Cranes and Derricks in Construction, 47906-48177 [2010-17818]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 152 (Monday, August 9, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47906-48177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17818]



[[Page 47905]]

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

Part II





Department of Labor





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



 Occupational Safety and Health Administration



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



29 CFR Part 1926



Cranes and Derricks in Construction; Final Rule

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

[[Page 47906]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is revising the Cranes and Derricks Standard and related 
sections of the Construction Standard to update and specify industry 
work practices necessary to protect employees during the use of cranes 
and derricks in construction. This final standard also addresses 
advances in the designs of cranes and derricks, related hazards, and 
the qualifications of employees needed to operate them safely. Under 
this final rule, employers must determine whether the ground is 
sufficient to support the anticipated weight of hoisting equipment and 
associated loads. The employer is then required to assess hazards 
within the work zone that would affect the safe operation of hoisting 
equipment, such as those of power lines and objects or personnel that 
would be within the work zone or swing radius of the hoisting 
equipment. Finally, the employer is required to ensure that the 
equipment is in safe operating condition via required inspections and 
that employees in the work zone are trained to recognize hazards 
associated with the use of the equipment and any related duties that 
they are assigned to perform.

DATES: This final rule will become effective November 8, 2010.
    The incorporation by reference of specific publications listed in 
this final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of November 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(2), the Agency 
designates Joseph M. Woodward, Associate Solicitor of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor, Room S-4004, 
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210, to receive petitions for review of the final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information and press 
inquiries. Contact Ms. Jennifer Ashley, Director, Office of 
Communications, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., 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 ``2010.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability of Incorporated Standards. The 
standards published by the American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the 
American Welding Society (AWS), the British Standards Institution 
(BSI), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the 
Power Crane and Shovel Association (PCSA), and the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) required in subpart CC are incorporated by 
reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 
any edition other than the editions specified in subpart CC, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) must publish a 
notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be 
available to the public.
    All approved material is available for inspection at the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the 
availability of this material at NARA, telephone 202-741-6030, or go 
to: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, the material is available for 
inspection at any OSHA Regional Office or the OSHA Docket Office (U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, 
Washington, DC 20210; telephone 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-
5627)).

I. General

A. Table of Contents

    The following Table of Contents identifies the major preamble 
sections in this notice and the order in which they are presented:

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

II. Background

A. History

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

[[Page 47907]]

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

B. The Cranes and Derricks Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (C-
DAC)

    In July 2002, OSHA announced plans to use negotiated rulemaking 
under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA), 5 U.S.C. 561 et seq., to 
revise the cranes and derricks standard. The Agency made this decision 
in light of the stakeholder interest in updating subpart N, the 
constructive discussions and work of the ACCSH workgroup, ACCSH's 
recommendation, a positive assessment of the criteria listed in the NRA 
(5 U.S.C. 563(a)) for the use of negotiated rulemaking, and the 
Department of Labor's policy on negotiated rulemaking (see ``Notice of 
Policy on Use of Negotiated Rulemaking Procedures by Agencies of the 
Department of Labor,'' 57 FR 61925, Dec. 29, 1992). The Agency 
published a Notice of Intent to Establish a Cranes and Derricks 
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (``C-DAC'' or ``the 
Committee'')) (see 67 FR 46612, Jul. 16, 2002).
    Negotiated rulemaking is a process by which a proposed rule is 
developed by a committee comprised of members who represent the 
interests that will be significantly affected by the rule. Section 562 
of the NRA defines ``interest'' as follows:

    ``[I]nterest'' means, with respect to an issue or matter, 
multiple parties which have a similar point of view or which are 
likely to be affected in a similar manner.

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

--Crane and derrick manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors.
--Companies that repair and maintain cranes and derricks.

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

[[Page 47908]]

Feb. 27, 2003). In response to the comments, OSHA added three members 
to the committee--individuals from the mobile crane manufacturing 
industry, the Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association, and the 
outdoor advertising industry (see 68 FR 39879, Jul. 3, 2003).
    The members of the Committee, the organizations and interests they 
represent, and a summary of their qualifications at the time the 
Committee was formed are in Table 1 below:

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

[[Page 47909]]

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

    As this summary of qualifications shows, the Committee members had 
vast and varied experience in cranes and derricks in construction, 
which gave them a wealth of knowledge in the causes of accidents and 
other safety issues involving such equipment. The members used this 
knowledge to identify issues that required particular attention and to 
devise regulatory language that would address the causes of such 
accidents. Their extensive practical experience in the construction 
industry and the other industries represented on the Committee helped 
them to develop revisions to the current subpart N requirements.
    C-DAC was chaired by a facilitator, Susan L. Podziba of Susan 
Podziba & Associates, a firm engaged in public policy mediation and 
consensus building. Ms. Podziba's role was to facilitate the 
negotiations by: (1) Chairing the Committee's meetings in an impartial 
manner; (2) Assisting the members of the committee in conducting 
discussions and negotiations; and (3) Ensuring minutes of the meetings 
were taken, and relevant records retained; (4) Performing other 
responsibilities such as drafting meeting summaries to be reviewed and 
approved by C-DAC members.
    C-DAC first met from July 30 to August 1, 2003. Before addressing 
substantive issues, the Committee developed ground rules (formally 
approved on September 26, 2003) that would guide its deliberations. 
(OSHA-S030-2006-0663-0373.) In addition to procedural matters, the 
ground rules addressed the Committee's decision-making process. C-DAC 
agreed that it would make every effort to reach unanimous agreement on 
all issues. However, if the facilitator determined that unanimous 
consent could not be achieved, the Committee would consider consensus 
to be reached when not more than two non-Federal members (i.e., members 
other than the OSHA member) dissented; no consensus could be achieved 
if OSHA dissented.
    This consensus process reflects the non-Federal members' view that 
Agency support of the Committee's work was essential. The non-Federal 
members believed that, if OSHA dissented, the Committee's work product 
likely would not be included in the final rule. Therefore, the 
Committee members would make every effort to resolve the Agency's 
concerns using the negotiation process.
    Under the ground rules, if C-DAC reached final consensus on some or 
all issues, OSHA would use the consensus-based language in its proposed 
standard, and C-DAC members would refrain from providing formal written 
negative comment on those issues in response to the proposed rule.
    The ground rules provided that OSHA could only depart from the 
consensus-based language by (1) reopening the negotiated rulemaking 
process, or (2) providing the C-DAC members with a detailed statement 
of the reasons for revising the consensus-based language, and do so in 
a manner that would allow the C-DAC members to express their concerns 
to OSHA before it published the proposed rule. The Committee members 
also could provide negative or positive comments in response to these 
revisions during the public-comment phase of the rulemaking. (OSHA-
S030-2006-0663-0373.)
    A tentative list of issues for the Committee to address was 
published along with the final list of Committee members (68 FR at 
39877, Jul. 3, 2003). At its initial meeting, the Committee reviewed 
and revised the issue list, adding several issues. (OSHA-S030-2006-
0663-0372.) The Committee met 11 times between July 30, 2003 and July 
9, 2004. As the meetings progressed, the Committee reached consensus 
agreement on various issues and, at the final meeting, reached 
consensus agreement on all outstanding issues.
    The Committee's work product, which was the Committee's recommended 
regulatory text for the proposed rule, is referred to in this notice as 
the ``C-DAC Document.'' (OSHA-S030-2006-0663-0639.) On October 12, 
2006, ACCSH adopted a resolution supporting the C-DAC Document and 
recommending that OSHA use it as the basis for a proposed standard. 
(OSHA-ACCSH2006-1-2006-0198-0021.)
    OSHA issued a proposed rule based on the C-DAC Document on October 
9, 2008 (73 FR 59713, Oct. 9, 2008). In reviewing the C-DAC Document 
and drafting the proposed rule, OSHA identified several problems in the 
C-DAC Document. These problems ranged from misnumbering and other 
typographical and technical errors, to

[[Page 47910]]

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

C. Hazards Associated With Cranes and Derricks in Construction Work

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

    \1\ The term ``ID'' refers to the column labeled ``ID'' under 
Docket No. OSHA-2007-0066 on the Federal eRulemaking Portal, https://www.regulations.gov. This column lists individual records in the 
docket. Hereafter, this notice will identify each of these records 
only by the last four digits of the record. Records from dockets 
other than OSHA-2007-0066 are identified by their full ID number.

  Table 2--The Causes of Fatalities During the Performance of Hoisting
                               Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. (See A. Suruda, M. Egger, and D. Liu, 
``Crane-Related Deaths in the U.S. Construction Industry, 1984-94,'' 
The Center to Protect Workers' Rights (Oct. 1997) (ID-0013).) The 
authors examined OSHA IMIS data to identify the number of fatal 
accidents involving cranes, and determined their causes. For the years 
in question, they found 479 accidents involving 502 fatalities. In the 
worst year, 1990, 70 deaths occurred. The authors noted some 
limitations in the data they examined: Data for California, Michigan, 
and Washington State were not available for 1984-1989; the proportion 
of fatal accidents investigated by OSHA and states having OSHA-approved 
State plans is unknown; and some of the investigation reports were not 
sufficiently detailed to allow the authors to determine the cause of 
the accident or the type of crane involved.
    The Suruda study determined the number and the percentage of 
fatalities from various causes (see Table 3 below).

                 Table 3--The Causes of Crane Incidents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrocution..............................................    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%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final standard addresses the major causes of the equipment-
related fatalities identified in the Beavers and Suruda studies. The 
following synopsis identifies the sections in the final standard that 
address the major causes of equipment-related fatalities.
    Electrocution hazards are addressed by Sec. Sec.  1926.1407-
1926.1411, which deal with power-line safety. These sections contain 
requirements to prevent equipment from contacting energized power 
lines. The final standard delineates systematic, reliable procedures 
and methods that employers must use to prevent a safe clearance 
distance from being breached. If maintaining the safe clearance 
distance is infeasible, additional protections are required, including 
grounding the equipment, covering the line with an insulating sleeve, 
and using insulating links and nonconductive tag lines.
    These procedures and methods are supplemented by requirements for 
training the operator and crew in power-line safety (see Sec.  
1926.1408(g)), and requirements for operator qualification and 
certification in 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

[[Page 47911]]

workers the knowledge they need to help avoid injury in the event such 
contact occurs.
    Fatalities that involve employees being struck or crushed during 
assembly/disassembly are addressed in Sec. Sec.  1926.1403-1926.1406. 
These sections require employers to follow specific safe-practice 
procedures, and to address a list of specific hazards. Also, assembly 
and disassembly of a crane must be supervised by an individual who is 
well qualified to ensure that these requirements of these provisions 
are properly implemented.
    As the above-mentioned studies show, and the Committee's experience 
confirms, many disassembly accidents occur when sections of lattice 
booms unexpectedly move and strike or crush an employee who is 
disassembling the boom. The final standard addresses this hazard in 
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 standard includes requirements 
for: proper assembly procedures (Sec.  1926.1403); boom stops to 
prevent booms from being raised too far and toppling over backwards 
(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 (Sec.  1926.1416, 
Operational aids). Also, the inspection requirements (Sec.  1926.1412) 
detect and address structural deficiencies in booms before an accident 
occurs. Cable failure will be avoided by compliance with sections such 
as Sec.  1926.1413, Wire rope--inspection, and Sec.  1926.1414, Wire 
rope--selection and installation criteria.
    Crane tip-over is caused by factors such as overloading, improper 
use of outriggers and insufficient ground conditions. Section 
1926.1417, Operations, includes provisions to prevent overloading. This 
section prohibits the equipment from being operated in excess of its 
rated capacity, and includes procedures for ensuring that the weight of 
the load is reliably determined and within the equipment's rated 
capacity. Section 1926.1404(q) has requirements for outrigger/
stabilizer use that will ensure that outriggers and stabilizers provide 
stability when a load is lifted. Section 1926.1402 contains 
requirements to ensure sufficient ground conditions, which will prevent 
crane tip-over.
    The provisions addressing operator training, qualification, and 
certification also will prevent tip-over accidents by ensuring that the 
operator is sufficiently knowledgeable and skilled to recognize 
situations when the crane may be overloaded.
    Fatalities that result from workers being struck by the cab or 
counterweights will be avoided under Sec.  1926.1424, Work area 
control. That section requires that workers who are near equipment with 
a rotating superstructure be trained in the hazards involved, that 
employers mark or barricade the area covered by the rotating 
superstructure, and that the operator be notified whenever a worker 
must enter that area, and instructed not rotate the superstructure 
until the area is clear. Protection against being struck by a 
counterweight during assembly or disassembly is provided by Sec.  
1926.1404(h)(9), which requires the assembly/disassembly supervisor to 
address this hazard and take steps when necessary to protect workers 
against that danger.
    The final rule addresses a number of equipment failures that can 
result in the load striking a worker. Such accidents are directly 
addressed by Sec.  1926.1425, Keeping clear of the load, and Sec.  
1926.1426, Free fall/controlled load lowering. In addition, improved 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  1926.1419-1926.1422 for signaling will help 
avoid load struck-by accidents caused by miscommunication.
    Improper operation, including failure to understand and compensate 
for the effects of factors such as dynamic loading, can also cause 
workers to be struck by a load. Such incidents will be reduced by 
compliance with Sec.  1926.1427, Operator qualification and 
certification and Sec.  1926.1430, Training. Other provisions, such as 
those for safety devices and operational aids (Sec. Sec.  1926.1415 and 
1926.1416), and the requirement for periodic inspections in Sec.  
1926.1412, will also reduce these accidents.
    Protection against falling from equipment is addressed by Sec.  
1926.1423, Fall protection. That section requires that new equipment 
provide safe access to the operator work station, using devices such as 
steps, handholds, and grabrails. Some new lattice-boom equipment must 
be equipped with boom walkways. The final standard also contains fall-
protection provisions tailored to assembly and disassembly work, and to 
other work. Section 1926.1431, Hoisting personnel, addresses fall 
protection when employees are being hoisted.
    OSHA has investigated numerous crane accidents that resulted in 
fatalities. Below are examples from OSHA's IMIS investigation reports 
that describe accidents that compliance with this final standard would 
prevent.
    1. February 16, 2004: four fatalities, four injuries. A launching 
gantry collapsed and fatally injured four workers and sent four other 
workers to the hospital. The launching gantry was being used to erect 
pre-cast concrete segments span by span. The manufacturer required that 
the rear legs and front legs be properly anchored to resist 
longitudinal and lateral forces that act on the launching gantry. The 
legs of the launching gantry were not properly anchored. (ID-0017.)
    OSHA believes that this type of accident will be prevented by 
compliance with the provisions of this final standard for assembling 
equipment. Section 1926.1403 requires that equipment be assembled in 
compliance with the manufacturer's procedures, or with alternative 
employer procedures (see Sec.  1926.1406) to prevent the equipment from 
collapsing. In addition, under Sec.  1926.1404, assembly must be 
conducted under the supervision of a person who understands the hazards 
associated with an improperly assembled crane and is well-qualified to 
understand and comply with the proper assembly procedures.
    2. January 30, 2006. One fatality. An employee was crushed by the 
lower end section of the lattice boom on a 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. (ID-0017.1.)
    Section 1926.1404(f) will prevent this type of accident by 
generally prohibiting employees from being under the boom when pins are 
removed. In situations in which site constraints require that an 
employee be under the boom when pins are removed, the employer must 
implement other procedures, such as ensuring that the boom sections are 
adequately supported, to prevent the sections from falling on the 
employee.
    3. July 23, 2001: One fatality. Employee failed to extend the 
outriggers before extending the boom of a service-truck crane to lift 
pipes. As the employee extended the boom, the crane tipped over on its 
side, and another employee standing near the truck was struck on the 
head by the hook block. (ID-0017.10.)
    This type of accident will be prevented by compliance with Sec.  
1926.1404(q), which contains several provisions to ensure that 
outriggers and stabilizers are deployed properly before lifting a load. 
In addition, the operator

[[Page 47912]]

qualification and certification requirements of Sec.  1926.1427, which 
ensure that operators understand and follow the safety-requirements for 
the equipment they are operating, will help prevent this type of 
accident.
    4. March 8, 1999. One fatality. Employees were using a mobile crane 
to maneuver a load of steel joists. The crane contacted a 7,200-volt 
overhead power line, electrocuting an employee who was signaling and 
guiding the load. The crane operator jumped clear and was not injured. 
(ID-0017.11.)
    Section 1926.1408 includes provisions that will prevent this type 
of accident. This section requires the use of ``encroachment 
prevention'' measures to prevent the crane from breaching a safe 
clearance distance from the power line. It also requires that, if tag 
lines are used to guide the load, the lines must be non-conductive. 
Finally, if maintaining the normal clearance distance is infeasible, a 
number of additional measures must be implemented, one of which is the 
use of an insulating link between the end of the load line and the 
load.
    These measures protect employees guiding the load in several ways, 
including: reducing the chance that a crane would contact a power line; 
employees using tag lines to guide a load from being electrocuted 
should the load become energized.
    5. August 21, 2003. Three fatalities. A crane operator and two co-
workers were electrocuted when a truck crane's elevated boom contacted 
a 7,200 volt uninsulated primary conductor 31 feet above the ground. 
When the operator stepped from the cab of the truck, a conduction 
pathway to the ground was established through the operator's right hand 
and right foot, resulting in electrocution. A co-worker attempted to 
revive the incapacitated crane operator with cardio-pulmonary 
resuscitation (``CPR''), while a third co-worker contacted 911, and 
then returned to the incident location. When the third co-worker 
simultaneously touched the energized truck crane and the back of the 
co-worker performing CPR, the resulting pathway conducted the 
electrical charge through the workers, electrocuting them all. (ID-
0017.12.)
    The final standard will avoid this type of accident. Section 
1926.1408 ensures that a minimum safe distance from the power line is 
maintained, which prevents equipment from becoming energized. Also, 
when working closer than the normal minimum clearance distance, the 
crane must be grounded, which reduces the chance of an electrical 
pathway through the workers.
    In addition, Sec.  1926.1408(g) requires that the operator be 
trained to remain inside the cab unless an imminent danger of fire or 
explosion is present. The operator also must be trained in the hazards 
associated with simultaneously touching the equipment and the ground, 
as well as the safest means of evacuating the equipment. The crane's 
remaining crew must be trained to avoid approaching or touching the 
equipment. The required training is reinforced by the electrocution 
warnings that must be posted in the cab and on the outside of the 
equipment.
    6. September 28, 1999: One fatality. A 19-year old electrical 
instrument helper was at a construction site that was on a 
manufacturing company's property. A contractor positioned a 50-ton 
hydraulic crane in an open area that consisted of compacted fill 
material. This area was the only location that the crane could be 
situated because the receiving area for the equipment was too close to 
the property border.
    The crane's outriggers were set, but matting was placed only under 
one of the outrigger pads. As the crane was moving large sections of 
piping to a new location, the ground collapsed and the crane 
overturned, striking the helper. (ID-0017.13.)
    Section 1926.1402, Ground conditions, will prevent this type of 
accident. Under that section, employers must ensure that the surface on 
which a crane is operating is sufficiently level and firm to support 
the crane in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. In 
addition, Sec.  1926.1402 imposes specific duties on both the entity 
responsible for the project (the controlling entity) and the entity 
operating the crane to ensure that the crane is adequately supported. 
It places responsibility for ensuring that the ground conditions are 
adequate on the controlling entity, while also making the employer 
operating the crane responsible notifying the controlling entity of any 
deficiency in the ground conditions, and having the deficiency 
corrected before operating the crane.
    7. June 17, 2006: One fatality. A spud pipe, used to anchor a 
barge, was being raised by a crane mounted on the barge when the 
hoisting cable broke, causing the headache ball and rigging to on an 
employee. (ID-0017.3.)
    This type of accident can have various causes: an improperly 
selected wire rope (one that has insufficient capacity); a damaged or 
worn wire rope in need of replacement; or two-blocking, in which the 
headache ball is forced against the upper block, causing the wire rope 
to fail. The provisions of Sec. Sec.  1926.1413 and 1926.1414 address 
wire rope inspection, selection, and installation, and will ensure that 
appropriate wire rope is installed, inspected and removed from service 
when continued use is unsafe. Section 1926.1416, Operational aids, 
contains provisions to protect against two-blocking.
    8. July 13, 1999: Three fatalities. Three employees were in a 
personnel basket 280 feet above the ground. They were in the process of 
guiding a large roof section, being lifted by another crane, into 
place. Winds gusting to 27 miles per hour overloaded the crane holding 
the roof section; that crane collapsed, striking the crane that was 
supporting the personnel basket, causing the boom to fall. All three 
employees received fatal crushing injuries. (ID-0018.)
    This type of accident will be prevented by Sec.  1926.1417(n), 
which requires the competent person in charge of the operation adjust 
the equipment and/or operations to address the effect of wind and other 
adverse weather conditions on the equipment's stability and rated 
capacity. In addition, Sec.  1926.1431, Hoisting personnel, requires 
that, when wind speed (sustained or gust) exceeds 20 mph, employers 
must not hoist employees by crane unless a qualified person determines 
it is safe to do so.
    9. November 7, 2005: One fatality. A construction worker was 
crushed between the outrigger and the rotating superstructure of a 
truck crane. The worker apparently was trying to retrieve a level and a 
set of blueprints located horizontal member of one of the outriggers 
when the operator began to swing the boom. (ID-0017.5.)
    Section 1926.1424, Work area control, will prevent this type of 
accident. This section generally requires that employers erect barriers 
to mark the area covered by the rotating superstructure to warn workers 
of the danger zone. However, workers who must work near equipment with 
a rotating superstructure must be trained in the hazards involved. If a 
worker must enter a marked area, the crane operator must be notified of 
the entry, and must not rotate the superstructure until the area is 
clear.
    10. March 19, 2005: Two fatalities and one injury. During steel-
erection operations, a crane was lifting three steel beams to a parking 
garage. The crane tipped over and the boom collapsed. The boom and 
attached beams struck concrete workers next to the structure, killing 
two workers and injuring one worker. The accident apparently occurred 
because the crane was overloaded. (ID-0017.6.)

[[Page 47913]]

    Overloading a crane can cause it to tip over, causing the load or 
crane structure to strike and fatally injure workers in the vicinity of 
the crane. Section 1926.1417, Operations, includes provisions to 
prevent overloading. This section prohibits employers from operating 
equipment in excess of its rated capacity, and includes procedures for 
ensuring that the weight of the load is reliably determined and within 
the equipment's rated capacity.
    The provisions of the final standard addressing operator training, 
certification, and qualification (Sec.  1926.1427) will also prevent 
this type of accident by ensuring that operators recognize conditions 
that would overload the crane.
    11. December 7, 2005. One fatality. Two cranes were used to lower a 
concrete beam across a river. During the lowering process, one end of 
the beam dropped below the other end, causing the load's weight to 
shift to the lower end; this shift in weight overloaded the crane 
lifting the lower end, and it tipped over. The lower end of the beam 
fell into the river, while the higher end landed on a support mat 
located on the bank of the river, causing a flagger to be thrown into 
the beam. (ID-0017.7.)
    Section 1926.1432, Multiple crane/derrick lifts--supplemental 
requirements, will prevent this type of accident. This section 
specifies that, when more than one crane is supporting a load, the 
operation must be performed in accordance with a plan developed by a 
qualified person. The plan must ensure that the requirements of this 
final standard are met, and must be reviewed by all individuals 
involved in the lifting operation. Moreover, the lift must be 
supervised by an individual who qualifies as both a competent person 
and a qualified person as defined by this final standard. For example, 
in the accident just described, the plan must include a determination 
of the degree of level needed to prevent either crane from being 
overloaded. In addition, the plan must ensure proper coordination of 
the lifting operation by establishing a system of communications and a 
means of monitoring the operation.
    12. May 7, 2004: One fatality. An employee, a rigger/operator-in-
training, was in the upper cab of a 60-ton hydraulic boom-truck crane 
to set up and position the crane boom prior to a lift. The crane was 
equipped with two hoists--a main line and auxiliary. The main hoist 
line had a multi-sheave block and hook and the auxiliary line had a 285 
pound ball and hook. When the employee extended the hydraulic boom, a 
two-block condition occurred with the auxiliary line ball striking the 
auxiliary sheave head and knocking the sheave and ball from the boom. 
The employee was struck in the head by the falling ball. (ID-0017.8.)
    This type of accident will be prevented by Sec.  1926.1416, 
Operational aids, which requires protection against two-blocking. A 
hydraulic boom crane, if manufactured after February 28, 1992, must be 
equipped with a device that automatically prevents two-blocking.
    Also, the final rule, under Sec.  1926.1427(a) and (f), prohibits 
an operator-in-training from operating a crane without being monitored 
by a trainer, and without first having sufficient training to enable 
the operator-in-training to perform the assigned task safely.
    13. April 26, 2006: One fatality. A framing crew was installing 
sheathing for a roof. A crane was hoisting a bundle of plywood 
sheathing to a location on the roof. As the crane positioned the bundle 
of sheathing above its landing location, the load hoist on the crane 
free spooled, causing an uncontrolled descent of the load. An employee 
was under the load preparing to position the load to its landing spot 
when the load fell and crushed him. (ID-0017.9.)
    Section 1926.1426, Free fall and controlled load lowering, will 
prevent this type of accident. This section prohibits free fall of the 
load-line hoist, and requires controlled lowering of the load when an 
employee is directly under the load.
    As discussed later in the section titled, Executive Summary of the 
Final Economic Analysis; Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, OSHA 
finds that construction workers suffer 89 fatal injuries per year from 
the types of equipment covered by this final standard. Of that number, 
OSHA estimates that 21 fatalities would be avoided by compliance with 
the final standard. In addition, OSHA estimates that the final standard 
would prevent 175 non-fatal injuries each year. Based on its review of 
all the available evidence, OSHA finds that construction workers have a 
significant risk of death and injury resulting from equipment 
operations, and that the risk would be substantially reduced by 
compliance with this final standard.
    The OSH Act requires OSHA to make certain findings with respect to 
standards. One of these findings, specified by Section 3(8) of the OSH 
Act, requires an OSHA standard to address a significant risk and to 
reduce this risk substantially. (See UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (DC 
Cir. 1994) (``LOTO'').) As discussed in Section II of this preamble, 
OSHA finds that crane and derrick operations in construction constitute 
a significant risk and estimates that the final standard will prevent 
22 fatalities and 175 injuries annually. Section 6(b) of the OSH Act 
requires OSHA to determine if its standards are technologically and 
economically feasible. As discussed in Section V of this preamble, OSHA 
finds that this final standard is economically and technologically 
feasible.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601, as amended) requires 
that OSHA determine whether a standard will have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small firms. As discussed in Section 
V, OSHA examined the small firms affected by this standard and 
certifies that the final standard will not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small firms.
    Executive Order 12866 requires that OSHA estimate the benefits, 
costs, and net benefits of its standards. The table below summarizes 
OSHA's findings with respect to the estimated costs, benefits, and net 
benefits of this standard. As is clear, the annual benefits are 
significantly in excess of the annual costs. However, it should be 
noted that under the OSH Act, OSHA does not use the magnitude of net 
benefits as decision-making criterion in determining what standards to 
promulgate.

         Annual Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits, 2010 Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs*:
    Crane Assembly/Disassembly........  $16.3 million.
    Power Line Safety.................  68.2 million.
    Crane Inspections.................  16.5 million.
    Ground Conditions.................  2.3 million.
    Operator Qualification and          50.7 million.
     Certification.
                                       ---------------------------------
        Total Annualized Costs........  154.1 million.
 

[[Page 47914]]

 
Annual Benefits:
    Number of Injuries Prevented......  175.
    Number of Fatalities Prevented....  22.
    Property Damage from Tipovers       7 million.
     Prevented.
                                       ---------------------------------
        Total Monetized Benefits......  $209.3 million.
                                       ---------------------------------
Annual Net Benefits (Benefits minus     $55.2 million.
 Costs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA Office of Regulatory Analysis.
*Costs with 7% discount rate. Total costs with 3% discount rate: $150.4
  million annually.

    During the SBREFA process, several Small Entity Representatives 
expressed concern that the C-DAC Document was so long and complex that 
small businesses would have difficulty understanding it and complying 
with it. The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public comment 
on how the rule could be simplified and made easier to understand. In 
the proposal, OSHA requested public comment on this issue. The Agency 
did not receive any comments objecting to the length or clarity of the 
overall rule, or any comment on how to simplify the final rule. Some 
commenters recommended that specific provisions be clarified, and these 
comments are addressed later in this preamble.

III. The SBREFA Process

    Before proceeding with a proposed rule based on the C-DAC Document, 
OSHA was required to comply with the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (SBREFA). This 
process required OSHA to draft an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis that would evaluate the potential impact of the rule on small 
entities (defined as small businesses, small governmental units, and 
small nonprofit organizations) and identify the type of small entities 
that may be affected by the rule. In accordance with SBREFA, OSHA then 
convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (``Panel'') composed of 
representatives of OSHA, the Office of Management and Budget, and the 
Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Individuals 
who were representative of affected small entities (i.e., Small Entity 
Representatives, or ``SERs'') were identified for the purpose of 
obtaining advice and recommendations regarding the potential impacts of 
the proposed rule.
    OSHA provided the SERs with the C-DAC Document and the draft 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and requested that they submit written 
comments on these documents. The Agency also drafted questions asking 
for their views on the specific aspects of the C-DAC Document that OSHA 
believed may be of concern to small entities.
    The Panel conducted two conference calls with the SERs in which the 
SERs presented their views on various issues. After reviewing the SERs' 
oral and written comments, on October 17, 2006, the Panel submitted its 
report summarizing the requirements of the C-DAC proposal and the 
comments received from the SERs, and presenting its findings and 
recommendations. (OSHA-S030A-2006-0664-0019.) In its findings and 
recommendations, the Panel identified issues that it believed OSHA 
should address in the proposal (1) through further analysis, and (2) by 
soliciting public comment. In the proposed rule, OSHA addressed each of 
the Panel's findings and recommendations in the section pertaining to 
the issue involved, and also solicited public comment on the issues 
raised by the Panel. The following table lists the recommendations made 
by the Panel, and OSHA's responses to these recommendations.

        Table 4--SBREFA Panel Recommendations and OSHA Responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SBREFA Panel Recommendation                 OSHA Response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Panel recommends that OSHA provide   OSHA has developed a full
 full documentation for how it            preliminary economic analysis
 estimated the number of affected small   (PEA) for the proposal which
 entities and all other calculations      explains all assumptions used
 and estimates provided in the PIRFA.     in estimating the costs and
                                          benefits of the proposed
                                          standard. The Final Economic
                                          Analysis (FEA) also explains
                                          the changes made to the
                                          analysis as a result of
                                          comments on the proposed rule,
                                          and OSHA's responses to these
                                          comments.
The Panel recommends that OSHA           OSHA included homebuilding
 reexamine its estimate of crane use in   industries in the ``Own but Do
 home building, the coverage of crane     Not Rent'' and ``Crane
 trucks used for loading and unloading,   Lessees'' industrial profile
 and the estimates of the number of       categories.
 jobs per crane. Changes in these        OSHA has also made a number of
 estimates should be incorporated into    additions to the industrial
 the estimates of costs and economic      profile to cover firms in
 impacts.                                 general industry that
                                          sometimes use cranes for
                                          construction work, and has
                                          added costs for these sectors.
The Panel recommends that OSHA review    OSHA sought comments on the
 its estimates for the direct costs of    estimates and methodology. As
 operator certification and seek          a result of these comments,
 comment on these cost estimates.         OSHA has increased its
                                          estimate of the unit costs of
                                          certification.
The Panel recommends that OSHA           OSHA sought public comment on
 carefully examine certain types of       all aspects (including
 impact that could result from an         economic impacts, wages,
 operator certification requirement,      number of operators, demand,
 including reports of substantial         etc.) of the operator
 increases in the wages of operators;     certification requirements,
 the possibility of increased market      specifically as it pertains to
 power for firms renting out cranes;      the State of California.
 and loss of jobs for existing           OSHA has included 2 hours of
 operators due to language, literacy,     travel time per operator into
 or knowledge problems; a