Cranes and Derricks in Construction, 59714-59954 [E8-21993]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59714-59954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21993]



[[Page 59713]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Labor





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



29 CFR Part 1926



Cranes and Derricks in Construction; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 59714]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information and press 
inquiries. Contact Ms. Jennifer Ashley, Director, Office of 
Communications, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., 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:

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.

II. Background

A. History

    The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590, 29 
U.S.C.

[[Page 59715]]

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 federally-financed 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 Sec.  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, Sec.  
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, Sec.  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, Sec.  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 Sec.  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 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:

    ``[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.

[[Page 59716]]

--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..................................  Director of Construction
                                          Training, International Union
                                          of Operating Engineers.
Organizations/Interests represented....  Organized construction
                                          employees who operate cranes
                                          and derricks, and work with
                                          such equipment.
Experience.............................  Worked in numerous positions in
                                          the construction industry over
                                          28 years, including Equipment
                                          Operator, Mechanic, and
                                          Training Director.
Michael Brunet, Manitowoc Cranes, Inc.
 (manufacturers and suppliers).
Title..................................  Director of Product Support for
                                          Manitowoc Cranes.
Organizations/Interests represented....  Crane manufacturers, suppliers,
                                          and distributors.
Experience.............................  Extensive engineering
                                          experience in crane
                                          engineering; participated in
                                          development of SAE and ISO
                                          standards for cranes.
Stephen P. Charman, Viacom Outdoor,
 Inc. (employer users).
Title..................................  Vice President (New York) of
                                          Viacom Outdoor Group.
Organizations/Interests represented....  Billboard construction.
Experience.............................  Over 43 years' experience with
                                          the construction industry,
                                          including specialized rigging.
Joseph Collins, Zachry Construction
 Corporation (employer users).
Title..................................  Crane Fleet Manager.
Organizations/Interests represented....  Highway/Railroad Construction.
Experience.............................  Over 30 years' experience with
                                          the construction industry in a
                                          variety of positions including
                                          crane operator, mechanic, and
                                          rigger.
Noah Connell, U.S. Department of Labor,
 Occupational Safety and Health
 Administration (government).
Title..................................  Director, Office of
                                          Construction Standards and
                                          Guidance.
Organization/Interests represented.....  Government.
Experience.............................  22 years' experience with
                                          government programs.
Peter Juhren, Morrow Equipment Company,
 L.L.C. (manufacturers and suppliers).
Title..................................  National Service Manager.
Organization/Interests represented.....  Tower crane distributor/
                                          manufacturer.
Experience.............................  22 years' experience with
                                          Morrow Equipment Company,
                                          L.L.C.
Bernie McGrew, Link-Belt Construction
 Equipment Corp. (manufacturers and
 suppliers).
Title..................................  Manager for Crane Testing,
                                          Product Safety, Metal Labs and
                                          Technical Computing.
Organization/Interests represented.....  Mobile crane manufacturers.
Experience.............................  Extensive engineering
                                          experience in crane
                                          engineering.
Larry Means, Wire Rope Technical Board
 (manufacturers and suppliers).
Title..................................  Rope Engineer.
Organization/Interests represented.....  Wire rope manufacturing
                                          industry.
Experience.............................  36 years' wire rope engineering
                                          experience.
Frank Migliaccio, International
 Association of Bridge, Structural,
 Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron
 Workers (labor organization).
Title..................................  Executive Director for Safety
                                          and Health.
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Organized construction
                                          employees who operate cranes
                                          and derricks, and work with
                                          such equipment.
Experience.............................  31 years' experience in the
                                          ironworking industry,
                                          including ten years as
                                          Director of Safety and Health
                                          Training for the Ironworker's
                                          National Fund.

[[Page 59717]]

 
Brian Murphy, Sundt Corporation
 (employer users).
Title..................................  Vice President and Safety
                                          Director.
Organization/Interests Represented.....  General contractors/crane
                                          owners/users.
Experience.............................  Over 35 years' experience in
                                          the construction industry,
                                          most of them with Sundt.
George R. ``Chip'' Pocock, C.P. Buckner
 Steel Erection (employer users).
Title..................................  Safety and Risk Manager.
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Steel Erection crane user/
                                          employers.
Experience.............................  Over 22 years' experience in
                                          the construction/steel
                                          erection industry.
David Ritchie, St. Paul Companies
 (trainer and operator testing).
Title..................................  Crane and Rigging Specialist.
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Employee Training/Evaluation.
Experience.............................  Over 31 years' experience in
                                          the construction industry.
Emmett Russell, International Union of
 Operating Engineers (labor).
Title..................................  Director of Safety and Health.
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Organized construction
                                          employees who operate cranes
                                          and derricks, and work with
                                          such equipment.
Experience.............................  Over 32 years' experience in
                                          the crane/construction
                                          industry, including ten years
                                          in the field as well as over
                                          20 years with IUOE.
Dale Shoemaker, Carpenters
 International Training Center (labor).
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Labor organizations
                                          representing construction
                                          employees who operate cranes
                                          and derricks and who work in
                                          conjunction with cranes and
                                          derricks.
Experience.............................  Became a crane operator in
                                          1973; served as a rigging
                                          trainer for labor
                                          organizations since 1986.
William Smith, Maxim Crane Works
 (lessors/maintenance).
Title..................................  Corporate Safety/Labor
                                          Relations Manager.
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Crane/Derrick repair and
                                          maintenance companies.
Experience.............................  24 years' experience in the
                                          crane, rigging, and
                                          construction industry, both
                                          public and private sectors.
Craig Steele, Schuck & Sons
 Construction Company, Inc. (employer
 users).
Title..................................  President and CEO.
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Employers/users engaged in
                                          residential construction.
Experience.............................  30 years' experience in the
                                          construction industry with
                                          Schuck & Sons Construction
                                          Company, Inc.
Darlaine Taylor, Century Steel
 Erectors, Inc. (employer users).
Title..................................  Vice President.
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Steel Erection/Leased Crane
                                          Users.
Experience.............................  19 years with Century Steel
                                          Erectors, over 12 years in the
                                          construction safety field.
Wallace Vega III, Entergy Corp. (power
 line owners).
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Power line owners.
Experience.............................  35 years' experience in the
                                          power line industry.
William J. ``Doc'' Weaver, National
 Electrical Contractors Association
 (employer users).
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Electrical contractors engaged
                                          in power line construction.
Experience.............................  Over 53 years' electrical
                                          construction experience, 37 of
                                          which is spent in management
                                          positions.
Robert Weiss, Cranes, Inc. and A.J.
 McNulty & Company, Inc. (employer
 users).
Title..................................  Vice President and Project
                                          Manager for Safety
                                          (respectively).
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Employers/users engaged in
                                          precast concrete erection.
Experience.............................  20 years' experience in the
                                          precast and steel erection
                                          industry.
Doug Williams, C.P. Buckner Steel
 Erection (employer users).
Title..................................  President.
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Buckner Heavy Lift Cranes.
Experience.............................  32 years' experience in the
                                          construction industry.
Stephen Wiltshire, Sports and Public
 Assembly Group, Turner Construction
 Corp. (employer users).
Title..................................  National Safety Director.
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Employer/users of owned and
                                          leased cranes.
Experience.............................  28 years' experience in
                                          construction safety.
Charles Yorio, Acordia (Wells Fargo)
 (insurance).
Title..................................  Assistant Vice President.
Organization/Interests Represented.....  Insurance.
Experience.............................  17 years' experience in loss
                                          prevention and regulatory
                                          compliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C-DAC was chaired by a facilitator, Susan L. Podziba of Susan 
Podziba & Associates, a firm engaged in public policy mediation and 
consensus building. Ms. Podziba's role was to facilitate the 
negotiations by:

[[Page 59718]]

    (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).
    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 
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 Sec.  
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

[[Page 59719]]

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 Sec. Sec.  
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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
1926.1402-1434. In this way, C-DAC ensured that each type of equipment 
would be 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, ``Crane-Related Fatalities in the Construction 
Industry,'' 132 Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 901 
(Sept. 2006) (OSHA-2007-0066-0012). The authors searched OSHA's 
Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) database for all fatal 
accidents for 1997-2003 investigated by OSHA involving cranes in the 
construction industry. By searching the database for cases using the 
key words ``crane,'' ``derrick,'' or ``boom,'' they identified 381 IMIS 
files for the covered 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)............         32
Electrocution................................................         27
Crushed during assembly/disassembly..........................         21
Failure of boom/cable........................................         12
Crane tip-over...............................................         11
Struck by cab/counterweight..................................          3
Falls........................................................          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:

[[Page 59720]]



                 Table 3--The Causes of Crane Incidents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrocution..............................................    198 (39%)
Crane assembly/disassembly.................................     58 (12%)
Boom buckling/collapse.....................................      41 (8%)
Crane upset/overturn.......................................      37 (7%)
Rigging failure............................................      36 (7%)
Overloading................................................      22 (4%)
Struck by moving load......................................      22 (4%)
Accidents related to manlifts..............................      21 (4%)
Working within swing radius of counterweight...............      17 (3%)
Two-blocking...............................................      11 (2%)
Hoist limitations..........................................       7 (1%)
Other causes...............................................      32 (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 Sec. Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec. Sec.  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 sections of lattice booms unexpectedly 
move and strike or crush an employee who is disassembling the boom. The 
proposal addresses this scenario in proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  
1926.1403); boom stops to prevent booms from being raised too far and 
toppling over backwards (proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1926.1416, Operational aids). Also, the 
inspection requirements (proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1926.1413, Wire rope--inspection, Sec.  
1926.1414, Wire rope--selection and installation criteria, and the 
provision in proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
1926.1424, 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1926.1425, Keeping clear of the load, and 
Sec.  1926.1426, Free fall/controlled load lowering. In addition, 
improved requirements in proposed Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  1926.1427, 
Operator qualification and certification and proposed Sec.  1926.1430, 
Training. Other provisions, such as those for safety devices and 
operational aids (proposed Sec.  1926.1415 and Sec.  1926.1416), and 
the requirement for periodic inspections in proposed Sec.  1926.1412, 
will also reduce the number of this type of accident.
    Protection against falling from equipment is addressed by proposed 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 59721]]

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 Sec.  1403 requires that equipment be assembled in 
compliance with manufacturer procedures or with alternative employer 
procedures (see proposed Sec.  1406) designed, among other things, to 
prevent the equipment from collapsing. In addition, under proposed 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 he 
stood near the rear of the truck. (OSHA-2007-0066-0017.10)
    This type of accident would be prevented by compliance with 
proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 non-conductive, 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 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 co-worker 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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).

[[Page 59722]]

    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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-2007-0066-0017.4 & OSHA-2007-
0066-0018).
    This type of accident would be prevented by compliance with 
proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 c