ 1926.1431(e)(4). The strength
requirement that would be applicable to
personal fall arrest anchorages is in
§ 1926.502(d)(15).
Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(vii) would
mandate that only one person be hoisted
at a time when using a boatswain’s
chair. The Committee believed that
hoisting more than one person using a
boatswain’s chair in a drill shaft would
present unacceptable additional hazards
for the employees being hoisted.
Paragraph 1431(p) Hoisting Personnel
for Pile Driving Operations
This proposed paragraph would
provide requirements for hoisting
personnel in pile driving operations.
Subpart N does not have provisions that
specifically address hoisting personnel
in pile driving operations.
Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(1) would
require that the employer use either a
personnel platform or boatswain’s chair
when hoisting personnel in pile driving
operations. As with drill shafts, C–DAC
believed that use of a personnel
platform would often be infeasible in
this type of operation, and
§ 1926.1431(p)(1) therefore gives the
employer the option of choosing which
one to use.
Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(2) would
require the cable being used to hoist
personnel to be clearly marked at the
point on the cable that would allow the
equipment operator the opportunity to
stop the hoist to prevent two-blocking.
In the C–DAC document an alternative
to marking the cable would have been
permitted: use of a spotter to observe the
lift and alert the equipment operator in
time to prevent two-blocking. An antitwo-blocking device would not be
required for equipment during pile
driving operations since the vibration of
the pile driver would destroy this
device. (See § 1926.1431(d)(4)(iv), Antitwo-block).
In reviewing this portion of the C–
DAC document, the Agency has noted
that the means of preventing twoblocking in the C–DAC language, that is,
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to mark the cable or use a spotter, is
consistent with the temporary
alternative measure for an anti twoblock device specified in proposed
§ 1926.1416(d)(3)(ii)(D) for lattice boom
cranes. However, as indicated in
proposed § 1926.1416(d)(3)(i), marking
the cable is not sufficient for telescopic
boom cranes when extending the boom.
As discussed above in the context of
that proposed provision, when
extending a telescopic boom, a spotter is
needed to warn against two-blocking.
The Agency believes that the
Committee developed its language for
preventing two-blocking when pile
driving with only lattice boom cranes in
mind, since that is the type of
equipment that is commonly used for
this work. However, as technology and
construction practices evolve, telescopic
boom cranes may be used for this work
as well. Therefore, the Agency has
modified the C–DAC language so that
proposed § 1926.1431(p)(2) would
require that, when using a telescopic
boom crane for pile driving operations,
a spotter must be used in addition to
marking the cable. The Agency requests
public comment on this issue.
Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(3) would
require the employer to follow
requirements (b) through (n) of
§ 1926.1431 when using a personnel
platform to hoist employees. Section
1926.1431(a) would not apply because
the Committee determined that the
employer should not be required to
demonstrate that the other means of
access listed in § 1926.1431(a) are
infeasible before being able to use a
personnel platform to hoist personnel
during pile driving operations. C–DAC
believed that demonstrating infeasibility
prior to using a personnel platform
should not be required because, in most
instances, it is not feasible to use other
means of access.
Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(4) would
establish the requirements when the
employer elects to use a boatswain’s
chair in lieu of a personnel platform for
hoisting personnel.
Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(4)(i) would
establish which of the previous
paragraphs in § 1926.1431 continue to
apply when using a boatswain’s chair in
a pile driving operation. For these
applicable paragraphs, the reader would
substitute the phrase ‘‘boatswain’s
chair’’ for either ‘‘personnel platform’’
or ‘‘platform’’ and the employer must
comply with these requirements.
The proposed paragraphs omitted
from proposed § 1926.1431(p)(3)(i) do
not apply when a boatswain’s chair is
used because the requirement is either
specifically applicable to personnel
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
platform design and use or generally not
applicable for pile driving operations.
Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(4)(ii) would
require the employee to be hoisted in a
slow, controlled descent and ascent.
This is to limit swinging or sudden
movement of the boatswain’s chair to
prevent a fall from the chair or impact
with equipment or other structures.
Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(4)(iii) would
require that the employee in the
boatswain’s chair use personal fall arrest
equipment, including a full body
harness. The fall arrest system must be
attached to either the lower load block
or the overhaul ball. The purpose of
having the fall protection equipment
and tie off point independent of the
boatswain’s chair and rigging used to
hoist the employee is twofold. It would
both protect the employee from a
sudden drop or fall due to failure of that
equipment and protect the employee
when accessing and egressing the
boatswain’s chair.
Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(4)(iv) would
require fall protection equipment to
comply with § 1926.502, Fall protection
systems criteria and practices. This
would ensure that the fall equipment is
sufficient to safely arrest the employee’s
fall.
In reviewing this portion of the C–
DAC document, the Agency has noted
that the Committee did not include a
provision similar to proposed
§ 1926.1431(o)(3)(vi)(drill shafts) and
§ 1926.1431(s)(3)(v)(storage tanks) to
require a minimum strength for the
boatswain’s chair. In addition, it did not
include a provision similar to proposed
§ 1926.1431(o)(3)(vii)(drill shafts) and
§ 1926.1431(s)(3)(vi)(storage tanks) to
restrict hoisting to one person at a time.
Accordingly, the Agency is planning to
add the following provisions to
proposed § 1926.1431(p)(4) and requests
public comment on these additions.
(v) The boatswain’s chair itself (excluding
the personal fall arrest system anchorages),
shall be capable of supporting, without
failure, its own weight and at least five times
the maximum intended load.
(vi) No more than one person shall be
hoisted at a time.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1431(q) [Reserved.]
This paragraph is reserved because it
is inconvenient for the reader to
distinguish the letter q, when in
parentheses, from the letter o.
Paragraph 1431(r) Hoisting Personnel
for Marine Transfer
This proposed paragraph would
address the particular hazards related to
hoisting personnel for transfer to or
from a marine construction worksite.
Currently, Subpart N does not address
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
the particular hazards and requirements
of marine personnel transfer. This
proposed paragraph would apply only
when hoisting employees solely for
such transfer.
Proposed § 1926.1431(r)(1) would
require the employer to use either a
traditional personnel platform or a
marine hoisted personnel transfer
device. This proposed paragraph would
allow an employer to use a marine
hoisted personnel transfer device
instead of a personnel platform for
several reasons. Transferring personnel
to or from a marine construction site
poses special problems due to the
effects of waves and gusting wind.
These effects, which can be
unpredictable, can result in a situation
where the equipment operator will not
be able to adequately control the
equipment. In such a situation, the
device used to transfer the employees
may suddenly wind up in the water.
Another possibility is that the
employees may need to jump off into
the water to avoid a collision with the
ship or an object on the construction
site. A third possibility is that the
operator will be unable to control the
equipment while the employees are
attempting to board or disembark. The
longer it takes to get on or off, the
greater this risk becomes. In all of these
scenarios the employees need to be able
to either enter or exit the device being
used to transfer them quickly and easily.
A personnel platform, which is
designed, in part, to keep the employees
inside, would, in most marine
situations, compound the hazard faced
by the employees, since they can be
difficult to enter and exit quickly. For
example, there is usually a gate that
latches shut. Also, the gate may prevent
more than one employee from entering
or exiting at a time. In contrast, a marine
hoisted personnel transfer device is
designed specifically to facilitate the
employees’ rapid entry and exit. The
Committee believed that the employer
should have the option of using such a
device so that it may be used where, in
the judgment of the employer, the
conditions are such that the risk of
being prevented from entering or exiting
quickly is greater than the risk of
unintentionally falling off.
OSHA notes that proposed
§ 1926.1431(r)(1) would give employers
an unrestricted choice of whether to use
a personnel platform or a marine
hoisted personnel transfer device
despite the fact that the personnel
platform would often be a less safe
choice. OSHA requests public comment
on whether the employer should be
required to select the device used for
marine transfer on the basis of which is
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59839
safer under the circumstances or should
otherwise restrict the use of personnel
platforms for marine transfer.
Proposed § 1926.1431(r)(2) would
require the employer to follow
requirements (a) through (n) of
§ 1926.1431 when using a personnel
platform to hoist employees. As
discussed previously, these provisions
are designed to ensure that hoisting
personnel is the safest means of moving
the employees and that the personnel
platform’s design and use are adequate
from a safety standpoint.
Proposed § 1926.1431(r)(3) would
establish the requirements when the
employer elects to use a marine hoisted
personnel transfer device in lieu of a
personnel platform for hoisting
personnel.
Proposed § 1926.1431(r)(3)(i) would
establish which of the previous
paragraphs in § 1926.1431 continue to
apply when using a marine hoisted
personnel transfer device. For these
applicable paragraphs, the reader would
substitute the phrase ‘‘marine hoisted
personnel transfer device’’ for either
‘‘personnel platform’’ or ‘‘platform’’ and
the employer must comply with these
requirements.
The paragraphs omitted from
proposed § 1926.1431(r)(3)(i) do not
apply when a marine hoisted personnel
transfer device is used. This is because
the requirement is either specifically
applicable to personnel platform design
and use or generally not applicable
when hoisting personnel at a marine
worksite.
Proposed § 1926.1431(r)(3)(ii) would
require the marine hoisted personnel
transfer device to be used exclusively
for transferring employees. One purpose
of this proposed provision is to not
allow the device to be used as a work
platform. The device’s design, which
specifically facilitates easy and rapid
entry and exit, is ill-suited to providing
a safe work platform. In particular, it is
not designed to prevent falling while an
employee uses his or her hands for
working rather than holding on to the
device. Also, it is ill-suited as a material
transfer device because it is not
designed to prevent materials from
falling from it and could be damaged by
such use.
Proposed § 1926.1431(r)(3)(iii) would
limit the number of employees on the
marine hoisted personnel transfer
device to the maximum number the
device was designed to hold. This
would prevent overloading, which
could result in structural failure of the
device. It would also prevent
overcrowding, which could cause an
unintended fall or preclude a worker
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
59840
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
from entering or exiting as rapidly as
when used properly.
Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(iv) would
require each employee being transferred
on a marine hoisted personnel transfer
device to wear a U.S. Coast Guard
personal flotation device that is
approved for industrial use. The
purpose is to protect the employee from
drowning if the device enters the water,
or if the employee falls or needs to jump
into the water.
Paragraph 1431(s) Hoisting Personnel
for Storage Tank (Steel or Concrete),
Shaft and Chimney Operations
This proposed paragraph would
establish requirements when hoisting
personnel in storage tank (steel or
concrete), shaft operations and chimney
operations. C–DAC determined that use
of a personnel platform, while usually
feasible, is infeasible in some
circumstances involving these
operations due to the nature of the work
activity. Consequently, the Committee
determined that boatswain’s chairs
should be allowed instead of a
personnel platform in such instances,
but only when the employer can
demonstrate that use of a personnel
platform is infeasible.74 For these
reasons, proposed § 1926.1431(s)(1)
would allow the employer to use a
boatswain’s chair only when the
employer has determined that use of a
personnel platform is infeasible.
Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(2) would
require the employer to follow
requirements (a) through (n) of
§ 1926.1431 when using a personnel
platform to hoist employees. Under
proposed § 1926.1431(a), an employer
may only use equipment to hoist
personnel when other means of reaching
the work area would present a greater
hazard or would not be possible because
of the project’s structural design or
worksite conditions. Therefore, before
using a personnel platform to hoist
personnel in storage tank (steel or
concrete), shaft operations and chimney
operations, the employer would need to
determine that hoisting personnel in
lieu of using other means of access to
the work area is the least hazardous, or
the only, means to gain access to the
work area.
Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3) would
establish the requirements when the
employer uses a boatswain’s chair in
lieu of a personnel platform for hoisting
personnel.
Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(i) would
establish which of the previous
74 There is no current requirement in Subpart N
that specifically addresses hoisting personnel in
storage tanks (steel or concrete), shaft operations, or
chimney operations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
paragraphs in § 1926.1431 continue to
apply when using a boatswain’s chair.
For these applicable paragraphs, the
reader would substitute the phrase
‘‘boatswain’s chair’’ for either
‘‘personnel platform’’ or ‘‘platform’’ and
the employer must comply with these
requirements.
The paragraphs omitted from
proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(i) do not
apply when a boatswain’s chair is used.
This is because the requirement is either
specifically applicable to personnel
platform use and design or generally not
applicable when hoisting personnel in
storage tanks (steel or concrete), shaft
operations and chimney operations.
Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(ii) would
require the employee to be hoisted in a
slow, controlled descent and ascent.
This is to limit swinging or sudden
movement of the boatswain’s chair to
prevent fall from the chair or impact
with the walls or other areas or
structures involved in these operations.
Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(iii) would
require the employee in the boatswain’s
chair to use personal fall arrest
equipment, including a full body
harness, that is attached independent of
the crane/derrick. Having the tie off
point independent of the equipment
protects the employee from a sudden
drop or fall due to equipment failure or
other problem associated with the
operation of the crane/derrick and to
protect the employee from falls when
accessing and egressing the boatswain’s
chair.
Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(iv) would
require fall protection equipment to
comply with § 1926.502, Fall protection
systems criteria and practices. This
would ensure that the fall equipment is
sufficient to safely arrest the employee’s
fall.
Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(v) would
require the boatswain’s chair to be
capable of supporting, without failure,
its own weight plus a minimum of five
times the maximum intended load. This
is consistent with the requirement for
personnel platforms at
§ 1926.1431(e)(4).
Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(vi) would
mandate that only one person be hoisted
at a time when using a boatswain’s
chair. The Committee believed that
hoisting more than one person using a
boatswain’s chair in these operations
would present unacceptable additional
hazards for the employees being
hoisted.
Section 1432 Multiple Crane/Derrick
Lifts
This proposed section lists additional
requirements for operations involving
multiple cranes and derricks. It
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
addresses hazards arising from
operations that use more than one
crane/derrick to lift a single load. This
section evolved from the Committee’s
concern that such operations involve an
additional level of risk due to their
higher degree of complexity.
Specifically, the number and type of
factors that must be accounted for, the
difficulties associated with closely
coordinating the movement of the
multiple cranes/derricks, and the
likelihood that such lifts are typically
outside the normal routine for most
employers, combine to create this higher
level of risk. Consequently, the
Committee agreed that such lifts need
an additional level of planning and
expertise over that required in routine
operations. This section would require
development and implementation of a
plan by qualified persons, which would
result in proactive decision-making and
greater awareness and caution during
multiple-crane/derrick operations.
Currently, Subpart N, through
incorporation of section 5–3.2.31 of
ANSI B30.5–1968, addresses multiple
lifts as follows: ‘‘When two or more
cranes are used to lift one load, one
designated person shall be responsible
for the operation. He shall analyze the
operation and instruct all personnel
involved in the proper positioning,
rigging of the load, and the movements
to be made.’’ As discussed below, this
proposed rule also requires supervision
of the operation and instruction of
personnel but, in addition, specifies
qualifications that the person who
supervises the lift must have and
contains additional provisions to ensure
safety.
Paragraph 1432(a) Plan Development
The purpose of the proposed
requirement for a plan is to help ensure
that the hazards involved with a
multiple lift are identified and
eliminated. These hazards include, but
are not limited to, load slipping and
unintended load shifting. Such hazards
can be minimized by a plan that
addresses elements such as the capacity
of the cranes/derricks relative to load
distribution (throughout the lift), load
rigging, load travel (from start to finish),
and communication. The Committee
discussed several specific methods of
addressing these hazards, but in view of
the wide variety and circumstances of
such lifts, determined that a plan-based
requirement would be most appropriate
and would be effective in reducing the
risks associated with these operations.
Proposed § 1926.1432(a)(1) would
require that a qualified person develop
the plan. Because of the inherent
complexity of these operations,
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Committee members believed that it is
necessary for a person with a high
degree of knowledge and experience to
develop the plan; otherwise, there is a
significant likelihood that the plan
would be ineffective in addressing the
hazards. Therefore, the Committee
determined that the plan developer
would need to be a qualified person.
Proposed § 1926.1432(a)(2) would
require that the plan be designed to
ensure that the requirements of this
Subpart are met. This provision
emphasizes that all applicable
requirements in the proposed standard
must be met when performing multiple
crane/derrick lifts, in addition to the
specific requirements set forth in this
section. The Committee believed that it
was important to emphasize this in the
plan to help ensure safe multiple-crane/
derrick lift operations.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1432(a)(3)
Proposed § 1926.1432(a)(3) would
require engineering expertise to be
provided by the employer whenever the
qualified person determines that it is
necessary. In the view of the Committee,
some, but not all multiple-crane/derrick
lifts need to be planned with
engineering expertise so that the lift can
be performed safely. The Committee
believed that it is not practical to set
criteria in this proposed rule for
identifying which lifts need such
expertise.
Paragraph 1432(b) Plan
Implementation
Under this proposed paragraph, the
employer would be required to take
specific steps designed to ensure that
the decisions and precautions built into
the plan are effectively implemented.
Proposed § 1926.1432(b)(1) would
require supervision of plan
implementation by competent and
qualified persons, or by one person who
meets the definitions of both. The
Committee believed that, especially in
light of the inherent complexity of these
operations, it is essential that a person
(or team) with sufficient expertise and
authority oversee the implementation of
the plan. Supervision by a person or
team with the attributes of both a
competent and qualified person would
ensure not only that potential problems
are identified, but also that the person
in charge of oversight will have the
authority to correct anything that is
amiss. For a detailed explanation of
competent and qualified persons, refer
to the preamble discussion of proposed
§ 1926.1404(a), Supervision—
competent-qualified person.
Proposed § 1926.1432(b)(2) would
mandate that the supervisor review the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
plan with all employees who will be
involved with the operation before lift
operations begin. This would typically
involve the signal person, rigging crew,
crane operator, and sometimes laborers,
who would all meet to make certain that
everyone understands the plan and how
the operation will be conducted. The
Committee believed that it is important
for employees to know how the plan
will work, including their
responsibilities and the responsibilities
of others, to help ensure that the diverse
aspects of the operation will be
coordinated.
Section 1433 Design, Construction and
Testing
Currently, Subpart N includes design,
construction, and testing requirements
for specific types of equipment that
either incorporate pre-1970 consensus
standards or that require equipment to
conform to manufacturer’s
specifications. The former category
includes: Crawler, locomotive, and
truck cranes (ANSI B30.5–1968,
incorporated by 29 CFR 1926.550(b)(2));
overhead and gantry cranes (ANSI
B30.2.0–1967, incorporated by
1926.550(d)(4)); and derricks (ANSI
B30.6–1969, incorporated by
§ 1926.550(e)). The latter includes
hammerhead tower cranes
(§ 1926.550(c)(5)) and floating cranes
and derricks (§ 1926.550(f)(2)(iii)).
Except for crawler, locomotive, and
truck cranes, design, construction and/
or testing requirements for each of these
categories of equipment is addressed in
a section of this proposed standard that
is dedicated to that type of equipment.
This proposed section contains certain
requirements applicable only to crawler,
locomotive, and truck cranes and, in
addition, contains requirements that
apply to all of the equipment subject to
this standard.
The C–DAC draft provides that the
requirements of this section ‘‘apply to
equipment that has a manufacturerrated hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000
pounds or more.’’ However, proposed
§ 1926.1441 sets forth requirements for
equipment with a rated capacity of
2,000 pounds or less and excludes
§ 1926.1433 from the requirements for
such equipment. The two sections
conflict with respect to equipment rated
at 2,000 pounds, which is a common
rating. It is OSHA’s understanding that
C–DAC included the 2,000-pound cutoff
to parallel ANSI B30.5 in this regard.
The 1968 and 2004 versions of ANSI
B30.5, as well as intermediate versions,
exclude equipment with a capacity of
one ton or less. To conform to that
intent in the proposed rule, OSHA has
changed the introductory sentence so
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59841
that it reads: ‘‘The following
requirements apply to equipment that
has a manufacturer-rated hoisting/lifting
capacity of more than 2,000 pounds.’’
Paragraph 1433(a)
Proposed paragraph (a) would require
that crawler, truck and locomotive
cranes manufactured prior to the
effective date of this standard meet the
applicable requirements for design,
construction, and testing prescribed in
ANSI B30.5–1968, safety code for
‘‘Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck
Cranes,’’ ‘‘PCSA Standard No. 2,’’ the
requirements in paragraph (b), or the
¨
applicable DIN (Deutsches Institut fur
Normung e.V., or German Institute for
Standardization) standards that were in
effect at the time of manufacture.
This proposed provision would allow
employers to continue to use equipment
that complies with § 1926.550(b)(2) of
Subpart N and also gives them the
flexibility to use equipment that was
built to conform to applicable DIN
standards. The Committee concluded
that the equipment manufactured
during this period that was built to
conform to the applicable DIN standards
has not shown signs of being less safe
from the standpoint of its design and
construction than equipment built
during this period to meet the
applicable ANSI or PCSA standards.
The C–DAC draft of this paragraph,
and of § 1926.1433(c) (see discussion
below), referred to ‘‘the effective date of
1926.1400’’ instead of the ‘‘effective
date of the standard.’’ For consistency
throughout this proposal, OSHA has
changed the references to ‘‘the effective
date of 1926.1400’’ to ‘‘the effective date
of the standard.’’
Paragraph 1433(b)
Proposed (b) uses the phrase ‘‘mobile
and locomotive cranes’’ to reflect the
current terminology used in ASME
B30.5–2004. As drafted by C–DAC, it
would require that mobile (including
crawler and truck) and locomotive
cranes manufactured on or after the
effective date of this standard meet
certain provisions of ASME B30.5–2000
with addenda ASME B30.5a–2002,
‘‘Safety Code for Mobile and
Locomotive Cranes.’’ Here, as elsewhere
in this proposal, OSHA has updated the
provision to refer to the 2004 version of
ASME B30.5. OSHA has compared the
2004 and earlier version and, as
discussed below, requests public
comment on whether certain changes in
the 2004 version should be adopted.
The provisions of ASME B30.5–2004
incorporated in the C–DAC document
are as follows:
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59842
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(1) In section 5–1.1.1 (‘‘Load
Ratings—Where Stability Governs
Lifting Performance’’), paragraphs (a)–
(d) (including subparagraphs);
(2) In section 5–1.1.2 (‘‘Load
Ratings—Where Structural Competence
Governs Lifting Performance’’),
paragraph (b);
(3) Section 5–1.2 (‘‘Stability
(Backward and Forward)’’);
(4) In section 5–1.3.1 (‘‘Boom Hoist
Mechanism’’), paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and
(b)(2), except that when using rotation
resistant rope, § 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(A)
applies;
(5) In section 5–1.3.2 (‘‘Load Hoist
Mechanism’’), paragraphs (a), (a)(2)—
(a)(4) (including subparagraphs), (b)—
(d) (including subparagraphs);
(6) Section 5–1.3.3 (‘‘Telescoping
Boom’’);
(7) Section 5–1.4 (‘‘Swing
Mechanism’’);
(8) In section 5–1.5 (‘‘Crane Travel’’),
all provisions except 5–1.5.3(d);
(9) In section 5–1.6 (‘‘Controls’’), all
provisions except 5–1.6.1(c);
(10) Section 5–1.7.4 (‘‘Sheaves’’);
(11) Section 5–1.7.5 (‘‘Sheave sizes’’);
(12) In section 5–1.9.1 (‘‘Booms’’),
paragraph (f);
(13) Section 5–1.9.3 (‘‘Outriggers’’);
(14) Section 5–1.9.4 (‘‘Locomotive
Crane Equipment’’);
(15) Section 5–1.9.7 (‘‘Clutch and
Brake Protection’’); and
(16) In section 5–1.9.12
(‘‘Miscellaneous equipment’’),
paragraphs (a), (c), (e), and (f).
C–DAC’s intent in this paragraph was
to incorporate design and construction
provisions of ASME B30.5–2004 that
would only be applicable to mobile and
locomotive cranes. Some other
provisions of ASME B30.5–2004 are not
incorporated here because they deal
with issues addressed elsewhere in this
proposal. For example, two-block
protection, which is required by section
5–1.9.9.1 of the ASME standard, is
addressed in § 1926.1416 of this
proposed standard. In addition, the
issues addressed in proposed paragraph
(e) below are addressed in ASME B30.5–
2004 but, instead of making those
provisions applicable solely to mobile
and locomotive cranes, C–DAC drafted
corresponding provisions that would be
applied to all of the equipment subject
to this proposed standard.
The sections of ASME B30.5
referenced in proposed
§ 1926.1433(b)(1) and (b)(13) contain
substantive differences between the
2004 and earlier versions. For
§ 1926.1433(b)(1), Table 1 of section 5–
1.1.1 includes new requirements for
equipment with outriggers partially
extended that are not found in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
earlier version. For paragraph
§ 1926.1433(b)(13), the 2004 version of
section 5–1.9.3 contains a new
paragraph (d) dealing with deploying
partially extended outriggers. Inasmuch
as § 1926.1404(q)(1) of this proposal
permits partial deployment of outriggers
when manufacturer procedures permit,
OSHA believes it would serve C–DAC’s
intent to incorporate the provisions on
partially deployed outriggers in the
2004 version of ASME B30.5. OSHA
requests public comment on this issue.
Upon reviewing the C–DAC draft of
§ 1926.1433(b)(5), OSHA notes that two
corrections are necessary. First, there is
an internal inconsistency between the
incorporation of paragraph (a) of the
ASME section and the more limited
incorporation of paragraphs (a)(2)
through (a)(4). To correct this
inconsistency, OSHA is deleting the
reference to paragraph (a). Second, as
noted earlier in the discussion of
§ 1926.1414, the second sentence of
section 5–1.3.2(c) of ASME B30.5–2004
is stated as a recommendation rather
than a mandatory requirement. OSHA
believes it would be confusing to
incorporate a non-mandatory
recommendation into this standard.
Therefore, rather than incorporating all
of section 5–1.3.2(c) by reference, OSHA
is proposing to incorporate only the first
sentence, which reads: ‘‘When
provided, a power-controlled lowering
system shall be capable of handling
rated loads and speeds as specified by
the manufacturer.’’ With these changes,
proposed § 1926.1433(b)(5) reads as
follows:
(5) In section 5–1.3.2 (‘‘Load Hoist
Mechanism’’), paragraphs (a)(2)–(a)(4)
(including subparagraphs), (b) (including
subparagraphs), (c) (first sentence only), and
(d).
Finally, due to renumbering, section
5–1.9.12 of the older ASME standard is
section 5–1.9.11 in the 2004 version.
The proposed rule reflects this change.
Paragraph 1433(c)
Proposed (c), Prototype testing, would
require that prototype mobile (including
crawler and truck) and locomotive
cranes manufactured on or after the
effective date of this standard meet the
prototype testing requirements in
§ 1926.1433(c)(1), Test Option A or
§ 1926.1433(c)(2), Test Option B of this
proposed section. As discussed in
greater detail below, Test Option A
continues the prototype testing
methodology that has been required
under Subpart N for crawler,
locomotive, and truck cranes through
the incorporation of ANSI B30.5–1968.
Test Option B would permit, as an
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
alternative, the use of computer
modeling technology for prototype
evaluation.
Test Option A—Physical Testing
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i), Test
Option A, would state that the following
applies to equipment with cantilevered
booms (such as hydraulic boom cranes):
all the tests listed in SAE J1063, Table
1, shall be performed to load all critical
structural elements to their respective
limits; and all the strength margins
listed in SAE J1063, Table 2 shall be
met. As mentioned in previous
paragraphs of this proposed standard,
C–DAC recognized the abundance of
hydraulic cranes now in production and
believed OSHA needs to ensure that
prototypes are tested to the most
applicable standards. C–DAC identified
current SAE standards as being most
protective and applicable to the majority
of cantilevered-boom cranes that are
manufactured in the United States. In
addition, they believed that most U.S.
manufacturers already adhere to the
SAE standards.
Proposed § 1926.1433(c)(1)(ii) states
that the following applies to equipment
with pendant supported lattice booms:
all the tests listed in SAE J987, Table 1,
shall be performed to load all critical
structural elements to their respective
limits; and all the strength margins
listed in SAE J987 Table 2 shall be met.
C–DAC recommended that OSHA
include the minimum testing criteria
specified in the referenced SAE
standard to ensure that prototype cranes
with pendant supported booms were
safe to operate on construction sites.
The testing involved in the SAE tables
under Option A uses empirical
measurements of the prototype; in other
words, ‘‘physical testing,’’ using
equipment such as strain gauges, is
done to determine if the prototype is
within the requisite limits.
Test Option B—Computer Modeling
With Methodology Verification
In contrast to the physical testing
required under Test Option A, under
proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2), Test Option
B, the testing and verification
requirements of CEN’s EN 13000 (2004),
which permits tests to be conducted
using computer modeling, would apply.
In using the CEN (Comite Europe en de
Normalisation, or European Committee
for Standardization) standard, the
additional requirements specified in
proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2)(i) through
(iii), which impose conditions that must
be met if computer modeling is used,
would also have to be met.
During the C–DAC meetings, there
was considerable discussion about
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
whether computer modeling is a
sufficient substitute for physical testing.
A German crane manufacturer gave a
presentation to C–DAC in which they
described successful experience with
the use of computer modeling, which
convinced some members of C–DAC
that computer modeling should be
allowed to be used to comply with this
proposed section. Other C–DAC
members were not convinced that
computer modeling was sufficient to
ensure that prototype cranes were safe
for operation because the tested areas of
those cranes were not strain gauged.
Others believed that data was available
which indicated that, when CEN testing
standards were met, imported cranes
were as safe as those tested using the
strain gauging methods specified in
§ 1926.1433(c)(1). Ultimately, C–DAC
agreed to allow testing under the CEN
standard but to mandate that the
requirements of proposed
§ 1926.1433(c)(2), discussed below, are
met to ensure the reliability of the
computer modeling.
Proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2)(i) would
require that the analysis methodology
(computer modeling) demonstrate that
all load cases listed in SAE J1063 meet
the strength margins listed in SAE J1063
Table 2 for equipment with cantilevered
booms (such as hydraulic boom cranes).
C–DAC determined that it is necessary
that the computer modeling
demonstrate that the prototype meets
the same minimum strength criteria
used in Test Option A (see proposed
§ 1926.1433(c)(1)(i), Test Option A,
above).
Proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2)(ii) would
require that the analysis methodology
(computer modeling) demonstrate that
all load cases listed in SAE J987 meet
the strength margins listed in SAE J987
Table 2 for equipment with pendant
supported lattice booms. This proposed
provision was included for the same
reason as explained in the discussion of
proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2)(i) above.
Proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2)(iii),
Analysis verification, is designed to
ensure that computer modeling would
not be used as a substitute for physical
testing unless its accuracy and
reliability is verified. Some C–DAC
members raised objections to reliance
on computer modeling because it may
not accurately account for some aspects
of a design, or may not be reliable for
other reasons. Their concern was that if
the analysis methodology did not
accurately or reliably account for some
aspect of the design, such error might
not be known until there had been a
failure of the crane when in use.
To address this concern, under this
proposed provision, computer modeling
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
may only be used as a substitute for
strain gauge testing if the reliability of
the computer modeling is verified by a
history of strain gauge testing, or strain
gauge testing combined with other
physical testing. This does not mean
that each computer modeling
assessment of a particular prototype
must be verified with strain gauge
testing of that prototype. Rather, it
means that strain gauge testing, or strain
gauge testing combined with other
physical testing, has been used to
confirm the results of the computer
modeling in enough relevant instances,
which are documented, to demonstrate
that the modeling is accurate and
reliable.
Some members of C–DAC were
concerned that small employers would
not have the resources to determine if
the computer modeling used to test its
crane met the specified SAE standards.
This concern is addressed by proposed
paragraph (e), which allows employers
to rely on manufacturer documentation
to show that the testing requirements of
this proposed standard have been met.
The C–DAC draft included a
§ 1926.1433(c) that would have required
that prototype testing of crawler,
locomotive, and truck cranes meet the
applicable requirements for prototype
testing prescribed in ANSI B30.5–1968.
Upon reviewing that provision, OSHA
notes that it is included in the
requirement of proposed § 1926.1433(a)
that such cranes meet the applicable
testing requirements of ANSI B30.5–
1968. To avoid any confusion that such
duplication may cause, OSHA is
deleting C–DAC’s proposed
§ 1926.1433(c) and has redesignated the
paragraphs that followed it. However, to
make clear that this deletion does not
alter the substantive requirement for
prototype testing in the C–DAC
document, OSHA is adding a note at the
end of paragraph (c) that states that
prototype testing of crawler, locomotive
and truck cranes manufactured prior to
the effective date of the standard must
conform to paragraph (a).
OSHA notes that neither proposed
§ 1926.1433(c) nor any other proposed
provisions would apply prototype
testing requirements to tower cranes. It
appears to the Agency that this was an
oversight on the part of C–DAC. OSHA
requests public comment on whether
there should be prototype testing
requirements for tower cranes, and, if
so, what requirements should apply.
Paragraph 1433(d)
Proposed paragraph (d) would
mandate that all equipment covered by
this Subpart meet the requirements
listed in § 1926.1433(d)(1) through
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59843
(d)(13) of this proposed section. As
noted above, the issues addressed by
paragraph (d) are addressed by ASME
B30.5–2004. However, instead of
making those requirements apply solely
to mobile and locomotive cranes, C–
DAC believed that all equipment
covered by this proposal presents
similar issues and drafted this
paragraph to apply to all covered
equipment.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(1), Load
capacity/ratings and related
information, would require the
employer to ensure that the information
available in the cab (see § 1926.1417(c))
regarding load capacity/ratings and
related information include the data
listed in § 1926.1433(d)(1)(i) through
(d)(1)(xvi). This proposed paragraph
essentially tracks section 5–1.1.3 of
ASME B30.5–2004 but uses wording
that makes the provisions of the ASME
standard applicable to all equipment
subject to this standard. Some of this
information is already required for
mobile and locomotive cranes by
Subpart N’s incorporation of ANSI
B30.5–1968. C–DAC believed that these
equipment specifications need to be
made available for the operator to
reference in the cab so that the operator
has immediate access to information
needed to ensure safe operation.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(2), (3), and
(4) are comparable to requirements in
section 5–1.7.6 of ASME B30.5–2004.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(2) would
require that load hooks (including
latched and unlatched types), ball
assemblies and load blocks be of
sufficient weight to overhaul the line
from the highest hook position for boom
or boom and jib lengths and the number
of parts of the line in use. C–DAC
explained that due to the various
lengths of booms possible and the
weight of varying lengths of cable along
the entire lengths of those booms,
selection of sufficiently weighted ball
assemblies and load blocks is crucial to
safe hoisting operations. C–DAC
believed that this proposed requirement
is necessary to prevent any incidents
that would occur when ball assemblies,
load blocks, and load hooks are of
insufficient weight to keep the load line
from being unintentionally pulled up
the boom due to the weight of the load
line itself.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(3) would
require that hook and ball assemblies
and load blocks be marked with their
rated capacity and weight. C–DAC
believed that marking this equipment
with their rated capacities is needed to
help ensure that they are not
overloaded, which could lead to loss of
the load. Marking them with their
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59844
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
weight is necessary to help enable
employers to comply with proposed
§ 1926.1433(d)(2) (discussed above).
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(4), Latching
hooks, would require that hooks meet
the requirements in
§ 1926.1433(d)(4)(i)–(iii) of this
proposed section. C–DAC believed that
these proposed requirements would
help employers reduce or eliminate the
number of incidents related to the
unintentional disengaging of loads from
their load line hooks.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(4)(i) would
require that hooks be equipped with
latches, except where the requirements
of § 1926.1433(d)(4)(ii) are met. C–DAC
believed that the use of hooks with
latches is an industry recognized
practice but also recognized that there
are some circumstances where the use
of a hook with a latch presents a greater
hazard. For example, if an employee
would have to climb up or out onto an
unsecured, elevated member to unhook
the load after its placement, the
employee would be exposed to a fall
hazard.
To accommodate such greater hazard
scenarios, proposed § 1926.1433(d)(4)(ii)
would require that hooks without
latches, or with latches removed or
disabled, not be used unless two criteria
are met. First, a qualified person must
determine that it is safer to hoist and
place the load without latches (or with
the latches removed/tied-back). Second,
routes for the loads must be pre-planned
to ensure that no employee is required
to work in the fall zone except for
employees necessary for the hooking or
unhooking of the load.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(4)(iii) would
require that the latch close the throat
opening and be designed to retain slings
or other lifting devices/accessories in
the hook when the rigging apparatus is
slack. This requirement was included to
ensure that the rigging will not be
unintentionally dislodged from the hook
when the rigging apparatus is slack. C–
DAC members described scenarios
where loads had become caught on
structures or objects and created a slack
condition. This caused the rigging to
become dislodged and resulted in the
load falling.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(5), Posted
warnings, states that posted warnings
required by this subpart as well as those
originally supplied with the equipment
by the manufacturer shall be maintained
in legible condition. Compliance with
this proposed requirement would
increase the likelihood that employees
will recognize the hazard identified on
the posted warning and avoid or protect
themselves from that hazard.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(6) would
require that an accessible fire
extinguisher be on the equipment. This
requirement, which is similar to one
currently at § 1926.550(a)(14)(i), would
enable a small fire to be extinguished
before it can spread.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7), Cabs,
states that equipment with cabs shall
meet the requirements listed in
§ 1926.1433(d)(7)(i) through (v) of this
proposed section. The majority of
§ 1926.1433(d)(7) is currently required
for crawler, locomotive, and truck
cranes by Subpart N, which
incorporates the construction
requirements of ANSI B30.5–1968.
These proposed provisions would
ensure that the crane operator is
provided with a safe work station that
has adequate ventilation, safe means of
access and egress, good visibility,
protection against window breakage,
and sufficient roof strength.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(i) would
require that cabs be designed with a
form of adjustable ventilation and
method for clearing the windshield for
maintaining visibility and air
circulation. Examples of means for
adjustable ventilation include an air
conditioner or window that can be
opened (for ventilation and air
circulation); examples of means for
maintaining visibility include heater
(for preventing windshield icing),
defroster, fan, and windshield wiper.
This provision would ensure adequate
air circulation both for the operator’s
health and for good visibility.
Under proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(ii),
cab doors (whether swinging or sliding)
would have to be designed to prevent
inadvertent opening or closing while
traveling or operating the machine.
Swinging doors adjacent to the operator
must open outward. Sliding operator
doors must open rearward. This
proposed provision is currently required
for crawler, locomotive, and truck
cranes by section 5–1.8.1c of ANSI
B30.5–1968, which is incorporated by
reference in Subpart N. Standardization
of the direction for opening doors helps
ensure that an operator will be able to
exit the cab quickly in an emergency.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii),
Windows, would require that cabs meet
the requirements listed in
§ 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(A) through (C).
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(A)
would require that the cab have
windows in front and on both sides of
the operator. Forward vertical visibility
would have to be sufficient to give the
operator a view of the boom point at all
times. This proposed provision is
currently required for crawler,
locomotive, and truck cranes by section
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5–1.8.1b of ANSI B30.5–1968, which is
incorporated by reference in Subpart N.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(B)
would allow windows to have sections
designed to be opened or readily
removed. Windows with sections
designed to be opened would have to be
designed so that they can be secured to
prevent inadvertent closure. This
proposed provision is currently required
for crawler, locomotive, and truck
cranes by section 5–1.8.1b of ANSI
B30.5–1968, which is incorporated by
reference in Subpart N. Compliance
with this provision would ensure that
the operator can adequately ventilate
the cab should conditions within the
cab affect the safe operation of the
crane. Under such conditions,
inadvertent closure of the windows
during the operation of the crane could
distract an operator or facilitate
reoccurrence of conditions within the
cab which adversely affect the safe
operation of the crane.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(C)
would specify that windows be of safety
glass or material with similar optical
and safety properties, that introduce no
visible distortion or otherwise obscure
visibility that interferes with the safe
operation of the crane. This provision
maintains the protections currently
required by § 1926.550(a)(12).
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(iv) would
require that a clear passageway be
provided from the operator’s station to
an exit door on the operator’s side. This
proposed provision is currently required
for crawler, locomotive, and truck
cranes by section 5–1.8.1d of ANSI
B30.5–1968, which is incorporated by
reference in Subpart N. This provision
will enable the operator to enter and
exit the equipment safely and will
enable the operator to escape from the
cab quickly in the event of an
emergency.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(v) would
state that areas of the cab roof that serve
as a workstation for rigging,
maintenance or other crane-related tasks
shall be capable of supporting 250
pounds without permanent distortion.
This proposed provision maintains the
protection provided by Subpart N for
crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes
through its incorporation by reference of
ANSI B30.5–1968 (section 5–1.8.4),
except that the cab roof strength
requirement was increased to 250
pounds from 200 pounds. This increase
was recommended by C–DAC to
increase the safety factor of the roof in
light of heavier employees and
equipment that must be supported by
the cab roof.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(8) would
require that belts, gears, shafts, pulleys,
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sprockets, spindles, drums, fly wheels,
chains, and other parts or components
that reciprocate, rotate or otherwise
move be guarded where contact by
employees (except for maintenance and
repair workers) is possible in the
performance of normal duties. This
proposed provision continues the basic
requirement of § 1926.550(a)(8) of
Subpart N but revises the Subpart N
provision to include an exception for
maintenance and repair employees. The
exception would permit maintenance
and repair workers to remove the guards
when their work requires access to the
parts being guarded. C–DAC believed
this exception was necessary because
these employees often cannot perform
their work with the guards installed.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(9) would
require that all exhaust pipes,
turbochargers, and charge air coolers be
insulated or guarded where contact by
employees is possible in the
performance of normal duties. As with
proposed § 1926.1433(d)(8), an
exception is provided when
maintenance and repair workers need to
remove the guards to perform their
work. This proposed provision was
included to retain the employee
protection against burn injuries
currently provided by § 1926.550(a)(10),
which requires guarding or insulation of
exhaust pipes, and to extend it to other
components that can get hot enough to
cause burns if contacted.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(10) would
require that hydraulic and pneumatic
lines be protected from damage to the
extent feasible. Denting, crushing,
puncturing, or nicking a hydraulic or
pneumatic line could adversely affect
the structural integrity of the line and
compromise the safe operation of the
affected systems and the crane as a
whole. A similar provision is in section
5–1.9.8 of ASME B30.5–2004. C–DAC
believed that most manufacturers in the
industry are already providing
protection for these lines but believed it
was advisable to include this proposed
provision in light of the increasing
numbers of pneumatically and
hydraulically controlled cranes now
being operated in the industry.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(11) would
require that equipment be designed so
that exhaust fumes are not discharged in
the cab and are discharged in a direction
away from the operator. This proposed
provision was included to retain the
employee protection provided for
crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes by
section 5–1.9.2 of ANSI B30.5–1968,
incorporated by reference in Subpart N,
and to extend it to other types of
equipment. This proposed requirement
ensures that exhaust gases which are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
likely to adversely affect or incapacitate
the operator will not accumulate in the
cab because of the design of the
equipment.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(12), Friction
mechanisms, states that where friction
mechanisms (such as brakes and
clutches) are used to control the boom
hoist or load line hoist, they shall be: Of
a size and thermal capacity sufficient to
control all rated loads with the
minimum recommended reeving; and
adjustable to permit compensation for
lining wear to maintain proper
operation. Comparable requirements
now apply to crawler, locomotive, and
truck cranes through incorporation by
reference in Subpart N of ANSI B30.5–
1968 (sections 5–1.3.2a.1 and 5–1.3.3).
C–DAC believed that a similar
requirement should apply to all
equipment using friction mechanisms to
control the boom hoist or load line. The
Committee believed that this
engineering technology is typical in
most modern friction mechanisms.
Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(13),
Hydraulic load hoists, would specify
that hydraulic drums have an integrally
mounted holding device or internal
static brake to prevent load hoist
movement in the event of hydraulic
failure. A comparable requirement is in
section 5–1.3.1(d) of ASME B30.5–2004.
This requirement will protect
employees against serious injuries and
deaths that could result from an
unintended movement of the load hoist
caused by a hydraulic failure.
Paragraph 1433(e)
As noted above, proposed paragraph
(e) would permit employers to rely on
documentation from manufacturers to
show that they are in compliance with
§ 1926.1433(a)–(c) and
§ 1926.1433(d)(7)–(d)(13) where the
equipment has not changed since it was
manufactured, except in accordance
with § 1926.1434, Equipment
modifications. Section 1926.1433(d)(1)–
(d)(6) are excluded from this provision
because the employer can easily verify
compliance with them without recourse
to documentation provided by the
manufacturer.
A failure to have such documentation
would not, in itself, constitute a
violation of these provisions. Rather,
proposed § 1926.1433(e) is intended to
make it easier for employers to
determine if their equipment meets
these criteria.
Section 1434 Equipment Modifications
This proposed section addresses the
procedures an employer must follow if
it wants to modify equipment in a way
that would affect its capacity or safe
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59845
operation. Its purpose is to safeguard
against unsafe modifications and to
ensure that the equipment’s instructions
and specifications are updated to reflect
the modifications so that the equipment
may be used safely.
Currently, § 1926.550(a)(16) provides:
No modifications or additions which affect
the capacity or safe operation of the
equipment shall be made by the employer
without the manufacturer’s written approval.
If such modifications or changes are made,
the capacity, operation, and maintenance
instruction plates, tags, or decals, shall be
changed accordingly. In no case shall the
original safety factor of the equipment be
reduced.
By requiring the manufacturer’s
written approval, § 1926.550(a)(16)
seeks to ensure that the proposed
modifications or additions will be
consistent with the design and
structural integrity of the equipment
and will not reduce the original safety
factor of the equipment. The Committee
believed that manufacturer approval
was an important safeguard and should
be retained but was concerned that it
does not address situations in which the
manufacturer does not respond to a
request to approve a modification or
when the manufacturer is no longer
available to evaluate a proposed
modification. Therefore, the Committee
recommended a new provision that
addresses these types of scenarios with
procedures that it believed would allow
for modifications to be made safely.
Paragraph 1434(a)
Proposed paragraph (a) would
prohibit modifications or additions
which affect the capacity or safe
operation of the equipment except
where any of three approval options set
out in proposed § 1926.1434(a)(1), (2),
and (3) are met. In the first option,
proposed § 1926.1434(a)(1)(i),
Manufacturer review and approval, the
employer would be required to obtain
written manufacturer approval for the
modifications/additions.
OSHA has corrected an inadvertent
omission from proposed
§ 1926.1434(a)(1) by adding proposed
§ 1926.1434(a)(1)(ii), which requires the
employer to modify the load charts,
procedures, instruction manuals and
instruction plates/tags/decals as
necessary to accord with the
modification/addition. Currently,
§ 1926.550(a)(16) contains such a
requirement and proposed
§ 1926.1434(a)(2), which requires the
modifications or additions to be
approved by a registered professional
engineer if the manufacturer declines to
review the proposal, does as well (see
below). It was clearly C–DAC’s intent to
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59846
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
retain the existing protection in
§ 1926.550(a)(16) and require the
employer to modify the load charts,
procedures, instruction manuals and
instruction plates/tags/decals regardless
of who approved the modification/
addition. The crane operator and other
employees who work with the crane
need accurate information about the
topics addressed in those materials, and
having them available, as proposed
§ 1926.1434(a)(1)(ii) requires, will help
ensure that the equipment is operated
safely.
The second option, proposed
§ 1926.1434(a)(2), Manufacturer refusal
to review request, would establish a
procedure where the manufacturer
either declines to review a request for a
modification approval or fails to
respond to the request. Under this
procedure, the employer would be
required to provide a detailed
description of the proposed
modification to the manufacturer and
ask it to approve the modification/
addition. If the manufacturer declines to
review the technical merits of the
proposal or fails, within 30 days, to
acknowledge the request or initiate the
review, the employer would be
permitted to proceed with the
modification if the requirements
specified in proposed
§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(i) and (ii) are met.
Proposed § 1926.1434(a)(2)(i) would
require that a registered professional
engineer who is a qualified person with
respect to the equipment involved take
two actions. First, under proposed
§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(i)(A), the engineer
would have to approve the
modification/addition and specify the
equipment configurations to which that
approval applies. The second action that
the approving engineer would have to
take, which is described under proposed
§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(i)(B), would be to
modify load charts, procedures,
instruction manuals and instruction
plates/tags/decals as necessary to accord
with the modification/addition.
This is essential for safe equipment
operation because these are the charts,
signs and materials that inform the user
and operator of the capacities,
procedures and limitations that apply to
the equipment. Proposed
§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(ii) would specify that
the modification/addition not reduce
the original safety factor of the
equipment, retaining the comparable
requirement now found in
§ 1926.550(a)(16).
The Committee recommended
§ 1926.1434(a)(2) because it believed
that the refusal of a manufacturer to
review a request, or a manufacturer’s
failure to act on the request within a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
reasonable time, should not preclude an
employer from making a modification if
adequate precautions are followed. The
Committee concluded that 30 days
would give the manufacturer a
reasonable amount of time to decide
whether to simply decline to review the
request or to proceed with evaluating it.
Also, the Committee concluded that a
failure to respond at all in this period
would fairly reflect an intention not to
act on the request in a timely manner.
C–DAC believed that the actions
specified in proposed
§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(i) would need to be
done by a registered professional
engineer who is a qualified person with
respect to the equipment involved. The
term ‘‘qualified person’’ is defined in
proposed § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a person who,
by possession of a recognized degree,
certificate, or professional standing, or
who by extensive knowledge, training
and experience, successfully
demonstrated the ability to solve/
resolve problems related to the subject
matter, the work, or the project.’’ The
Committee thought it important to make
clear that this individual needs to be a
qualified person ‘‘with respect to the
equipment involved,’’ since specialized
engineering knowledge is needed to
make the required assessments
regarding the particular equipment that
is being modified.
The approval of the modification/
addition under proposed
§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(i) would have to
specify the equipment configurations to
which that approval applies. Cranes
typically can be configured in a variety
of ways. Modifications may have
different effects depending on the
configuration. It is therefore essential for
purposes of ensuring safe operation that
the approval specify the configurations
to which the approval applies. An
example of an approval that met this
aspect of the proposed provision would
be the following: ‘‘This is an approval
to add an additional boom section of the
above-described design for a brand K
lattice boom crane, model 1. This
approval applies only when the crane is
configured without a jib.’’
This proposed section uses the term
‘‘modification/addition’’ to refer to
‘‘modification or addition.’’ The
Committee wanted to make clear that an
addition to the equipment is a type of
modification and needs to be subject to
the same approval procedures as other
types of modifications. For example, the
addition of a generator to the back of the
cab of a crane needs to be subject to the
approval procedures because it will
alter the crane’s backward stability.
Proposed § 1926.1434(a)(3),
Unavailable manufacturer, would
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
address a scenario where an employer
wishes to make an equipment
modification and the manufacturer of
the equipment is unavailable to review
the proposed modifications because, for
example, it has gone out of business
(and has not been taken over by a
successor company). Under these
circumstances, if the employer wishes
to modify its equipment in such a way
that affects its capacity and safe
operation, it must meet the
requirements of proposed
§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) above.
Paragraph 1434(b)
Proposed paragraph (b) would
prohibit modifications or additions
which affect the capacity or safe
operation of the equipment where the
manufacturer, after a review of the
technical safety merits of the proposed
modification/addition, rejects the
proposal and explains the reasons for
the rejection in a written response. This
requirement is the same as in
§ 1926.550(a)(16), except C–DAC
believed that it was important to
expressly state the need for the
manufacturer to explain why it rejected
the employer’s proposed modification.
Such an explanation would both
demonstrate that the manufacturer
reviewed the technical safety merits of
the request and give the employer the
opportunity to modify the proposal to
address the manufacturer’s objections.
The C–DAC version of proposed
§ 1926.1434(b) did not explicitly state
the effect of a manufacturer rejecting the
proposal but failing to provide written
reasons for the rejection. OSHA believes
that C–DAC intended that such a
situation be treated as a manufacturer
refusal to review the request under
§ 1926.1434(a)(2). To effectuate this
intent, OSHA has added the following
sentence to proposed § 1926.1434(b):
If the manufacturer rejects the proposal but
does not explain the reasons for the rejection
in writing, the employer may treat this as a
manufacturer refusal to review the request
under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
Paragraph 1434(c)
Proposed paragraph (c) would state
that the provisions in § 1926.1434(a)
and (b) of this proposed section do not
apply to modifications made or
approved by the U.S. military. A
representative of the U.S. Navy
indicated to C–DAC that such an
exception is needed in the event of
military exigencies.
Section 1435 Tower Cranes
‘‘Tower crane’’ is defined in
§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a type of lifting
structure which utilizes a vertical mast
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
or tower to support a working boom (jib)
in an elevated position. Loads are
suspended from the working boom.
While the working boom may be of the
fixed type (horizontal or angled) or have
luffing capability, it can always rotate to
swing loads, either by rotating on the
top of the tower (top slewing) or by the
rotation of the tower (bottom slewing).
The tower base may be fixed in one
location or ballasted and moveable
between locations.’’ This definition is
based in part on the SC&RF Handbook’s
definition.75
Subpart N, at § 1926.550(c), addresses
only one type of tower crane: those in
which the working boom is fixed
horizontally (hammerhead cranes).
Furthermore, § 1926.550(c) addresses
such tower cranes only to a limited
extent. Specifically, it addresses
adequate clearance for employee
passage near moving and rotating parts,
fall protection, trolley buffers, and limit
switches for cranes that travel on rails.
In addition, § 1926.550(c)(5) requires
that hammerhead tower cranes meet the
applicable requirements for design,
construction, installation, testing,
maintenance, inspection, and operation
as prescribed by the manufacturer.
The Committee believed that most of
the provisions in the other sections of
this proposed standard are necessary
and appropriate for tower cranes but
that, in addition, certain unique
characteristics of tower cranes
necessitate certain additional
requirements.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph 1435(a)
Proposed paragraph (a) states that
unless provided otherwise in this
section, all other sections of this
proposed standard apply to tower
cranes. As discussed below, sections
§ 1926.1415 (safety devices) and
§ 1926.1416 (operational aids) would
not apply to tower cranes. Instead, this
proposed section lists the safety devices
and operational aids that would be
required for tower cranes. In addition,
this proposed section contains
additional requirements for erecting,
climbing, dismantling, and inspections.
Paragraph 1435(b) Erecting, Climbing
and Dismantling
Proposed paragraph 1435(b) addresses
erecting, climbing, and dismantling
tower cranes. Under proposed
paragraph 1435(b)(1), the employer
would be required to comply with the
assembly and disassembly requirements
set out in proposed §§ 1926.1403,
1926.1404 and 1926.1405 except as
75 This definition is explained in the discussion
above of proposed § 1926.1401 (Definitions).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
otherwise specified in this section.
Because the industry generally refers to
the assembly and disassembly of tower
cranes as erecting, climbing and
dismantling, the term ‘‘assembly,’’ as
used in §§ 1926.1403 through
1926.1405, is replaced with ‘‘erecting
and climbing,’’ and the term
‘‘disassembly’’ is replaced with
‘‘dismantling.’’
OSHA notes that proposed
§ 1926.1403(b) specifies that employer
procedures for assembly and
disassembly may be used only where
the employer can demonstrate that the
procedures used meet the requirements
in § 1926.1406. The C–DAC draft of
§ 1926.1435(b) inadvertently omitted a
reference to § 1926.1406. OSHA has
corrected that omission; proposed
paragraph (b)(1) now reads as follows:
(1) Sections 1926.1403 (Assembly/
disassembly—selection of manufacturer or
employer procedures), 1926.1404 (Assembly/
disassembly—general requirements),
1926.1405 (Disassembly—additional
requirements for disassembly of booms and
jibs), and 1926.1406 (Assembly/
disassembly—employer procedures—general
requirements), apply to tower cranes (except
as otherwise specified), except that the term
‘‘assembly/disassembly’’ is replaced by
‘‘erecting, climbing and dismantling,’’ and
the term ‘‘disassembly’’ is replaced by
‘‘dismantling.’’
Proposed paragraph 1435(b)(2),
Dangerous areas (self-erecting tower
cranes), addresses the hazards
associated with crew members located
in certain areas. Employees would be
prohibited from being in or under the
tower, jib, or rotating portion of the
crane during erecting, climbing and
dismantling operations until the crane is
secured in a locked position and the
competent person indicates it is safe to
enter these areas. The only exception to
this would be where the manufacturer’s
instructions direct otherwise and the
employer limits access to necessary
employees only.
These areas are hazardous because, in
the event of unintended movement of
components, there is a heightened
chance than an employee could be
struck or crushed. The exception
accounts for those situations in which,
due to the design of the equipment, it
is infeasible for all employees to be out
of these areas during erecting, climbing
and dismantling operations.
Under proposed paragraph (b)(3),
Foundations and structural supports,
tower crane foundations and structural
supports would be required to be
designed by the manufacturer or a
registered professional engineer. The
Committee noted that structural
supports can include portions of a
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59847
structure, such as the floors or columns
of a building, when the tower crane is
mounted to them and they are used to
help support the crane.
When a tower crane is mounted to
portions of a structure, it is vital for safe
operation that the structure be able to
withstand both the crane and the loads
the crane will handle throughout the
job. Accordingly, when portions of a
structure are used to support a tower
crane, the manufacturer or registered
professional engineer who designs the
crane’s structural supports must ensure
not only that the structure is adequate
to support the crane when it is mounted
but that it will continue to support the
crane under all anticipated conditions
of use.
Moreover, that entity must ensure
both that the structure is strong enough
to support the crane under all
anticipated conditions of use and that
the means of attaching the crane to the
structure are strong enough to maintain
the crane’s support throughout the job.
Therefore, OSHA interprets ‘‘structural
supports’’ in this provision to include
both the portions of the structure used
for support and the means of
attachment. OSHA requests public
comment on whether proposed
§ 1926.1435(b)(3) states this intent with
sufficient clarity.
As drafted by C–DAC, this provision
was listed as one of the hazards the A/
D supervisor must address. However,
the provision imposes a specific duty on
the employer to have the foundations
and structural supports designed by the
manufacturer or a registered
professional engineer, and this will be
more clearly stated if the provision is
contained in a stand-alone requirement
rather than as one of several
requirements that the A/D supervisor
must address. Accordingly, OSHA has
moved the provision into a separate
§ 1926.1435(b)(3).76 In addition, as
discussed below, the original
§ 1926.1435(b)(3)(i) (now
§ 1926.1435(b)(4)(i)) has been modified
to state that the A/D supervisor must
verify that the foundation and structural
supports have been installed in
accordance with their design in order to
ensure that the design of the
manufacturer or registered professional
engineer has actually been
implemented.
Proposed paragraph 1435(b)(4),
Addressing specific hazards, would
require the employer to comply with
proposed § 1926.1404(h)(1) through (9).
76 The list of hazards the A/D supervisor must
address was in § 1926.1435(b)(3) of the C–DAC
draft; that list (as modified in accordance with the
discussion above) is now located in proposed
§ 1926.1435(b)(4).
E:\FR\FM\09OCP2.SGM
09OCP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
59848
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
During erecting, climbing and
dismantling, proposed § 1926.1404(h)
would require that the A/D supervisor
address certain hazards (these are
discussed above in the discussion of
proposed § 1926.1404). Proposed
1926.1435(b)(4) lists additional hazards,
specific to tower cranes, that the A/D
supervisor would also have to address.
These additional hazards are those
associated with (i) the foundations and
structural supports for tower cranes, (ii)
the loss of backward stability, and (iii)
wind speed.
Proposed paragraph 1435(b)(4)(i)
would require the A/D supervisor to
verify that the foundation and structural
supports are installed in accordance
with their design. This paragraph is
designed to ensure that the design of
these components by the manufacturer
or registered professional engineer is
followed when they are installed.
Proposed (b)(4)(ii) would require that
the A/D supervisor address the
backward stability of the crane before
self erecting tower cranes or cranes on
traveling or stationary undercarriages
are swung. This provision is similar to
the assembly/disassembly requirement
in § 1926.1404(h)(11)(discussed above)
except that it applies only to self
erecting tower cranes and cranes that
are on traveling or static (stationary)
undercarriages. It applies to these types
of tower cranes to highlight the fact that,
because they do not have a base that is
fixed to the ground, the backwards
stability safety issue needs to be
addressed.
Tower cranes have a relatively small
footprint relative to their height. The
horizontal force caused by wind during
erecting and dismantling can therefore
have a substantial effect on the stability
of a tower crane. Proposed
§ 1926.1435(b)(4)(iii) would require that
erecting, climbing, and dismantling not
take place when the wind speed
recommended by the manufacturer is
exceeded. Where the manufacturer does
not specify the proper wind speed, a
qualified person would be required to
determine the wind speed not to be
exceeded.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4), Plumb
tolerance, addresses the extent to which
tower cranes need to be plumb. This
proposed provision would require that
the crane’s tower be plumb to the
manufacturer’s tolerance and verified by
a qualified person. The Committee
noted that if a vertical tower is out of
plumb the stability of the crane is
greatly reduced. In addition, an out of
plumb condition can reduce the crane’s
capacity and could cause a collapse.
Where the manufacturer does not
specify the plumb tolerance, this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:22 Oct 08, 2008
Jkt 217001
provision would require that the tower
be plumbed to a tolerance of at least
1:500. The Committee noted that a
tolerance of at least 1:500 is generally
what manufacturers specify and that for
any type of vertical structure this
generally is the accepted plumb
tolerance in the engineering and
construction industries.
Proposed paragraph (b)(6), Multiple
tower crane jobsites, would require
construction jobsites with more than
on