[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59713-59954]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-39]
[[Page 59713]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Part 1926
Cranes and Derricks in Construction; Proposed Rule
[[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
http://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 http://
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 http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket
Office at the address above. Documents in the docket are listed in the
http://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
(http://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 crane tipped over and the boom
collapsed. The boom and attached beams struck concrete workers next to
the structure. Two were killed and one injured. The accident apparently
occurred as a result of overloading the crane. (OSHA-2007-0066-0017.6).
Overloading a crane can cause it to tip over. When it does, the
load or crane structure can strike and fatally injure workers who may
be some distance from the crane. Proposed 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.
The provisions on operator training and certification/qualification
will also help prevent this type of accident by ensuring that the
operator is sufficiently knowledgeable and skilled in recognizing
conditions that would overload the crane.
11. December 7, 2005. 1 fatality. Two cranes were being used to
lower a concrete beam across the river. During the lowering process,
the west side of the beam became lower than the east side. The
consequent shifting of the load's weight to the west side crane caused
that crane to tip over. The west end of the beam went into the river
and the east end fell on the bank and a support mat, causing a flag
person to be thrown into the beam. (OSHA-2007-0066-0017.7).
This type of accident would be prevented by compliance with
proposed Sec. 1926.1432, Multiple crane/derrick lifts. That section
specifies that when more than one crane will be supporting a load, the
operation must be performed in accordance with a plan developed by a
qualified person. The plan must be designed to ensure that the
requirements of this proposed standard will be met and must be reviewed
with all individuals who will be involved in the process. Moreover, the
lift must be supervised by an individual who qualifies as both a
competent person and a qualified person as defined in this standard.
In the type of scenario involved in this accident, a plan that
would comply with this requirement would, for example, include a
determination of the degree of level that is needed to be maintained in
order to prevent either crane from being overloaded. In addition, such
a plan would include a system of communications and a means of
monitoring the operation designed to ensure that the cranes' operation
was properly coordinated.
12. May 7, 2004: 1 fatality. An employee, a rigger/operator-in-
training, was in the upper cab of a 60-ton hydraulic boom truck crane
to set up and position the crane boom prior to a lift. The crane was
equipped with two hoists, a main line and auxiliary. The main hoist
line had a multi-sheave block and hook and the auxiliary line had a 285
pound ball and hook. When the employee was extending the hydraulic
boom, a two-block condition occurred with the auxiliary line ball
striking the auxiliary sheave head, knocking the sheave and ball from
the boom. The employee was struck in the head and killed by the falling
ball. (OSHA-2007-0066-0017.8).
This type of accident would be prevented by compliance with
proposed Sec. 1926.1416, Operational aids, which requires protection
against two-blocking. A hydraulic boom crane, if manufactured after
February 28, 1992, would have to be equipped with a
[[Page 59723]]
device that automatically prevents two-blocking.
Also, the operator-in-training in this case apparently did not
understand that extending a hydraulic boom would move the sheave head
toward the ball and could cause two-blocking. The proposed standard,
through proposed Sec. 1926.1427(a) and (f), would avoid having
inexperienced operators make this type of mistake by prohibiting an
operator-in-training from operating a crane without supervision and
without first having had enough training to enable the operator to
perform the assigned task safely.
13. April 26, 2006: One fatality. The deceased employee was part of
a framing crew which was in the process of installing sheathing for a
roof. A bundle of plywood sheathing was being hoisted by a crane to a
location on the roof. As the crane was positioning the bundle of
sheathing above its landing location, the load hoist on the crane free
spooled, causing an uncontrolled descent of the load. The employee was
under the load, preparing to position it to its landing spot, when the
load fell and crushed him. (OSHA-2007-0066-0017.9).
This type of accident would be prevented by compliance with Sec.
1926.1426, Free fall and controlled load lowering, which prohibits free
fall of the load line hoist and requires controlled load lowering when
an employee is directly under the load.
As discussed below in the Preliminary Economic Analysis, OSHA finds
that construction workers suffer 89 fatal injuries per year from the
types of equipment covered by this proposed standard. Of that number,
OSHA estimates that 53 would be avoided by compliance with the proposed
standard. In addition, OSHA estimates that the proposed standard would
prevent 155 non-fatal injuries each year. Based on all of the available
evidence and on the collective expertise of the members of C-DAC, OSHA
preliminarily finds that construction workers are faced with a
significant risk of death and injury resulting from equipment
operations and that the risk would be substantially reduced by
compliance with this proposed standard.
During the SBREFA process, several Small Entity Representatives
expressed concern that the C-DAC proposal was so long and complex that
small businesses would have difficulty understanding it and complying
with it. The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public comment
on how the rule could be simplified and made easier to understand
without creating ambiguities. OSHA welcomes public comment on this
issue.
III. The SBREFA Process
Before proceeding with a proposed rule based on the C-DAC Consensus
Document, OSHA was required to comply with the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
(SBREFA). This required OSHA to draft an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis that would evaluate the potential impact of the rule on small
entities (defined as small businesses, small governmental units, and
small nonprofit organizations) and identify the type of small entities
that might be affected by the rule. In accordance with SBREFA, OSHA
then convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (``Panel'')
composed of representatives of OSHA, the Office of Management and
Budget, and the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. Individuals who were representative of affected small
entities (Small Entity Representatives, or ``SERs'') were then
identified for the purpose of obtaining advice and recommendations from
those individuals about the potential impacts of the proposed rule.
OSHA provided the SERs with the C-DAC consensus document and the
draft regulatory flexibility analysis and afforded them the opportunity
to submit written comments on those documents. The Agency also drafted
questions asking them their views on the specific aspects of the C-DAC
document it thought would be of most concern to small entities.
The Panel conducted two conference calls with the SERs in which the
SERs presented their views on various issues. After reviewing the SERs'
oral and written comments, on October 17, 2006, the Panel submitted its
report summarizing the requirements of the C-DAC proposal, the comments
received from the SERs, and presenting its findings and
recommendations. (OSHA-S030A-2006-0664-0019). In its findings and
recommendations, the Panel identified issues that it believed needed
particular attention and analysis in the proposal or for which it
believed OSHA should explicitly solicit public comment.
In the discussion that follows, OSHA addresses each of the Panel's
findings and recommendations in the section pertaining to the issue
involved. Table 4 summarizes the Panel's recommendations and the
portions of this preamble in which they are discussed.
Table 4--SBREFA Panel Recommendations and OSHA Responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBREFA panel recommendation OSHA response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Panel recommends that OSHA provide See the Preliminary Economic
full documentation for how it Analysis (PEA), in section
estimated the number of affected small V.B. of this Federal Register
entities and all other calculations notice.
and estimates provided in the PIRFA.
The Panel recommends that OSHA See the Preliminary Economic
reexamine its estimate of crane use in Analysis (PEA), in section
home building, the coverage of crane V.B. of this Federal Register
trucks used for loading and unloading, notice.
and the estimates of the number of
jobs per crane. Changes in these
estimates should be incorporated into
the estimates of costs and economic
impacts.
The Panel recommends that OSHA review See the Preliminary Economic
its estimates for the direct costs of Analysis (PEA), in section
operator certification and seek V.B. of this Federal Register
comment on these cost estimates. notice.
The Panel recommends that OSHA See the Preliminary Economic
carefully examine certain types of Analysis (PEA), in section
impact that could result from an V.B. of this Federal Register
operator certification requirement, notice.
including reports of substantial
increases in the wages of operators;
the possibility of increased market
power for firms renting out cranes;
and loss of jobs for existing
operators due to language, literacy,
or knowledge problems; and seek
comment on these types of impacts.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider See the Preliminary Economic
studying the impacts of the Analysis (PEA), in section
implementation of operator V.B. of this Federal Register
certification in California. notice.
[[Page 59724]]
The Panel recommends that OSHA See the Preliminary Economic
reexamine its estimates for the amount Analysis (PEA), in section
of time required to assess ground V.B. of this Federal Register
conditions, the number of persons notice.
involved in the assessment, and the
amount of coordination involved;
clarify the extent to which such
assessments are currently being
conducted and what OSHA estimates as
new costs for this rule represent; and
seek comments on OSHA's cost estimates.
The Panel recommends that OSHA The Agency describes the
carefully review the documentation documentation requirements,
requirements of the standard, along with cost estimates, in
including documentation that employers the section of this Preamble
may consider it prudent to maintain; entitled ``OMB Review Under
estimate the costs of such the Paperwork Reduction Act of
requirements; seek ways of minimizing 1995.''
these costs consistent with the goals
of the OSH Act; and solicit comment on
these costs and ways of minimizing
these costs.
The Panel recommends that OSHA examine As explained in the discussion
whether the inspection requirements of of Sec. 1926.1412,
the proposed rule require procedures Inspections, OSHA's current
not normally conducted currently, such standard at 29 CFR 1926.550
as lowering and fully extending the requires inspections each time
boom before the crane can be used and the equipment is used as well
removing non-hinged inspection plates as thorough annual
during the shift inspection, estimate inspections. In addition,
the costs of any such requirements, national consensus standards
and seek comment on these issues. that are incorporated by
reference include additional
inspection requirements. This
proposal would list the
inspection requirements in one
place rather than rely on
incorporated consensus
standards. OSHA does not
believe this proposed standard
imposes significant new
requirements for inspections.
Section 1926.1413(a)
explicitly says that booming
down is not required for shift
(and therefore monthly)
inspections.
Similarly, OSHA does not
believe that inspection of any
of those items would require
removal of non-hinged
inspection plates. In the
discussion of proposed Sec.
1926.1412, OSHA requests
public comment on these
points.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider Currently, Subpart N, at 29 CFR
the costs of meeting the requirements 1926.550(a)(2), requires load
for original load charts and full charts, so that is not a new
manuals, and solicit comments on such cost. Subpart N does not
costs. require manuals. OSHA believes
that most crane owners and
operators have and maintain
crane manuals, which contain
the load charts and other
critical technical information
about crane operations and
maintenance. The Agency
believes that the cost of
obtaining a copy of a manual
should be modest and solicits
comment on how many owners or
operators do not have full
manuals for their cranes or
derricks.
The Panel recommends that OSHA provide See the Preliminary Economic
full documentation for its analysis of Analysis (PEA), in section
the benefits the proposed rule is V.B. of this Federal Register
expected to produce and assure that notice.
the benefits analysis is reproducible
by others.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider OSHA addresses this
and solicit public comment on whether recommendation in the
the scope language should be clarified discussion of proposed Sec.
to explicitly state whether forklifts 1926.1400(c)(8) and solicits
that are modified to perform tasks public comment on the issue.
similar to equipment (cranes and
derricks) modified in that manner
would be covered.
The Panel recommends that there be a OSHA explains in the discussion
full explanation in the preamble of of proposed Sec.
how responsibility for ensuring 1926.1402(e) how the various
adequate ground conditions is shared employers, including the
between the controlling entity, and controlling entity, the
the employer of the individual employer whose employees
supervising assembly/disassembly and/ operate the equipment, and the
or the operator. employer of the A/D supervisor
share responsibility for
ensuring adequate ground
conditions.
The Panel recommends that OSHA restate OSHA addresses this
the applicable corrective action recommendation in the
provisions (which are set forth in the discussion of proposed Sec.
shift inspection) in the monthly 1926.1412(e) and solicits
inspection section. public comment on the issue.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit OSHA addresses this
public comment on whether, and under recommendation in the
what circumstances, booming down discussion of proposed Sec.
should be specifically excluded as a 1926.1412(d) and solicits
part of the shift inspection, and public comment on the issues
whether the removal of non-hinged raised in the recommendation.
inspection plates should be required
during the shift inspection.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit OSHA addresses this
public comment on whether to include recommendation in the
an exception for transportation discussion of proposed Sec.
systems in proposed Sec. 1926.1412(a) and solicits
1926.1412(a), which requires an public comment on the issues
inspection of equipment that has had raised in the recommendation.
modifications or additions that affect
its safe operation, and, if so, what
the appropriate terminology for such
an exception would be.
The Panel recommends that OSHA explain In the explanation of Sec.
in the preamble that the shift 1926.1412(d)(1) of the
inspection does not need to be proposed rule, OSHA explains
completed prior to each shift but may that the shift inspection may
be completed during the shift. be completed during the shift.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit OSHA addresses this
public comment about whether it is recommendation in the
necessary to clarify the requirement discussion of proposed Sec.
of proposed Sec. 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) and
that the equipment be inspected for requests public comment on the
``level position''. issues raised in the
recommendation.
[[Page 59725]]
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit There is no proposed
comment on whether Sec. requirement to check the
1926.1412(f)(2)(xii)(D) should be pressure ``at each and every
changed to require that pressure be line.'' The provision simply
inspected ``at the end of the line,'' states that relief valves
as distinguished from ``at each and should be checked for failure
every line,'' and if so, what the best to reach correct pressure. If
terminology would be to meet this this can be done at one point
purpose. (An SER indicated that for the entire system, then
proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xiv)(D) of that would satisfy the
Sec. 1926.1412 should be modified to requirement.
``checking pressure setting,'' in part
to avoid having to check the pressure
at ``each and every line'' as opposed
to ``at the end of the line.'').
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit Proposed Sec.
public comment on whether proposed 1926.1412(f)(2)(xx) does not
paragraph (f)(2)(xx) of Sec. require the corrective action
1926.1412 should be deleted because an to which the SER refers. If an
SER believes that it is not always inspection under proposed Sec.
appropriate to retain originally 1926.1412(f) reveals a
equipped steps and ladders, such as in deficiency, a qualified person
instances where they are replaced with must determine whether that
``attaching dollies.''. deficiency is a safety hazard
requiring immediate
correction. If the inspection
reveals that original
equipment, such as stairs and
ladders, have been replaced
with something equally safe,
there would be no safety
hazard and no requirement for
corrective action.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit OSHA addresses this
public comment on the extent of recommendation in the
documentation of monthly and annual/ discussion of proposed Sec.
comprehensive inspections the rule 1926.1412(f) and requests
should require. public comment on the issue.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit OSHA addresses this
public comment on whether the recommendation in the
provision for monthly inspections discussion of proposed Sec.
should, like the provision for annual 1926.1412(e) and requests
inspections, specify who must keep the public comment on the issue.
documentation associated with monthly
inspections.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider OSHA addresses this
ways to account for the possibility recommendation in the
that there may sometimes be an discussion of proposed Sec.
extended delay in obtaining the part 1926.1416(d) and solicits
number for an operational aid for public comment on the issue.
older equipment and solicit public
comment on the extent to which this is
a problem.
The Panel recommends that the provision In the discussion of proposed
on fall protection (proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1423, OSHA
1926.1423) be proposed as written and explains the Committee's
that OSHA explain in the preamble how rationale underlying the
and why the Committee arrived at this proposed section.
provision.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider OSHA addresses these
the potential advantages of and recommendations in the
solicit public comment on adding discussion of proposed Sec.
provisions to proposed Sec. 1926.1427 and requests public
1926.1427 that would allow an operator comment on the issues raised
to be certified on a particular model by the Panel.
of crane; allow tests to be
administered by an accredited
educational institution; and allow
employers to use manuals that have
been re-written to accommodate the
literacy level and English proficiency
of operators.
The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify The issue is discussed in the
in the preamble how the proposed rule explanation of the proposed
addresses an SER's concern that his rule for Sec. 1926.1427(h).
crane operator would not be able to
pass a written qualification/
certification exam because the
operator has difficulty in taking
written exams.
The Panel recommends soliciting public OSHA addresses this
comment on whether the phrase recommendation in the
``equipment capacity and type'' in discussion of proposed Sec.
proposed Sec. 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) and
needs clarification, suggestions on requests public comment on the
how to accomplish this, and whether issue.
the categories represented in Figures
1 through 10 contained in ASME B30.5-
2000 (i.e., commercial truck-mounted
crane--telescoping boom; commercial
truck-mounted crane--non-telescoping
boom; crawler crane; crawler crane--
telescoping boom; locomotive crane;
wheel mounted crane (multiple control
station); wheel mounted crane--
telescoping boom (multiple control
station); wheel mounted crane (single
control station); wheel mounted crane--
telescoping boom (single control
station)) should be used.
The Panel recommends that OSHA ask for OSHA addresses this
public comment on whether the rule recommendation in the
needs to state more clearly that discussion of proposed Sec.
proposed Sec. 1926.1427(j)(1)(i) 1926.1430(c) and requests
requires more limited training for public comment on the issue.
operators of smaller capacity
equipment used in less complex
operations as compared with operators
of higher capacity, more complex
equipment used in more complex
situations.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider OSHA addresses this
and ask for public comment on whether recommendation in the
a more limited training program would discussion of proposed Sec.
be appropriate for operations based on 1926.1430(c) and requests
the capacity and type of equipment and public comment on the issue.
nature of operations.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider OSHA addresses this
and ask for public comment as to recommendation in the
whether the supervisor responsible for discussion of proposed Sec.
oversight for an operator in the pre- 1926.1430(c) and requests
qualification period (Sec. public comment on the issue.
1926.1427(f)) should have additional
training beyond that required in the C-
DAC document at proposed Sec.
1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B).
[[Page 59726]]
The Panel recommends OSHA solicit OSHA addresses these
comment on whether there are qualified recommendations in the
persons in the field with the discussion of proposed Sec.
necessary expertise to assess how the 1926.1437(n)(2) and requests
rated capacity for land cranes and public comment on the issues.
derricks used on barges and other
flotation devices needs to be modified
as required by proposed Sec.
1926.1437(n)(2).
The Panel also recommends that OSHA ...............................
solicit comment on whether it is
necessary, from a safety standpoint,
to apply this provision to cranes used
only for duty cycle work, and if so,
why that is the case, and how ``duty
cycle work'' should be defined.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider OSHA addresses this
and ask for comment on whether it recommendation in the
would be appropriate to exempt from discussion of proposed
the rule small side boom cranes paragraph Sec. 1926.1440(a)
incapable of lifting above the height and requests public comment on
of a truck bed and with a capacity of the issue.
not more than 6,000 pounds.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit The length and
public comment on how the proposed comprehensiveness of the
rule could be simplified (without standard is an issue for this
creating ambiguities) and made easier rulemaking. OSHA requests
to understand. (Several SERs believed comment on how and whether the
that the C-DAC document was so long proposal can be shortened or
and complex that small businesses simplified--made easier to
would have difficulty understanding it understand--and the effect of
and complying with it.). that on addressing
construction hazards.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider OSHA will consider developing
outlining the inspection requirements such an aid as a separate
in spreadsheet form in an Appendix or guidance document.
developing some other means to help
employers understand what inspections
are needed and when they must be done.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider Some SERs requested
whether use of the words ``determine'' clarification as to when
and ``demonstrate'' would mandate that documentation was required,
the employer keep records of such believing that the document
determinations and if records would be implicitly requires
required to make such demonstrations. documentation when it states
that the employer must
``determine'' or
``demonstrate'' certain
things. OSHA notes that it
cannot cite an employer for
failing to have documentation
not explicitly called for in a
standard. See also the
discussion under proposed Sec.
1926.1402(e).
The Panel recommends soliciting public OSHA addresses this
comment on whether the word ``days'' recommendation in the
as used in Sec. Sec. 1926.1416(d) discussion of proposed Sec.
and 1926.1416(e) should be clarified 1926.1416(d) and requests
to mean calendar days or business days. public comment on the issue.
The Panel recommends that OSHA OSHA discusses in detail the
carefully discuss what is included and types of machinery that are
excluded from the scope of this included under this proposed
standard. standard and those that are
excluded in the explanation of
Sec. 1926.1400.
The Panel recommends that OSHA gather OSHA has obtained and evaluated
data and analyze the effects of a study by the Construction
already existing certification Safety Association of Ontario
requirements. showing that Ontario's
certification requirement has
led to a substantial decrease
in crane-related fatalities
there.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider OSHA addresses this
excluding and soliciting comment on recommendation in the
whether equipment used solely to discussion of proposed Sec.
deliver materials to a construction 1926.1400(c) and requests
site by placing/stacking the materials public comment on the issue.
on the ground should be explicitly
excluded from the proposed standard's
scope.
The Panel recommends that OSHA should The information and opinions
consider the information and range of submitted by the SERs are part
opinions that were presented by the of the record for this
SERs on the issue of operator rulemaking, and OSHA will
qualification/certification when consider them along with the
analyzing the public comments on this other public comments on the
issue. proposed rule.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider OSHA addresses this
and solicit public comment on recommendation in the
expanding the levels of certification discussion of proposed Sec.
so as to allow an operator to be 1926.1427(j)(1) and requests
certified on a specific brand's model public comment on the issue.
of crane.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider OSHA addresses this
and solicit public comment on recommendation in the
expanding the levels of operator discussion of proposed Sec.
qualification/certification to allow 1926.1427(j)(1) and requests
an operator to be certified for a public comment on the issue.
specific, limited type of
circumstance. Such a circumstance
would be defined by a set of
parameters that, taken together, would
describe an operation characterized by
simplicity and relatively low risk.
The Agency should consider and solicit
comment on whether such parameters
could be identified in a way that
would result in a clear, easily
understood provision that could be
effectively enforced.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider OSHA addresses this
and solicit public comment on allowing recommendation in the
the written and practical tests discussion of Sec.
described in Option (1) of Sec. 1926.1427(b)(3) and requests
1926.1427(b) to be administered by an public comment on the issue.
accredited educational institution.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit OSHA addresses this
public comment on making it clear recommendation in the
that: (1) an employer is permitted to discussion of proposed Sec.
equip its cranes with manuals re- 1926.1427(h)(1) and requests
written in a way that would allow an public comment on the issues.
operator with a low literacy level to
understand the material (such as
substituting some text with pictures
and illustrations), and (2) making it
clear that, when the cranes are
equipped with such re-written manuals
and materials, the ``manuals'' and
``materials'' referred to in these
literacy provisions would be the re-
written manuals.
[[Page 59727]]
The Panel recommends that OSHA explain OSHA will issue a Small
in a Small Business Compliance Guide Business Compliance Guide
that the certification/qualification after a final rule is issued
test does not need to be administered and will explain these points
in English but can be administered in in the Guide.
a language that the candidate can
read; and that while the employee
would also need to have a sufficient
level of literacy to read and
understand the relevant information in
the equipment manual, that requirement
would be satisfied if the material is
written in a language that the
employee can read and understand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard
The following discussion summarizes and explains each provision in
the proposal and the substantive differences between the proposal and
OSHA's current standard for cranes and derricks at 29 CFR 1926.550,
which is located in Subpart N of OSHA's standards for construction
work. In the discussion, OSHA explains corrections and clarifications
it has made to the language in the C-DAC Document. The Agency also
identifies other areas in the C-DAC Document it believes could benefit
from modifications to the C-DAC language and asks for public comment on
the need for such changes and, in some instances, the appropriateness
of particular clarifying language.
Section 1400 Scope
Paragraphs (a) through (d) of proposed Sec. 1926.1400 set forth
the scope of the proposed rule. Proposed paragraphs (a) through (c)
describe, respectively, what equipment is included, the application of
the standard to equipment used with attachments, and specific
exclusions.
Combining a Functional Description With a List of Covered Equipment
Proposed paragraph (a) provides a functional definition of the
covered equipment as well as a non-exclusive list of what is covered.
C-DAC considered choosing between these approaches, but ultimately
decided to use a combination of the two. The Committee also agreed that
equipment listed in this proposed paragraph should be defined; these
definitions, among others, are set forth in Sec. 1926.1401,
Definitions. It should be noted that the scope of some of the listed
equipment is further delineated in the section of the standard that
specifically relates to that equipment (for example, Sec. 1926.1436,
Derricks and Sec. 1926.1438, Overhead & Gantry Cranes). OSHA believes
that this format strikes an appropriate balance between clarity and
avoiding unintended limitations that might eliminate new and/or other
existing technology that is similar to the listed examples.
The decision to propose a functional definition with a non-
exclusive list of covered equipment followed considerable discussion.
The Committee settled on a definition that focuses on the equipment's
elemental functions--hoisting, lowering, and horizontally moving a
suspended load. The goal of this definition is to cover both existing
and new technologies that share those same functions. Committee members
rejected using just a list of equipment because: (1) Even the most
comprehensive list might inadvertently omit existing technologies, and
(2) they wanted to provide leeway in the scope for applying the new
standard to future technologies.
On the other hand, C-DAC decided against a functional definition
alone because that might include equipment that the standard was not
designed to address (for example, equipment that poses a different set
of hazards than those addressed by the standard). The list provides a
context in which to apply the functional definition. The Agency
believes that this hybrid approach addresses C-DAC's concerns.
Dedicated Pile Drivers
The Committee quickly agreed to include most of the items on the
non-exclusive list. However, several items were included only after
considerable debate. For example, C-DAC's decision to include dedicated
pile drivers followed much discussion, including a panel presentation.
The panel was comprised of a manufacturer, represented by Ahti Knopp
and Pentti Heinonen, President, of Junttan, as well as a user,
represented by Pat Karinen and Dan Kuhs, of Pile Drivers Local Union 34
and 56. The focus of the discussion was whether to include machinery
that fell outside what the industry traditionally considered to be a
crane or derrick covered by existing Subpart N.
Although the manufacturer's representatives stated that they did
not consider their equipment to be cranes, they ultimately supported
the inclusion of dedicated pile drivers in the proposed standard for
several reasons. Specifically, they emphasized certain mechanical
similarities and the need for timely regulation. However, they
requested that the standard be adjusted to address the equipment's
unique characteristics.
The users on the panel, citing the similarities in functional
capabilities and hazards between dedicated pile drivers and cranes,
also supported their inclusion. They were particularly concerned about
the need to establish required inspections for dedicated pile drivers
in view of the stress placed on this type of equipment.
The Committee acknowledged the dilemma it faced in establishing the
parameters of the proposed standard--including machines not typically
described as cranes versus omitting machines similar in hazards and
construction--but ultimately decided to include dedicated pile drivers.
Prior to that decision, however, several members voiced concerns.
For example, some members were worried that including these
machines might encourage their ``use as cranes,'' that is, primarily
for hoisting objects. The manufacturer representatives pointed out that
while these machines are designed to hoist within a very limited range
and capacity, it is inappropriate to use them for hoisting beyond those
restricted limits. Others were concerned that some requirements in the
proposed standard might be a ``bad fit'' for these machines. In
response to such concerns, the Committee included dedicated pile
drivers but tailored the requirements of the standard to take into
account the specific characteristics of such equipment. As a result,
proposed Sec. 1439, Dedicated pile drivers, provides that most
provisions of the standard apply to dedicated pile drivers but excludes
some that the Committee believed were inappropriate for such equipment.
OSHA believes that this approach is appropriate to propose because
it
[[Page 59728]]
provides a workable approach that addresses the unique aspects of the
equipment.
Multi-purpose Machines
The concept of ``multi-purpose machines'' was discussed in depth.
This term, as used in the proposed standard, refers to a relatively new
type of equipment that is designed to be configured in a variety of
ways to perform a variety of different types of functions. For example,
during the discussion, C-DAC members noted that this type of machinery
in one configuration works as an aerial forklift, and in another
configuration works as a crane.
The Agency believes that the Committee developed an appropriate
approach to coverage of this equipment. Specifically, the Committee
defined this category of equipment in Sec. 1926.1401, Definitions, to
cover only machinery ``designed to be configured in various ways'' and
has included it within the proposed scope of the standard only when
configured ``to hoist (by means of a winch or hook) and horizontally
move a suspended load.'' In short, a multi-purpose machine would only
be covered by the proposed standard when configured as a crane.
For example, a machine might be configured variously as a rough-
terrain type forklift, work platform, or as a crane. Such a machine
would only be covered by the proposed standard when configured as a
crane. Conversely, a traditional rough-terrain forklift is originally
designed solely as a forklift. Even if an employer suspends a load from
its fork, it would still be configured (and can only be configured) as
a rough terrain forklift. Such forklifts are not multi-purpose machines
and would specifically be excluded from the standard's coverage by
proposed Sec. 1926.1400(c)(8).
For the same reason, aerial lifts that may have an incidental
capacity to hoist (by means of suspending loads from the boom) are not
multi-purpose machines. Even aerial lifts that are equipped with a low
capacity hoisting device (usually located at basket level) are not
``designed to be configured in various ways'' and, as such, would not
fall within the definition of a multi-purpose machine. Such aerial
lifts are designed to be configured in only one way, that is, as an
aerial lift. In fact, the provision that specifically excludes aerial
lifts, proposed Sec. 1926.1400(c)(5), emphasizes that point in its
description of aerial lifts by saying ``[e]quipment originally designed
as vehicle-mounted aerial devices (for lifting personnel) * * *.''
The Agency agrees with the Committee that it is appropriate to
propose covering multi-purpose equipment in this proposed standard
(when configured as a crane) to protect employees from the types of
hazards that are associated with the other equipment included in the
Scope.
Other Listed Equipment
Some members were concerned that proposing to include industrial
cranes on the list would result in such cranes being covered by this
proposed standard even when used in a factory/general industry setting.
That is not the case--this proposed standard applies only to employers
engaged in construction, and therefore would apply to such equipment
only when used in construction.
The Committee decided to cover side-boom cranes, which are included
in the current Subpart N.\1\ Committee members noted that side-boom
cranes (defined in proposed Sec. 1926.1401, Definitions) share
characteristics with cranes. One member also stated that the American
Pipeline Association supports their inclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(18) of Subpart N requires sideboom cranes
mounted on wheel or crawler tractors to meet the requirements of SAE
J743a-1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional machinery that is proposed to be covered that is either
not currently covered or not specifically addressed by Subpart N
include cranes on a monorail, luffing tower cranes, straddle cranes,
pedestal cranes and shearleg derricks (see Sec. 1926.1436, Derricks).
Each of these meets the functional definition in the proposed standard
and presents the same types of hazards.
Attachments
Proposed Sec. 1926.1400(b) would establish that equipment
otherwise covered by proposed Sec. 1926.1400(a) would remain within
the scope of the proposed standard when used with attachments that are
either ``crane-attached or suspended.'' As defined in Sec. 1926.1401,
an ``attachment'' is ``any device that expands the range of tasks that
can be done by the equipment. Examples include, but are not limited to:
an auger, drill, magnet, pile-driver, and boom-attached personnel
platform.'' This definition reflects an inclusive approach with respect
to the use of attachments.
The Committee recognized that equipment using these attachments
retain their fundamental nature as cranes, including most of the
hazards typically associated with crane use. For example, hazards
associated with ground conditions, assembly/disassembly and operation
near power lines, as well as the importance of proper signaling, work
area control, and operator knowledge and skill, remain the same while
an attachment is in use. Consequently, the proposed standard as a whole
is well suited to the use of this equipment with attachments.
The ACCSH December 2002 work group document provided C-DAC with an
initial list of possible attachments (hooks, magnets, grapples,
clamshell buckets, orange peel buckets) to be covered by the new rule.
(OSHA-2007-0066-0020). Committee members suggested the remaining
examples.
Whether the proposed rule should apply to a personnel platform that
is pinned to the boom was the subject of considerable discussion. Such
a personnel platform was the subject of a presentation to C-DAC by Dan
Wolff of the National Crane Corporation. Currently, Subpart N
explicitly addresses suspended personnel platforms but does not
specifically mention boom-attached personnel platforms. The Committee
confirmed in its discussions that installing a boom-attached personnel
platform does not change the nature of the equipment to the type of
aerial lift that is excluded by this proposed standard (see proposed
Sec. 1926.1400(c)(5)). The Committee was concerned that a failure to
specifically address this type of platform could result in confusion as
to whether its use would be governed by this standard or by the aerial
lift standard. C-DAC concluded that it was appropriate to explicitly
include boom-attached personnel platforms in this standard.
Committee members expressed some concern as to whether the use of
such an attachment involves additional hazards not addressed in this
proposed standard. The Agency is asking for public comment on whether
there are additional requirements that should apply when using a
personnel platform that is attached directly to the boom.
Exclusions
Proposed paragraph (c) lists machinery that is specifically
excluded from the scope of the proposed rule. The Committee referenced
a list in the ACCSH December 2002 work group document as a starting
point for discussion (OSHA-2007-0066-0020). As a result of that
discussion, modifications to that list were made. As discussed below,
the Agency believes that the list in the proposed standard, in
combination with proposed paragraphs (a) and (b), sets appropriate
limits to the proposed standard's scope.
[[Page 59729]]
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) states that machinery otherwise included
under proposed Sec. 1926.1400(a) but ``converted or adapted for non-
hoisting use'' is excluded. Power shovels, excavators and concrete
pumps are listed as nonexclusive examples of such ``conversions/
adaptations'' or modified machinery.
The view of the Committee was that, in most cases, once machinery
that would otherwise be included under proposed Sec. 1926.1400(a) is
converted or adapted for non-hoisting use, the configuration and nature
of operation of the machinery is generally changed to the point where
many of the proposed provisions would not be directly relevant to the
hazards presented. In contrast, as discussed above, C-DAC believed that
equipment used with ``crane-attached or suspended'' attachments
typically retain many of their original characteristics and the
proposed provisions remain relevant.
The Agency recognizes that there may be some instances where
covered equipment used with an attachment is similar in purpose to
machinery converted or adapted for non-hoisting use. For example, a
crane with a drilling attachment will serve the same function as a
machine converted to a dedicated drilling rig. Nonetheless, the Agency
believes that the approach recommended by C-DAC and reflected in the
proposed rule sets an appropriate dividing line between covered and
excluded machinery. The crane's hoisting mechanisms are mostly still
present while the attachment is in use, and the crane's hoisting
capability will likely be called upon fully once the attachment is
removed. Having the machine move in and out of coverage of the rule as
attachments are put on and taken off would create significant
confusion. Furthermore, most of the operational characteristics and
hazards of the equipment remain the same while the attachment is in
use. The Agency believes that, overall, this represents a sensible
approach to setting the breadth and limits of the proposed standard. -
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) contains a specific list of excluded
material handling machinery. This provision reflects C-DAC's decision
to name specific material handling machinery that is excluded rather
than simply reference ``material handling machinery'' as a generic
basis for exclusion. The Committee indicated that a generic exclusion
based upon material handling would be too broad. For example, a crane,
when equipped with a clamshell bucket, is used for material handling,
and C-DAC believed such equipment should be covered by the proposed
standard.
C-DAC also agreed to a Committee member's suggestion of specifying
that the listed machinery is excluded even when used with rigging to
lift suspended loads. C-DAC acknowledged that some of the hazards of
using this material handling machinery in this way are similar to the
hazards associated with equipment covered by the proposed rule.
However, the Committee also believed the differences between the
covered equipment and the material handling machinery is such that one
standard could not be readily designed to suit both. It should be noted
that another construction standard, 29 CFR 1926.602 in subpart O--Motor
Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and Marine Operations, covers material
handling equipment.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) excludes automotive wreckers and tow
trucks ``when used to clear wrecks and haul vehicles.'' A Committee
member, citing C-DAC's focus on construction activities, questioned the
need for this provision. In response, another member explained that
some of these vehicles have substantial hoisting capacity. The
implication of that observation is that these machines have the
capability of hoisting construction material and so some construction
employers may use them for that purpose. Consequently, C-DAC decided to
cover them generally, but to exclude them when used for clearing wrecks
and hauling vehicles. The exclusion is based on the Committee's view
that, even if done as a construction activity (which would be very
rare), clearing wrecks and hauling vehicles is a highly repetitious,
predictable type of operation that is sufficiently distinct from
typical construction crane and derrick use to justify an exclusion from
the proposed rule. It should be noted that ``cranes designed for . . .
automobile wreck clearance'' are excluded from the scope of ASME B30.5-
2004.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(4), service trucks with mobile lifting
devices for use in the power line and electric service industries, such
as digger derricks, are excluded when engaged in certain listed
activities for those industries. This machinery is currently covered by
Subpart N, with the exception of certain provisions, by virtue of Sec.
1926.952(c). We note that ASME B30.5-2004 excludes digger derricks and
``cranes manufactured specifically for, or when used for, energized
electrical line service'' from the scope of that industry consensus
standard.
C-DAC ultimately adopted this exclusion because of the narrow,
specialized range of activities and circumstances in which such trucks
are used. The Agency is asking for public comment as to whether such an
exclusion is appropriate and whether safety problems would be created
by excluding them from coverage under the proposed standard.
Proposed paragraph (c)(5) specifically excludes machinery
originally designed as vehicle mounted aerial lifts and self-propelled
elevating work platforms. The language of this provision reflects C-
DAC's intent to differentiate between equipment with an attachment such
as a personnel platform pinned to the boom, which is within the scope
of the proposed rule, and machinery originally designed to be
configured only as an aerial lift, which is excluded. In excluding this
machinery, the Committee discussed the fact that some aerial lifts have
a small capacity auxiliary winch. C-DAC decided not to include such
machinery. The use of such winches is only incidental to an aerial
lift's primary function. Also, another standard, Sec. 1926.453,
addresses aerial lifts.
Proposed paragraph (c)(6) excludes telescopic/hydraulic gantry
systems. This machinery is also not currently covered by Subpart N or
any ANSI/ASME standards. C-DAC made the decision to exclude this
machinery after extensive discussion between members and a presentation
by Mr. Kevin Johnston of J&R Engineering Co., Inc.
The decision was based upon several factors. One factor was the
difference in design between this machinery and other equipment covered
by the proposed rule. Telescopic/hydraulic gantry systems consist (in
their most basic configuration) of a header beam that is supported on
each side by hydraulic jacks. The load is suspended by rigging from the
header beam. The load is raised and lowered by raising and lowering the
jacks.
This type of design involves hazards that are unique to this type
of equipment. For example, keeping the jacks plumb and closely
coordinating their movements is very important. Mr. Johnston noted that
because of these differences, many of the requirements in the proposed
standard would not be workable or needed. Also, hazards unique to this
type of machinery would not be addressed.
C-DAC was concerned that a failure to include this machinery in the
proposed rule could result in there being no applicable OSHA
requirements. The Committee was particularly concerned about this
[[Page 59730]]
because there was no industry consensus standard for telescopic/
hydraulic gantry systems. Once the Specialized Carriers & Rigging
Association (SC&RA) indicated its willingness to draft and complete a
voluntary consensus standard for this machinery within a short time
frame, the Committee was satisfied that the best approach was to
exclude telescopic/hydraulic gantry systems from the proposed rule.
The Agency notes that, in the fall of 2004, SC&RA did in fact
complete a voluntary consensus standard for telescopic/hydraulic gantry
systems. (OSHA-2007-0066-0027). Accordingly, the Agency agrees with C-
DAC that, under these circumstances, these systems should be excluded
from the proposed rule.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(7), stacker cranes are excluded. This
machinery, covered by ASME B30.18, was similarly excluded in the ACCSH
draft. The Agency believes that these cranes are rarely used in
construction, and that their configuration is too unlike other
machinery covered by this proposed standard to warrant inclusion.
Proposed paragraph (c)(8) excludes powered industrial trucks
(forklifts). As noted during the C-DAC meetings, this machinery is
already covered by Sec. 1926.602 of Subpart O--Motor Vehicles,
Mechanized Equipment, and Marine Operations. The Agency believes that
this type of machinery is mostly used in a manner that does not involve
suspended loads and would often require different responses to the
hazards presented than provided in this proposed standard. Therefore,
the Agency agrees with C-DAC that this machinery should be excluded
from the proposed standard.
During the SBREFA process, one Small Entity Representative stated
that the C-DAC document does not contain a provision explicitly
excluding coverage of machines that are originally designed to function
primarily as forklifts but are modified to perform tasks similar to
cranes and derricks that are covered under the standard. The Panel
recommended that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on whether
the scope language should be modified to explicitly state whether
forklifts modified in such a manner are covered. OSHA welcomes comment
on this issue.
Proposed paragraph (c)(9) excludes mechanic's trucks with hoisting
devices when used in activities related to equipment maintenance and
repair. The treatment of this machinery is similar to that of
automotive wreckers and tow trucks. This exclusion reflects the
Committee's conclusion that mechanic's trucks, when used in these
support activities, have the capability of hoisting construction
material and so some construction employers may use them for that
purpose. Consequently, C-DAC decided to cover them generally, but to
exclude them when used for equipment maintenance and repair activities.
The exclusion is based on the Committee's view that, even if done as a
construction activity (which would be very rare), the maintenance and
repair activities are highly repetitious, predictable types of
operations that are sufficiently distinct from typical construction
crane and derrick use to justify an exclusion from the proposed rule.
In proposed paragraph (c)(10), machinery that hoists by using a
come-a-long or chainfall is excluded. This exclusion reflects currently
industry practice as exemplified by OSHA's steel erection standard. The
definition of ``hoisting equipment'' in OSHA's steel erection standard,
Sec. 1926.751, defines ``come-a-long'' as ``a mechanical device
typically consisting of a chain or cable attached at each end that is
used to facilitate movement of materials through leverage'' and notes
that such a device is not considered ``hoisting equipment.'' Sec.
1926.1401 of this proposed standard sets forth the same definition of
``come-a-long'' as OSHA's steel erection standard. Committee members
decided that a specific exclusion was needed because these devices,
that members term ``tools of the trade,'' are not all human-powered and
thus might otherwise fall within the scope of the proposed rule. C-DAC
was of the view that these tools are unlike the equipment covered by
the proposed rule in terms of both scale and the set of hazards
associated with their use.
Proposed paragraph (c)(11) excludes dedicated drilling rigs. This
exclusion was agreed upon after substantial discussion among Committee
members. It should be noted that neither Subpart N nor other OSHA
construction standards currently cover dedicated drilling rigs
specifically.
Much of the specific information as to the nature of dedicated
drilling rigs and the concerns of drill rig industry stakeholders was
ascertained during a panel discussion chaired by members of the
International Association of Foundation Drilling. Panel members
emphasized that, in their view, a dedicated drilling rig is not a
crane, but rather is designed to function as excavating equipment.
In support of that position, the panelists noted that, unlike
cranes, this machinery lacks load charts and has only limited
horizontal movement, radius, and hoisting capabilities. They also
stated that although many are equipped with an auxiliary service winch,
the primary use of this machinery is not for hoisting. Panelists
suggested that accidents associated with the use of dedicated drilling
rigs tend to result from improper use (that is, attempting to use them
for more extensive hoisting work, beyond the narrow limits set by
manufacturer specifications). Finally, the speakers emphasized that
while they did not believe this machinery should be regulated as cranes
under the proposed rule, if they were to be regulated, they should be
under a more closely related standard, such as the excavation standard.
Several additional concerns were examined in the course of the
discussion. Some members suggested that dedicated pile drivers and
dedicated drilling rigs be treated in the same manner--to either cover
or exclude both. Others responded that the disparate treatment is
justified by the fact that dedicated pile drivers are frequently used
on barges, which involves additional hazards, and the more widespread
use of that machine's hoisting function. Some members expressed concern
that the inclusion of dedicated drilling rigs under the proposed rule
would encourage their misuse as cranes.
The Committee decided that the arguments for excluding dedicated
drilling rigs outweighed those for including them. The Agency agrees;
while there are certain similarities to dedicated pile drivers in that
both have an auxiliary hoisting capability, the dedicated drilling rigs
are not typically used on barges and there seems to be less abuse of
their very limited hoisting capabilities. Specific public comment is
requested on these issues.
Proposed paragraph (c)(12) contains an exclusion for gin poles used
during the erection of communication towers. It is the Agency's
understanding that the erection of communication towers is a
specialized subset of the construction industry, and involves issues
that go beyond those C-DAC was designed to address. OSHA is therefore
not proposing to include gin poles used for this purpose in the
proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (c)(13) excludes tree trimming and tree removal
work from the scope of the proposed rule. In correspondence to the
Committee (OSHA S030-2006-0663-0534), the Tree Care Industry
Association had requested that their work be excluded from the proposed
rule. The Committee noted that the vast majority of the tree care
industry's work does not take place
[[Page 59731]]
in construction and agreed that such work should be excluded. The
Agency believes that, since tree trimming and tree removal work so
rarely falls within construction, it is appropriate to exclude tree
trimming and removal from the proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (c)(14) excludes anchor handling with a vessel
or barge using an affixed A-frame. C-DAC decided to exclude this
activity after the Cranes on Barges Work Group found that there would
be problems tailoring the general requirements of the C-DAC draft to
address the use of these specialized devices.
Proposed paragraph (c)(15), the final item listed, excludes
roustabouts. The Committee was of the view that the proposed rule is
not suited to addressing these devices, which are moved about by hand.
The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA consider, and solicit
comment on, whether equipment used solely to deliver materials to a
construction site by placing/stacking the materials on the ground
should be explicitly excluded from the scope of the rule. OSHA requests
public comment on this issue.
Note: OSHA replaced the word ``Equipment'' used in proposed
Sec. Sec. 1926.1400(c)(1), (c)(5) and (c)(10) of the C-DAC
Consensus Document with the word ``Machinery.'' This was done
because ``equipment'' is a defined term in the proposed standard
that refers to covered equipment and, thus, cannot be used to mean
excluded machinery.
Unspecified Equipment
Proposed paragraph (d) is included to clarify that all provisions
of the proposed rule apply to covered equipment unless otherwise noted.
This paragraph was included because there are some types of equipment
for which only limited requirements apply, and others where there are
special requirements that supplement, rather than displace, the other
requirements in the proposed rule. To avoid confusion, this proposed
paragraph establishes that all parts of the proposed rule apply unless
a provision specifically identifies other parts of the proposed rule as
inapplicable, or identifies the only provisions of the standard that
are applicable.
Controlling Entities
Proposed paragraph (e) provides that the duties of controlling
entities \2\ are not limited to the duties specified in Sec. Sec.
1926.1402(c), (e) and 1926.1424(b). This was included to clarify that
the controlling entity duties specified in the proposed rule are
intended to supplement, rather than displace, controlling entity duties
under OSHA's multi-employer policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The definition of ``controlling entity'' is explained in the
discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.1402(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency has clear authority to include in this proposed rule the
provisions in proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1402(c), (e) and 1926.1424(b),
which would apply specific requirements to controlling entities. First,
the plain language of the OSH Act and its underlying purpose support
OSHA's authority to place requirements on employers that are necessary
to protect the employees of others. Second, congressional action
subsequent to passage of the OSH Act recognizes this authority. Third,
OSHA has consistently interpreted its statutory authority as permitting
it to impose obligations on employers that extend beyond their own
employees, as evidenced by the numerous standards, including several
construction standards, that OSHA has promulgated with multi-employer
provisions. Finally, OSHA's authority to place obligations on employers
that reach beyond an employer's own employees has been upheld by
numerous courts of appeals and the Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission (OSHRC).
The purpose of the Act is to assure so far as possible safe and
healthful working conditions for every working man and women in the
nation. 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the
Secretary to establish mandatory occupational safety and health
standards. The Act broadly defines an OSHA standard as a rule that
``requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices,
means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or
appropriate to provide safe or healthful employments and places of
employment.'' 29 U.S.C. 652(8). See Building and Constr. Trades Div.,
AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1278 (DC Cir. 1988). OSHA standards
must prescribe measures that are appropriate to protect ``places of
employment''; nothing in the statutory language suggests that OSHA may
do so only by regulating an employer's interaction with its own
employees. On the contrary, the Act's broad language gives OSHA almost
``unlimited discretion'' to devise means to reach the statutory goal.
See United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1230 (DC Cir.
1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).
Similarly, Section 5(a)(2) provides that each employer ``shall
comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under
this Act.'' \3\ Nothing in this language suggests that compliance is
required only when necessary to protect the employers' own employees,
or that the employer is entitled to endanger other employers' employees
at the worksite. Finally, Section 6(b)(7) of the Act authorizes the
Secretary to ``prescribe the use of labels or other appropriate forms
of warning as are necessary to insure that employees are apprised of
all hazards to which they are exposed.'' 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7). Again,
this authority is not limited to labels that would warn the employer's
own employees of the hazard. Given the distribution of potentially
hazardous products in commerce, employees are predictably exposed to
hazardous conditions created by other employers. Requiring employers to
include hazard information needed by downstream employees is a
necessary and appropriate means to ensure that the employees are
apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This language is in marked contrast to the language of
Section 5(a)(1) of the Act (known as the ``general duty clause''),
which requires each employer to ``furnish to each of his employees
employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized
hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious
physical harm to his employees.'' 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1) (emphases
added). See Brennan v. OSHRC, 513 F.2d 1032, 1037-38 (2nd. Cir.
1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, the statute focuses on workplace conditions to effectuate
the OSH Act's congressional mandate, and not on a particular employment
relationship. The OSH Act's underlying purpose is broad--to assure safe
and healthful working conditions for working men and women--and
Congress made clear that it expected the Act to protect all employees.
(H. Rep. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 14-16 (July 9, 1970)).
Numerous references in the legislative history of the Act require
employers to provide a safe and healthful ``place of employment'' (see,
e.g., S. Rep. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 10 (October 6,
1970)). The OSH Act tasks OSHA with promulgating rules that will create
safe places of employment, notwithstanding the many varied employment
relationships that might exist at a worksite.
Subsequent congressional action has also recognized OSHA's
authority to impose responsibilities on employers to protect employees
who are not their own. For example, Congress directed OSHA to develop a
chemical process safety standard (the PSM standard) requiring employers
to ``ensure contractors and contract employees are provided appropriate
information and training'' and to ``train and educate
[[Page 59732]]
employees and contractors in emergency response.'' (29 U.S.C. note)
(quoting Pub.L. 101-549, Title III, Sec. 304, November 15, 1990, 104
Stat. 2576). This is a clear ratification of the Agency's authority to
require employers to protect the employees of others. Congress also
approved of the Agency's authority when it relied on the provisions of
OSHA's Hazard Communication standard in promulgating the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 U.S.C. 11001-11050)
(EPCRA). OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, among other things,
requires a manufacturer of a hazardous chemical to ``inform not only
its own employees of the dangers posed by the chemicals, but downstream
employers and employees as well.'' Martin v. American Cyanamid Co., 5
F.3d 140, 141 (6th Cir. 1993). Congress incorporated provisions of the
Hazard Communication standard in EPCRA as a basis for triggering
obligations on owners or operators of facilities producing hazardous
chemicals to provide local governments with information needed for
emergency response. Had Congress not approved of the multi-employer
provisions in the Hazard Communication standard, it would not have
approved of it as a basis for obligations in the EPCRA.
Furthermore, OSHA has consistently interpreted the OSH Act as
authorizing it to impose multi-employer obligations in its standards.
In addition to the Hazard Communication standard and PSM standard
discussed above, OSHA included multi-employer provisions in its powered
platforms standard, which requires that a building owner inform
employers that the building installation has been inspected and is safe
to use. 29 CFR 1910.66(c)(3). OSHA has also imposed multi-employer
obligations in other construction standards.
For example, in the construction asbestos standard, OSHA requires
building owners/employers to perform initial monitoring for asbestos
and to communicate the presence of asbestos or presumed asbestos
containing materials to prospective employers whose employees
reasonably can be expected to work in exposed areas. 29 CFR
1926.1101(k)(2). In the recently promulgated steel-erection standard,
OSHA imposed duties on controlling contractors to ensure that site
conditions are safe for steel erection. 29 CFR 1926.752(c). OSHA just
recently proposed in updates to its electric-power transmission and
distribution construction standard similar multi-employer communication
provisions. See 70 FR 34947-48. OSHA's inclusion of multi-employer
provisions in this proposed rule is fully consistent with its past
practice of ensuring the safety and health of all employees at
construction worksites.
Finally, OSHA's authority to impose these provisions is confirmed
by the decisions of numerous courts of appeals and the Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission holding that an employer's duties
and OSHA standards may extend beyond an employer's own employees. See
Universal Constr. Co. v. OSHRC, 182 F.3d 726, 728 (10th Cir. 1999)
(following decisions from Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth
Circuits); Access Equip. Sys., 18 BNA OSHC 1718, 1722-24 (No. 95-1449,
1999). But see Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706 (5th
Cir. 1981). The DC Circuit suggested in Anthony Crane Rental, Inc. v.
Reich, 70 F.3d 1298, 1306 (DC Cir. 1995), however, that 29 CFR
1910.12(a)--a rule promulgated by OSHA to adopt Construction Safety Act
(CSA) standards as OSHA standards--might limit an employer's
obligations under the construction standards in part 1926 to its own
employees. The court did not reach the issue, noting that the parties
had not briefed it. The proposed cranes and derricks in construction
standard will be included in part 1926.
Paragraph 1910.12(a) is consistent with the promulgation of
requirements that place obligations on employers necessary to protect
the employees of others. The provision states:
The standards prescribed in part 1926 of this chapter are
adopted as occupational safety and health standards under section 6
of the Act and shall apply, according to the provisions thereof, to
every employment and place of employment of every employee engaged
in construction work. Each employer shall protect the employment and
places of employment of each of his employees engaged in
construction work by complying with the appropriate standards
prescribed in this paragraph.
The language of the provision supports OSHA's interpretation that
an employer's responsibilities can extend beyond the employer's
employees. The first sentence makes the construction standards
applicable to every employment and to every ``place of employment'' of
every construction employee. This is broad language that does not limit
an employer's obligations to its own employees. The second sentence, by
providing that each employer must protect the employment and the places
of employment of each of his employees, does not limit an employer's
obligations to only protecting his or her employees and does not negate
the broad reach of the first sentence. The two sentences, read
together, require employers to comply with standards at all sites where
they are working in order to protect employees who are predictably
present at those sites.
The sole purpose of the provision was to ``adopt and extend''
existing Construction Safety Act (CSA) standards applicable under the
OSH Act. 29 CFR 1910.11. Under the CSA, standards applied only to
employers with Federally funded contracts, and only with respect to
employees engaged on those Federal projects. See 29 CFR part 1926
subpart B; CH2M Hill, Inc. v. Herman, 192 F.3d 711, 718 n.1 (7th Cir.
1999). The function of 29 CFR 1910.12(a) was to adopt the CSA standards
as OSHA standards and in so doing to make it clear that neither of
those limitations would apply. Thus, OSHA stressed that compliance
would broadly extend to each construction employer (not just those with
Federal contracts) and to every construction employee (not just those
working on Federal projects). In no way did OSHA intend for the
language of 29 CFR 1910.12(a) to restrict its authority to promulgate
construction standards that establish obligations extending beyond an
employer's own employees.
Other factors confirm that OSHA had no intention in 29 CFR
1910.12(a) to bar multi-employer responsibilities under the
construction standards. OSHA issued the regulation without notice and
comment under Section 6(a) of the Act. That section provided authority
only to adopt established federal standards, such as the CSA standards,
without making any substantive changes. Usery v. Kennecott Copper
Corp., 577 F.2d 1113 (10th Cir. 1977). The CSA regulations did not
limit multi-employer responsibilities; the regulations expressly
provided for them. 29 CFR 1926.16. OSHA could not have intended to
limit statutory obligations in an action under Section 6(a).
In addition, concurrently with issuance of 29 CFR 1910.12(a), OSHA
issued its initial Field Operations Manual, which expressly directed
issuance of citations to construction employers who created a hazard
endangering their own employees or those of another employer. The
Agency has also consistently promulgated rules in 29 CFR Part 1926 that
expressly extend employers' obligations beyond their own employees. The
requirements in proposed 29 CFR 1926.1204 reflect this consistent
interpretation and will ensure that all employees on construction
worksites are protected from the hazards of confined spaces.
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's recent
decision in
[[Page 59733]]
Secretary of Labor v. Summit Contractors (OSHRC Docket No. 03-1622
(April 27, 2007), has no application to this proposed rule. In Summit,
a divided Review Commission vacated citations issued to a controlling
employer for violations of a construction standard. The two
Commissioners who joined in this result issued separate opinions; each
read 29 CFR 1910.12(a) as establishing a limitation on the Agency's
authority to hold controlling employers accountable for violations.
OSHA believes this view is mistaken, and has appealed the OSHRC
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals (8th Cir. No. 07-2191).
Moreover, Summit has no bearing on the duties established under the
proposed rule. The Summit opinions interpreted OSHA's intent under then
existing rules. They did not question OSHA's authority under the Act to
establish multi-employer obligations through rulemaking. OSHA is
exercising its authority under Section 6(b) to issue this proposed
rule, and nothing in 29 CFR 1910.12(a) limits an employer's compliance
obligations under the rule.
Proposed paragraph (f) would require that where a provision in the
proposed rule directs an operator, crewmember or other employee to take
a specified action, it would be the employer's responsibility to
establish work rules to require the relevant employees to take that
action, and to effectively communicate and enforce those work rules.
This paragraph clarifies the employer's obligations with regard to such
provisions.
Terminology
According to Sec. 1926.1401, Definitions, two terms are defined as
meaning all equipment covered by this subpart: ``Equipment'' and
``cranes/derricks.'' In reviewing the C-DAC document, OSHA has found
that in some places it uses the word ``crane'' standing alone when C-
DAC's intent was to refer to all covered equipment. To avoid any
ambiguity, OSHA has modified the document where appropriate to replace
``crane'' with either ``equipment'' or ``crane/derrick.'' Where
``crane'' is used in a way that is technically correct, as in referring
to ``tower cranes,'' OSHA has not changed it.
In instances where the C-DAC document uses the phrase ``crane
operator,'' OSHA has deleted the word ``crane.'' By definition (in
Sec. 1926.1401) ``operator'' refers to the equipment operator and, in
many locations, the C-DAC document already uses ``operator'' without a
modifier to refer to the equipment operator. Therefore, use of
``crane'' to modify ``operator'' is unnecessary and potentially
confusing.
Section 1401 Definitions
C-DAC included a number of definitions to clarify the meaning of
terms used in the proposed standard. Many of the defined terms are
commonly used in the industry, and C-DAC in most instances relied on
standard industry sources or its own understanding of how terms are
used in the industry to help ensure that the definitions would be
readily understood by employers and employees. Industry sources on
which C-DAC relied include existing OSHA standards, consensus
standards, and ``A Glossary of Common Crane and Rigging Terms''
(Specialized Carriers and Rigging Foundation 1997) (``SC&RF
Handbook'')(OSHA-2007-0066-0019). Some definitions were also included
to ensure that certain terms used in the proposed standard have a
precise, unambiguous meaning.
Where defined terms are used primarily in a single section or group
of sections (such as Sec. Sec. 1926.1407-1411 on power line safety),
the definition will be explained in the preamble to that section or
group. Definitions that are used in a number of sections will be
explained in this section. Table 5 shows the section or paragraph where
each definition is discussed.
Table 5--Index of Defined Terms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section or paragraph where definition
Term is discussed in the preamble
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/D supervisor................. Sec. 1926.1404(a)(1)
Articulating crane............. Sec. 1926.1401
Assembly/Disassembly........... Sec. 1926.1403
Assist crane................... Sec. 1926.1404(h)(4)
Attachments.................... Sec. 1926.1400(b)(2)
Audible signal................. Sec. 1926.1419(b)
Blocking....................... Sec. 1926.1404(h)(2)
Boatswain's chair.............. Sec. 1926.1431(o)
Bogie.......................... Sec. 1926.1435
Boom (equipment other than Sec. 1926.1401
tower crane)..................
Boom (tower cranes)............ Sec. 1926.1435(e)(5)(ii)
Boom angle indicator........... Sec. 1926.1416(d)(1)(i)(A)
Boom hoist limiting device..... Sec. 1926.1416(d)(1)
Boom length indicator.......... Sec. 1926.1416(e)(3)
Boom stop...................... Sec. 1926.1416(a)(2)
Boom suspension systems........ Sec. 1926.1404(h)(7)
Builder........................ Sec. 1926.1436(c)(1)
Calculate...................... Sec. 1926.1401
Center of gravity.............. Sec. 1926.1404(h)(6)
Certified welder............... Sec. 1926.1431(e)(5)
Climbing....................... Sec. 1926.1435(b)(7)
Come-a-long.................... Sec. 1926.1400(c)(10)
Competent person............... Sec. 1926.1401
Controlled load lowering....... Sec. 1926.1426(d)
Controlling entity............. Sec. 1926.1402(c)
Counterweight.................. Sec. 1926.1404(h)(9)
Crane/derrick.................. Sec. 1926.1400
Crawler crane.................. Sec. 1926.1401
Crossover points............... Sec. 1926.1413(a)(3)(iii)
Dedicated channel.............. Sec. 1926.1420(b)
Dedicated pile-driver.......... Sec. 1926.1439(a)
Dedicated spotter (power lines) Sec. 1926.1407(b)
[[Page 59734]]
Directly under the load........ Sec. 1926.1425(e)(1)
Dismantling.................... Sec. 1926.1405
Drum rotation indicator........ Sec. 1926.1416(e)(5)
Electrical contact............. Sec. 1926.1407-1411
Employer-made equipment........ Sec. 1926.1437(m)(4)
Encroachment................... Sec. 1926.1407-1411
Equipment...................... Sec. 1926.1400
Equipment criteria............. Sec. 1926.1412(b)(1)(i)
Fall protection equipment...... Sec. 1926.1423(d)
Fall restraint system.......... Sec. 1926.1423(d)
Fall zone...................... Sec. 1926.1425(b)
Flange points.................. Sec. 1926.1413(a)(3)(iii)
Floating cranes/derricks....... Sec. 1926.1437
For example.................... Sec. 1926.1401
Free fall (of the load line)... Sec. 1926.1426(d)
Free surface effect............ Sec. 1926.1437(m)(5)(ii)
Hoist.......................... Sec. 1926.1401
Hoisting....................... Sec. 1926.1401
Include/including.............. Sec. 1926.1401
Insulating link/device......... Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4)(v)
Jib stop....................... Sec. 1926.1415(a)(3)
Land crane/derrick............. Sec. 1926.1437(h)
List........................... Sec. 1926.1437(e)(1)
Load........................... Sec. 1926.1401
Load moment (or rated capacity) Sec. 1926.1416(e)(4)
indicator.....................
Load moment (or rated capacity) Sec. 1926.1416(e)(4)
limiter.......................
Locomotive crane............... Sec. 1926.1401
Luffing jib limiting device.... Sec. 1926.1416(d)(2)
Marine hoisted personnel Sec. 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii)
transfer device...............
Marine worksite................ Sec. 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii)
Mobile cranes.................. Sec. 1926.1401
Moving point-to-point.......... Sec. 1926.1423(d)(1)
Multi-purpose machine.......... Sec. 1926.1400(a)
Nationally recognized Sec. 1926.1427(b)(1)(i)
accrediting agency............
Non-conductive................. Sec. 1926.1407(b)(2)
Operational aids............... Sec. 1926.1416
Operational controls........... Sec. 1926.1417(b)(2)
Operator....................... Sec. 1926.1401
Overhead and gantry cranes..... Sec. 1926.1438
Paragraph...................... Sec. 1926.1401
Pendants....................... Sec. 1926.1404(h)(8)
Personal fall arrest system.... Sec. 1926.1423(f)
Portal cranes.................. Sec. 1926.1415(a)(1)
Power lines.................... Sec. 1926.1407-1411
Procedures..................... Sec. 1926.1401
Proximity alarm................ Sec. 1926.1407(b)(3)
Qualified evaluator (not a Sec. 1926.1428(a)(2)
third party)..................
Qualified evaluator (third Sec. 1926.1428(a)(2)
party)........................
Qualified person............... Sec. 1926.1401
Qualified rigger............... Sec. 1926.1425(c)(3)
Range control warning device... Sec. 1926.1407(a)(3)
Rated capacity................. Sec. 1926.1401
Rated capacity indicator....... Sec. 1926.1416(e)(4)
Rated capacity limiter......... Sec. 1926.1416(e)(4)
Repetitive pickup points....... Sec. 1926.1413(a)(3)(iii)
Running wire rope.............. Sec. 1926.1413(a)(2)(ii)(A)
Runway......................... Sec. 1926.1431(k)(12)(ii)(A)
Section........................ Sec. 1926.1401
Side-boom crane................ Sec. 1926.1440
Special hazard warnings........ Sec. 1926. 1417(c)(1)
Stability (flotation device)... Sec. 1926.1437(m)(5)(iii)
Standard Method................ Sec. 1926.1419(c)
Such as........................ Sec. 1926.1401
Superstructure................. Sec. 1926.1424(a)(1)
Tag line....................... Sec. 1926.1407(b)(2)
Tender......................... Sec. 1926.1437(j)(3)
Tilt-up or tilt-down operation. Sec. 1926.1425(e)
Tower crane.................... Sec. 1926.1401
Travel bogie (tower cranes).... Sec. 1926.1435(d)(2)(iv)
Trim........................... Sec. 1926.1437(e)(1)
Two blocking................... Sec. 1926.1416(d)(3)
[[Page 59735]]
Unavailable procedures......... Sec. 1926.1417(b)
Up to.......................... Sec. 1926.1401
Upperstructure................. Sec. 1926.1424(a)(1)
Upperworks..................... Sec. 1926.1424(a)(1)
Wire rope...................... Sec. 1926.1413
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four terms that are defined in the C-DAC document--``alongside,''
``appointed person,'' ``blind pick,'' and ``power down,''--were used by
C-DAC in earlier drafts but are not used in the proposed standard. OSHA
has therefore not included them in this section.
``A/D supervisor'' means ``an individual who meets this standard's
requirements for an A/D supervisor, irrespective of the person's formal
job title or whether the person is non-management or management
personnel.''
``Articulating crane'' means ``a crane whose boom consists of a
series of folding, pin connected structural members, typically
manipulated to extend or retract by power from hydraulic cylinders.''
This definition is taken from the SC&RF Handbook definition of
``articulating boom crane.''
``Assist crane'' is ``a crane used to assist in assembling or
disassembling a crane.''
``Assembly/Disassembly'' means ``the assembly and/or disassembly of
equipment covered under this standard. With regard to tower cranes,
``erecting and climbing'' replaces the term `assembly,' and
`dismantling' replaces the term `disassembly.' ''
``Attachments'' means ``any device that expands the range of tasks
that can be done by the equipment. Examples include, but are not
limited to: an auger, drill, magnet, pile-driver, and boom-attached
personnel platform.'' This definition is discussed under paragraph
1400(b) in the explanation of this proposed standard.
``Audible signal'' means ``a signal made by a distinct sound or
series of sounds. Examples include, but are not limited to, sounds made
by a bell, horn, or whistle.''
``Blocking'' (also referred to as ``cribbing'') ``is wood or other
material used to support equipment or a component and distribute loads
to the ground. Typically used to support latticed boom sections during
assembly/ disassembly and under outrigger floats.''
``Boatswain's chair'' is ``a single-point adjustable suspension
scaffold consisting of a seat or sling (which may be incorporated into
a full body harness) designed to support one employee in a sitting
position.''
``Bogie'' is synonymous with ``travel bogie,'' which is defined
below.
``Boom (equipment other than tower crane)'' means ``an inclined
spar, strut, or other long structural member which supports the upper
hoisting tackle on a crane or derrick. Typically, the length and
vertical angle of the boom can be varied to achieve increased height or
height and reach when lifting loads. Booms can usually be grouped into
general categories of hydraulically extendible, cantilevered type,
latticed section, cable supported type or articulating type.'' This
definition is taken from the SC&RF Handbook.
``Boom (tower cranes).'' On tower cranes: if the ``boom'' (i.e.,
principal horizontal structure) is fixed, it is referred to as a jib;
if it is moveable up and down, it is referred to as a boom.
``Boom angle indicator'' is ``a device which measures the angle of
the boom relative to horizontal.''
``Boom hoist limiting device'' ``includes boom hoist disengaging
device, boom hoist shutoff, boom hoist disconnect, boom hoist hydraulic
relief, boom hoist kick-outs, automatic boom stop device, or derricking
limiter. This type of device disengages boom hoist power when the boom
reaches a predetermined operating angle. It also sets brakes or closes
valves to prevent the boom from lowering after power is disengaged.''
``Boom length indicator'' ``indicates the length of the permanent
part of the boom (such as ruled markings on the boom) or, as in some
computerized systems, the length of the boom with extensions/
attachments.''
``Boom stop'' ``includes boom stops, (belly straps with struts/
standoff), telescoping boom stops, attachment boom stops, and
backstops. These devices restrict the boom from moving above a certain
maximum angle and toppling over backward.''
``Boom suspension systems'' are ``a system of pendants, running
ropes, sheaves, and other hardware which supports the boom tip and
controls the boom angle.''
``Builder'' means ``an employer builder/constructor of equipment.''
This definition is discussed under Sec. 1926.1436(c)(1) in the
explanation of this proposed standard.
``Calculate'' ``includes use of a calculator.'' The Committee
included this definition to make clear that persons who performed
calculations under this standard may use any method, including use of a
calculator, that yields accurate results.
``Center of gravity.'' ``The center of gravity of any object is the
point in the object around which its weight is evenly distributed. If
you could put a support under that point, you could balance the object
on the support.''
``Certified welder'' is ``a welder that meets the nationally
recognized certification requirements that are applicable to the task
being performed.''
``Climbing'' is ``the process in which a tower crane is raised to a
new working height, either by adding additional tower sections to the
top of the crane (top climbing), or by a system in which the entire
crane is raised inside the structure (inside climbing).''
``Come-a-long'' means ``a mechanical device typically consisting of
a chain or cable attached at each end that is used to facilitate
movement of materials through leverage.''
``Competent person'' is ``a person who is capable of identifying
existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working
conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees,
and who has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to
eliminate them.'' This definition is taken from 29 CFR 1926.32(f),
which defines ``competent person'' under OSHA's construction standards.
Those standards assign duties to ``competent persons'' that are similar
to those assigned under this proposed standard.
``Controlled load lowering'' means ``lowering a load by means of a
mechanical hoist drum device that allows a hoisted load to be lowered
with maximum control using the gear train or hydraulic components of
the hoist mechanism. Controlled load lowering requires the use of the
hoist drive motor,
[[Page 59736]]
rather than the load hoist brake, to lower the load.''
``Controlling entity'' is ``a prime contractor, general contractor,
construction manager or any other legal entity which has the overall
responsibility for the construction of the project--its planning,
quality and completion.''
``Counterweight'' is a ``weight used to supplement the weight of
equipment in providing stability for lifting loads by counterbalancing
those loads.''
``Crane/derrick'' includes ``all equipment covered by this
Subpart.''
``Crawler crane'' means ``equipment that has a type of base
mounting which incorporates a continuous belt of sprocket driven
track.'' This definition is based on the definition of ``crawler'' in
the SC&RF Handbook. Current industry terminology refers to crawler
cranes and truck cranes together as ``mobile cranes.'' See definition
of ``mobile crane'' below.
``Crossover points'' are ``locations on a wire rope which is
spooled on a drum where one layer of rope climbs up on and crosses over
the previous layer. This takes place at each flange of the drum as the
rope is spooled onto the drum, reaches the flange, and begins to wrap
back in the opposite direction.''
``Dedicated channel'' is ``a line of communication assigned by the
employer who controls the communication system to only one signal
person and crane/derrick or to a coordinated group of cranes/derrick/
signal person(s).''
``Dedicated pile-driver'' is ``a machine that is designed to
function exclusively as a pile-driver. These machines typically have
the ability to both hoist the material that will be pile-driven and to
pile-drive that material.''
``Dedicated spotter (power lines)'' is defined as follows: ``In
order to be considered a dedicated spotter, the requirements of Sec.
1926.1428 (signal person qualifications) must be met and his/her sole
responsibility is to watch the separation between the power line and:
the equipment, load line and load (including rigging and lifting
accessories), and ensure through communication with the operator, that
the applicable minimum approach distance is not breached.''
``Directly under the load'' means ``a part or all of an employee is
directly beneath the load.''
``Dismantling'' ``includes partial dismantling (such as dismantling
to shorten a boom or substitute a different component).''
``Drum rotation indicator'' is ``a device on a crane or hoist which
indicates in which direction and at what relative speed a particular
hoist drum is turning.''
``Electrical contact'' refers to ``when a person, object, or
equipment makes contact or comes in close proximity with an energized
conductor or equipment that allows the passage of current.''
``Employer-made equipment'' means ``floating cranes/derricks
designed and built by an employer for the employer's own use.''
``Encroachment'' is ``where any part of the crane, load line or
load (including rigging and lifting accessories) breaches a minimum
clearance distance that this subpart requires to be maintained from a
power line.''
``Equipment'' means ``equipment covered by this subpart.''
``Equipment criteria'' means ``instructions, recommendations,
limitations and specifications.''
``Fall protection equipment'' means ``guardrail systems, safety net
systems, personal fall arrest systems, positioning device systems or
fall restraint systems.''
``Fall restraint system'' means ``a fall protection system that
prevents the user from falling any distance. The system is comprised of
either a body belt or body harness, along with an anchorage, connectors
and other necessary equipment. The other components typically include a
lanyard, and may also include a lifeline and other devices.''
``Fall zone'' means ``the area (including but not limited to the
area directly beneath the load) in which it is reasonably foreseeable
that partially or completely suspended materials could fall in the
event of an accident.''
``Flange point'' is ``a point of contact between rope and drum
flange where the rope changes layers.''
``Floating cranes/derricks'' means ``equipment designed by the
manufacturer (or employer) for marine use by permanent attachment to a
barge, pontoons, vessel or other means of flotation.''
``For example'' means ``one example, although there are others.''
This definition was included to demonstrate and clarify the usage of
the word.
``Free fall (of the load line)'' means ``where only the brake is
used to regulate the descent of the load line (the drive mechanism is
not used to drive the load down faster or retard its lowering).''
``Free surface effect'' is ``the uncontrolled transverse movement
of liquids in compartments which reduce a vessel's transverse
stability.''
``Hoist'' is ``a mechanical device for lifting and lowering loads
by winding rope onto or off a drum.'' A hoist is the primary lifting
mechanism used by cranes and derricks.
``Hoisting'' is ``the act of raising, lowering or otherwise moving
a load in the air with equipment covered by this standard. As used in
this standard, `hoisting' can be done by means other than wire rope/
hoist drum equipment.'' This definition makes clear that ``hoisting''
is broad enough to encompass all movement of a load in the air by
cranes/derricks and is not limited to movement caused by wire rope/
hoist drum equipment. For example, movement resulting from booming out
a hydraulic boom that is holding a load would be ``hoisting.''
``Include/including'' means ``including, but not limited to.'' This
definition demonstrates and clarifies the usage of the word.
``Insulating link/device'' is ``an insulating device listed,
labeled, or accepted by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory in
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.7.''
``Jib stop,'' which is also referred to as a jib backstop, ``is the
same type of device as a boom stop but is for a fixed or luffing jib.''
``Land crane/derrick'' is ``Equipment not originally designed by
the manufacturer for marine use by permanent attachment to barges,
pontoons, vessels, or other means of floatation.''
``List'' is the ``angle of inclination about the longitudinal axis
of a barge, pontoon, vessel or other means of flotation.''
``Load'' refers to ``the object(s) being hoisted and/or the weight
of the object(s); both uses refer to the object(s) and the load-
attaching equipment, such as, the load block, ropes, slings, shackles,
and any other ancillary attachment.'' This definition makes clear that
in calculating the weight of the load for purposes such as making sure
that the lift is within the equipment's rated capacity, the weight of
all objects used to attach the load to the equipment must be included.
As drafted by C-DAC, ``load'' referred to the weight of the object
being lifted but not the object itself. However, ``load'' is used
throughout the proposed standard to refer to the object being hoisted
in addition to the weight of the load. OSHA has modified the C-DAC
definition accordingly.
``Load moment (or rated capacity) indicator'' is ``a system which
aids the equipment operator by sensing the overturning moment on the
equipment, i.e., load multiplied by radius. It compares this lifting
condition to the equipment's rated capacity, and
[[Page 59737]]
indicates to the operator the percentage of capacity at which the
equipment is working. Lights, bells, or buzzers may be incorporated as
a warning of an approaching overload condition.''
``Load moment (or rated capacity) limiter'' is ``a system which
aids the equipment operator by sensing the overturning moment on the
equipment, i.e., load multiplied by radius. It compares this lifting
condition to the equipment's rated capacity, and when the rated
capacity is reached, it shuts off power to those equipment functions
which can increase the severity of loading on the equipment, e.g.,
hoisting, telescoping out, or luffing out. Typically, those functions
which decrease the severity of loading on the equipment remain
operational, e.g., lowering, telescoping in, or luffing in.''
``Locomotive crane'' is ``a crane mounted on a base or car equipped
for travel on a railroad track.'' OSHA included this definition to
remain consistent with the industry's use of the term as indicated in
the SC&RF Handbook.
``Luffing jib limiting device'' ``is similar to a boom hoist
limiting device, except that it limits the movement of the luffing
jib.''
``Marine hoisted personnel transfer device'' is ``a device, such as
a `transfer net,' used to hoist an employee to or from a marine
worksite that is designed to protect the employee during a marine
transfer and that allows for rapid entry/exit from the device. Such
devices do not include a boatswain's chair when hoisted by equipment
covered by this standard.''
``Marine worksite'' is ``a construction worksite that is located
in, on or above the water.''
``Mobile crane'' is ``a lifting device incorporating a cable
suspended latticed boom or hydraulic telescopic boom designed to be
moved between operating locations by transport over the road.'' This
definition is derived from the SC&RF Handbook. The term ``mobile
crane,'' as used in ASME B30.5-2004, ``Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,''
encompasses crawler cranes, truck cranes, and other wheel-mounted
cranes. The 1968 version of ANSI B30.5, which is incorporated by
reference into Subpart N, is entitled ``Crawler, Locomotive and Truck
Cranes'' and also covered crawler cranes, truck cranes, and other
wheel-mounted cranes (in addition to locomotive cranes). C-DAC included
its definition of ``mobile cranes'' to reflect current industry
terminology, which now refers to crawler cranes, truck cranes, and
other wheel-mounted cranes collectively as ``mobile cranes.''
The SC&RF Handbook definition states that in Europe, ``mobile
crane'' refers to a crane mounted on a truck carrier. The C-DAC draft
of the definition of ``mobile crane'' included this reference to
European terminology. While the European terminology describes a device
that is included in this proposed rule's definition of mobile crane,
OSHA has deleted the reference to the European terminology because it
could be read to mean, erroneously, that only truck cranes fall within
the definition of ``mobile cranes.'' As noted above, crawler cranes and
wheel-mounted cranes other than truck cranes also qualify as ``mobile
cranes.''
``Moving point to point'' means ``the times during which an
employee is in the process of going to or from a work station.''
``Multi-purpose machine'' means ``a machine that is designed to be
configured in various ways, at least one of which allows it to hoist
(by means of a winch or hook) and horizontally move a suspended load.
For example, a machine that can rotate and can be configured with
removable tongs (for use as a forklift) or with a winch pack, jib (with
a hook at the end) or jib used in conjunction with a winch. When
configured with the tongs, it is not covered by this Subpart. When
configured with a winch pack, jib (with a hook at the end) or jib used
in conjunction with a winch, it is covered by this Subpart.''
``Nationally recognized accrediting agency'' is ``an organization
that, due to its independence and expertise, is widely recognized as
competent to accredit testing organizations.''
``Non-conductive'' means that, ``because of the nature and
condition of the materials used, and the conditions of use (including
environmental conditions and condition of the material), the object in
question has the property of not becoming energized (that is, it has
high dielectric properties offering a high resistance to the passage of
current under the conditions of use).''
``Operational controls'' are ``levers, switches, pedals and other
devices for controlling equipment operation.''
``Operational aids'' are ``devices that assist the operator in the
safe operation of the crane by providing information or automatically
taking control of a crane function. These include, but are not limited
to, the devices listed in Sec. 1926.1416 (``listed operational
aids'').''
``Operator'' is ``a person who is operating the equipment.'' The
term is therefore not restricted to job title but includes any and all
persons who actually operate the equipment. The Committee included this
definition to make clear that anyone operating equipment must meet all
of the requirements of this subpart that apply to ``operators.''
``Overhead and gantry cranes'' is defined to include ``overhead/
bridge cranes, semigantry, cantilever gantry, wall cranes, storage
bridge cranes, launching gantry cranes, and similar equipment,
irrespective of whether it travels on tracks, wheels, or other means.''
``Paragraph'' refers to ``a paragraph in the same section of this
subpart that the word `paragraph' is used, unless otherwise
specified.'' For example, proposed paragraph 1423(a)(1) refers to
``paragraphs (b), (c)(2), and (e).'' Under this definition, it is
understood that those are paragraphs in Sec. 1423. By contrast,
paragraph 1439 refers to certain paragraphs in other sections and
therefore includes the section designation in the reference, for
example, ``paragraph 1416(d)(3).''
``Pendants'' are defined to ``include both wire and bar types. Wire
type: A fixed length of wire rope with mechanical fittings at both ends
for pinning segments of wire rope together. Bar type: Instead of wire
rope, a bar is used. Pendants are typically used in a latticed boom
crane system to easily change the length of the boom suspension system
without completely changing the rope on the drum when the boom length
is increased or decreased.''
``Personal fall arrest system'' means ``a system used to arrest an
employee in a fall from a working level. It consists of an anchorage,
connectors, a body harness and may include a lanyard, deceleration
device, lifeline, or suitable combination of these.''
``Portal cranes'' are ``a type of crane consisting of a rotating
upperstructure, hoist machinery, and boom mounted on top of a
structural gantry which may be fixed in one location or have travel
capability. The gantry legs or columns usually have portal openings in
between to allow passage of traffic beneath the gantry.''
``Power lines'' are ``electric transmission and distribution
lines.''
``Procedures'' ``include, but are not limited to: instructions,
diagrams, recommendations, warnings, specifications, protocols and
limitations.'' Several paragraphs of this proposed standard, such as
Sec. 1926.1417(a), require employers to follow manufacturer
procedures. C-DAC developed this definition to make clear that
``procedures'' in a provision such as Sec. 1926.1417(a) is to be
interpreted broadly to include all recommendations by the manufacturer
[[Page 59738]]
regardless of the format of those recommendations.
``Proximity alarm'' is ``a device that provides a warning of
proximity to a power line that has been listed, labeled, or accepted by
a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.7.''
``Qualified evaluator (not a third party)'' means ``a person
employed by the signal person's employer who has demonstrated that he/
she is competent in accurately assessing whether individuals meet the
qualification requirements in this subpart for a signal person.''
``Qualified evaluator (third party)'' is an ``entity that, due to
its independence and expertise, has demonstrated that it is competent
in accurately assessing whether individuals meet the qualifications in
this Subpart for a signal person.'' This definition is discussed under
Sec. 1926.1428(a)(2) in the explanation of this proposed standard.
``Qualified person'' means ``a person who, by possession of a
recognized degree, certificate, or professional standing, or who by
extensive knowledge, training and experience, successfully demonstrated
the ability to solve/resolve problems relating to the subject matter,
the work, or the project.'' This definition corresponds to the
definition of ``qualified'' in 29 CFR 1926.32(m). Its use here reflects
the fact that the duties assigned to ``qualified persons'' under this
proposal are similar to those assigned persons with comparable
qualifications under other OSHA construction standards. By defining
this term in the same way it is defined under other OSHA standards, C-
DAC sought to make clear that construction industry employers could
continue to rely on their understanding of the qualifications for a
``qualified person'' that is applied under existing standards.
``Qualified rigger'' is ``a rigger who meets the criteria for a
qualified person.''
``Range control warning device'' is ``a device that can be set by
the equipment operator to warn that the boom or jib tip is at a plane
or multiple planes.''
``Rated capacity'' is ``the maximum working load permitted by the
manufacturer under specified working conditions. Such working
conditions typically include a specific combination of factors such as
equipment configuration, radii, boom length, and other parameters of
use.'' The first sentence of this definition is taken from the SC&RF
Handbook. The second sentence was added by C-DAC to clarify the meaning
of ``working conditions.'' Many crane/derrick accidents result when the
equipment's ``rated capacity'' is exceeded, and the Committee sought to
provide an unambiguous definition of the term to promote compliance
with provisions that use the term. In reviewing the C-DAC consensus
document, OSHA noted that ``rated load'' and ``rated load capacity''
were used in various places to mean the same thing as the Committee's
definition of ``rated capacity.'' For consistency and to reflect the
intention of the Committee, all references to ``rated load'' and
``rated load capacity'' in the consensus document have been changed to
``rated capacity.''
``Rated capacity indicator'' is an alternative term for ``load
moment indicator,'' which is defined above.
``Rated capacity limiter'' is an alternative term for ``load moment
limiter,'' which is defined above.
``Repetitive pickup points'' are ``when operating on a short cycle
operation, the rope being used on a single layer and being spooled
repetitively over a short portion of the drum.''
``Running wire rope'' is ``a wire rope that moves over sheaves or
drums.''
``Runway'' is ``a firm, level surface designed, prepared and
designated as a path of travel for the weight and configuration of the
crane being used to lift and travel with the crane suspended platform.
This surface can be an existing surface or created for purposes of the
work activity.''
``Section'' means ``a section of this subpart, unless otherwise
specified.'' This definition is included to ensure that the reader
understands what ``section'' means in this standard.
``Side-boom crane'' is ``a track-type or wheel-type tractor having
a boom mounted on the side of the tractor, used for lifting, lowering,
or transporting a load suspended on the load hook. The boom or hook can
be lifted or lowered in a vertical direction only.''
``Special hazard warnings'' are ``warnings of site-specific hazards
(for example, proximity of power lines).''
``Stability (flotation device)'' means ``the tendency of a barge
pontoon, vessel or other means of flotation to return to an upright
position after having been inclined by an external force.''
``Standard Method'' means ``the protocol in Appendices for hand
signals.''
``Such as'' means ``such as, but not limited to.'' This definition
was included to demonstrate and clarify the usage of the phrase.
``Superstructure'' is a synonym for ``upperstructure'' and
``upperworks,'' which is defined below.
``Tag line'' is a rope (usually fiber) attached to a lifted load
for purposes of controlling load spinning and pendular motions or used
to stabilize a bucket or magnet during material handling operations.
This definition is included to ensure that the use of this term for the
application of this proposed standard is consistent with how tag lines
are commonly used to control loads during hoisting operations.
``Tender'' is ``an individual responsible for monitoring and
communicating with a diver.''
``Tilt-up or tilt-down operation'' is the ``raising/lowering of a
load from the horizontal to vertical or vertical to horizontal.''
``Tower crane.'' C-DAC defined a tower crane as: A type of lifting
structure which utilizes a vertical mast or tower to support a working
boom (jib) suspended from the working boom. While the working boom may
be fixed horizontally or have luffing capability, it can always rotate
about the tower center to swing loads. The tower base may be fixed in
one location or ballasted and moveable between locations.''
In reviewing this language, OSHA believes that several changes are
needed. First, a characteristic of tower cranes that is missing from
the C-DAC definition is that the working boom is in an elevated
position above the ground. Second, the working boom on some tower
cranes, even of the non-luffing type, may not be at a 90-degree angle
to the tower, and so the term ``fixed horizontally'' may not always be
appropriate. Third, there are ``top slewing'' tower cranes--those in
which the working boom rotates on the top of a fixed tower, and
``bottom slewing'' tower cranes--those in which the tower itself (with
the working boom fixed to it) rotates on its base. The definition does
not make clear that both types are considered tower cranes for purposes
of this proposed standard.
Therefore, the Agency has modified this language for the definition
in the proposed rule as follows:
A type of lifting structure which utilizes a vertical mast or
tower to support a working boom (jib) in an elevated position. Loads
are suspended from the working boom. While the working boom may be
of the fixed type (horizontal or angled) or have luffing capability,
it can always rotate to swing loads, either by rotating on the top
of the tower (top slewing) or by the rotation of the tower (bottom
slewing). The tower base may be fixed in one location or ballasted
and moveable between locations.
OSHA requests public comment on these changes.
``Travel bogie (tower cranes)'' is ``an assembly of two or more
axles arranged to permit vertical wheel displacement
[[Page 59739]]
and equalize the loading on the wheels.''
``Trim'' is the ``angle of inclination about the transverse axis of
a barge, pontoon, vessel or other means of flotation.''
``Two blocking'' means ``a condition in which a component that is
uppermost on the hoist line such as the load block, hook block,
overhaul ball, or similar component, comes in contact with the boom
tip, fixed upper block or similar component. This binds the system and
continued application of power can cause failure of the hoist rope or
other component.''
``Unavailable procedures'' means ``procedures that are no longer
available from the manufacturer, or have never been available from the
manufacturer.''
``Upperstructure'' is a synonym for ``superstructure'' and
``upperworks,'' which is defined below.
``Upperworks'' means ``the revolving frame of equipment on which
the engine and operating machinery are mounted along with the
operator's cab. The counterweight is typically supported on the rear of
the upperworks and the boom or other front end attachment is mounted on
the front.'' ``Superstructure'' and ``upperstructure'' are synonyms for
``upperworks.''
The second sentence of C-DAC's version of this definition stated:
``The counterweight is typically supported on the rear of the
upperstructure * * *.'' OSHA has changed the word ``upperstructure'' to
``upperworks'' to avoid any confusion that could be caused by using one
synonym in the definition of another.
``Up to'' means ``up to and including.'' This definition is
included to make the meaning of the phrase clear.
``Wire rope.'' The C-DAC document defined this term as ``rope made
of wire,'' the definition that is used in this proposed rule. However,
some wire rope has a fiber core, which proposed Sec. 1926.1414 permits
to be used for purposes other than boom hoist reeving. However, the C-
DAC definition indicates that such rope would not be considered ``wire
rope.'' OSHA requests public comment on whether a more suitable
definition would be the one used by SC&RF, which is the following:
A flexible rope constructed by laying steel wires into various
patterns of multi-wired strands around a core system to produce a
helically wound rope.
Section 1402 Ground Conditions
The Committee believed that the failure to have adequate ground
conditions is a significant crane safety problem. Adequate ground
conditions are essential for safe crane operations because the crane's
capacity and stability depend on such conditions being present.
In the Committee's view, there have been several key problems
regarding ground conditions. First, cranes are commonly brought on site
by a subcontractor, who typically neither has control over ground
conditions nor knowledge of hidden hazards. For example, an HVAC
subcontractor will usually not have the contractual authority to alter
site conditions and will not know about hidden conditions such as sewer
lines under the area where the crane will be located. Consequently,
when ground conditions are inadequate, the subcontractor is typically
unable to correct those conditions itself. Attempts to get other
entities at the site to correct the conditions are often unsuccessful,
which has led to cranes being set up on inadequate ground conditions.
Another problem is that the entity that usually does have such
authority--the controlling entity--may not have the expertise to know
what changes are needed to make the ground conditions suitable for
crane operations. This proposed section is designed to address these
problems so that ground conditions will be made sufficient for safe
crane operations.
Paragraph 1402(a) Definitions
Proposed paragraph (a) provides definitions of key terms used in
this proposed section.
The term ``ground conditions'' would be defined as the ability of
the ground to support the equipment (including slope, compaction and
firmness). The Committee believed that slope, compaction and firmness
are the key factors that are involved in the ability of the ground to
support the equipment.
``Supporting materials'' would be defined as meaning blocking,
mats, cribbing, marsh buggies (in marshes/wetlands), or similar
supporting materials or devices. Such materials typically help to
distribute the load of the crane over a broad area and/or assist in
leveling the equipment. The list in the definition of examples of such
materials is nonexclusive--it includes similar materials and devices
that would serve the same purpose(s).
Paragraph 1402(b)
Under proposed paragraph (b), the equipment would be prohibited
from being assembled or used unless ground conditions are firm, drained
(except for marshes/wetlands), and graded to a sufficient extent so
that, in conjunction (if necessary) with the use of supporting
materials, the equipment manufacturer's specifications for adequate
support and degree of level of the equipment are met. A crane's
stability depends (in part) on the crane being level, and ``degree of
level'' is a term used in the industry to describe the manufacturer's
specification for how level the crane must be.
The Committee believed that crane tip-over incidents caused by
inadequate ground conditions are a significant cause of injuries and
fatalities. Conditions that enhance the chance of such accidents
include ground that is wet or muddy, poorly graded, or that is loose
fill (or otherwise disturbed soil) that has not been compacted. The
Committee believed that requiring adequate ground conditions will
prevent many of these accidents.
This proposed provision would not require the ground conditions
alone to be sufficient to support the equipment. The Committee
recognized that such a requirement would be unnecessarily restrictive,
since adequate support can often be achieved with the use of supporting
materials. However, supporting materials cannot compensate for all
ground condition problems. As a result, the Committee found that an
appropriate approach would be to require that ground conditions be
sufficiently firm, drained (except for marshes/wetlands) and graded to
a sufficient extent so that, in conjunction (if necessary) with
supporting materials, the support and degree of level would be
adequate. ``Adequate'' in this context would mean sufficient to meet
the equipment manufacturer's specifications for support and degree of
level of the equipment.
In practical terms, the ultimate test of whether this criterion is
met is whether the equipment can be set up so that it is within the
manufacturer's specifications for the needed support for the equipment
and the degree of level of the equipment and whether it can remain
within those specifications while in use.
The Committee considered using more specific criteria, such as
specifications for slope, compaction and firmness. That approach was
rejected by the Committee for two reasons. First, in its view, such
specifications would be unduly burdensome since employers would need to
conduct complex tests with sophisticated instruments to ensure
compliance. Second, it believed that such tests are unnecessary because
the person or persons supervising the equipment assembly and the crane
operator would have sufficient expertise to assess the adequacy of
ground conditions without the use of complex
[[Page 59740]]
ground assessment tests and related instruments.
The individual (or team) supervising the equipment assembly
(referred to in proposed Sec. 1926.1404(a) as the ``A/D supervisor'')
would, under proposed Sec. 1926.1404(a), individually or collectively
meet the definition of both a competent and qualified person. Also,
under proposed Sec. 1926.1427 (and specifically proposed Sec.
1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(E)(1)), the crane operator would have technical
knowledge applicable to the suitability of the supporting ground and
surface to handle expected loads. In view of that level of knowledge,
the Committee believed that both the A/D supervisor and the crane
operator would be able to assess the adequacy of ground conditions
without the use of complex ground assessment tests and related
instruments.
OSHA notes that proposed Sec. 1926.1402(e) refers to the
``individual'' supervising the equipment assembly. Since the individual
or individuals supervising the equipment assembly are referred to
throughout this proposed rule as the ``A/D supervisor,'' \4\ OSHA has,
for clarity, replaced the phrase ``individual supervising the equipment
assembly'' in Sec. 1926.1402(e) with ``A/D supervisor.''
Proposed paragraph 1402(b) would require the ground to be drained
except for marshes/wetlands. This exception was included because the
Committee was aware that, in many instances, the draining of marshes/
wetlands is prohibited or restricted by environmental laws. Since there
are devices available, such as marsh buggies, that are designed to
provide adequate support to cranes in such areas (a marsh buggy is a
device designed to support equipment such as a crane in swampy terrain;
it can cross such terrain with that equipment on board), the Committee
believed that such an exception would be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``A/D supervisor'' is defined in proposed Sec. 1926.1401,
Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 1402(c)
Under proposed paragraph 1402(c), the controlling entity would have
several specific duties regarding ground conditions. ``Controlling
entity'' is defined in proposed Sec. 1926.1401 as ``a prime
contractor, general contractor, construction manager or any other legal
entity which has the overall responsibility for the construction of the
project--its planning, quality and completion.'' This definition, which
mirrors the definition of ``controlling contractor'' in the steel
erection standard, subpart R of 29 CFR part 1926, reflects the core
principle of general supervisory control over the construction site as
the central theme of the concept. The Committee believed that
``controlling entity'' would be a better term for this concept than
``controlling contractor'' because some employers may mistakenly
believe that ``controlling contractor'' refers only to general
contractors. Since in some instances an entity other than a general
contractor has general supervisory control of the worksite, such an
entity would meet the terms of the definition.
Proposed paragraph 1402(c)(1) would require the controlling entity
to ensure that ground preparations necessary to meet the requirements
in proposed paragraph (b) of this section are provided.
Currently, Subpart N does not specify who is responsible for
providing for such preparations. In effect, reliance is placed on the
various parties to work out who would have such responsibility through
contractual arrangements. In the experience of a number of Committee
members, in many instances the parties are unable to agree on who will
have (or has) that contractual responsibility, with the result that
inadequate ground conditions often do not get corrected. Consequently,
the Committee believed that it is necessary to specify who will have
ground condition responsibility.
In the Committee's view, the crane user and operator typically do
not have the equipment or authority to make such preparations. In
contrast, the controlling entity, due to its control of the worksite,
has the requisite authority and is in the best position to arrange for
adequate ground conditions. The Committee considered the fact that some
controlling entities claim to not know when a crane will arrive at the
site, and would therefore be unable to timely arrange for the necessary
ground condition preparations. However, the Committee found this
unpersuasive. It believed that the controlling entity, by virtue of its
control over the site and normal business responsibilities for the
construction project itself, is fully able to be cognizant of
construction schedules and information about crane use by its
subcontractors.
The Committee was concerned, however, that some controlling
entities may lack the expertise to recognize when ground conditions are
inadequate. To address this concern, the Committee developed proposed
Sec. 1926.1402(e). Under that proposed provision, if the A/D
supervisor or the operator determines that ground conditions do not
meet the requirements in proposed paragraph (b) of this section, that
person's employer would be required to have a discussion with the
controlling entity.\5\ This discussion would concern the ground
preparations that are needed so that, with the use of suitable
supporting materials/devices (if necessary), the requirements in
proposed paragraph (b) of this section can be met. This discussion
would serve as a mechanism for those with expertise regarding the
ground conditions needed to meet proposed paragraph (b) of this section
to convey that information to the entity responsible for making the
necessary preparations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA consider whether use
of the words ``determine'' and ``demonstrate'' would require
employers to make and keep records to support such determinations
and demonstrations. OSHA notes that records would not be required in
these instances. Only where this proposal explicitly requires the
employer to maintain records or documentation (see, e.g., proposed
Sec. 1926.1412(e)(3) on documentation of monthly inspections) is an
employer required to create and/or maintain records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph 1402(c)(2) addresses the problem of hidden
hazards beneath the equipment set-up area. Open spaces underground,
such as from voids, tanks, and utilities such as sewer, water supply
and drain pipes, can greatly compromise the ability of the ground above
them to support the equipment. At the set-up area, there are often no
readily apparent visual clues above ground that such hazards exist
under the area. In the experience of members of the Committee, because
of the hidden nature of these hazards, accidents have occurred when
cranes have been set up above such hazards and a portion of the ground
has given way.
Under proposed paragraph 1402(c)(2), the controlling entity would
be required to inform the user of the equipment and the equipment
operator of the location of hazards beneath the equipment set-up area
(such as voids, tanks, utilities) that are identified in documents
(such as site drawings, as-built drawings, and soil analyses) if they
are available to the controlling entity.
In developing this proposed provision, the Committee was mindful
that the controlling entity often has access to documents that may
identify the location of such hazards. For example, a sewer line may be
marked on a site drawing, an as-built drawing, or in a soil analysis.
Under this proposed provision, if the controlling entity has such a
document, whether at the site or at an off-site location, it would be
required to inform the equipment user and operator of the location of
the hazard as identified in it. If the
[[Page 59741]]
controlling entity does not possess such a document, it would not be
required to obtain it from another source.
The proposed provision would not require the controlling entity to
identify hazards that are not identified in such documents. In other
words, it would not require the controlling entity to arrange for tests
to be done at the site to determine if such hazards are present. The
Committee believed that such a requirement would be unduly burdensome
on the controlling entity. In its view the proposed provision would be
sufficient because such hazards are typically identified in these
documents in the normal course of business.
The Committee also believed that the duty to provide this
information should be limited to hazards identified in documents that
are available to the controlling entity. Requiring the controlling
entity to obtain such information from other sources would, in effect,
require it to arrange for testing. As explained above, the Committee
believed such a duty would be unduly burdensome and unnecessary.
During the SBREFA meeting an SER commented on the difficulty and
time consumed in getting approval from the controlling entity to make
sure ground conditions were adequate, especially since many controlling
entities were resistant to checking the site themselves for adequate
ground conditions. The commenter further stated that his company relies
on the steel erectors to test ground conditions for the proper support
and that this system seems to work fine. OSHA notes that while the
proposed rule would not preclude such arrangements, the responsibility
for meeting the requirements of proposed paragraph (c) would
nonetheless rest with controlling entity. Moreover, OSHA believes that
this comment is illustrative of the need for the standard to require
the controlling entity's involvement in this phase of the project.
Another SER expressed concern that the rule could not be properly
implemented due to the number of communication channels a subcontractor
would have to juggle before finally getting in contact with the
controlling entity. For example, a subcontractor may have to go through
several other subcontractors before it reaches the controlling entity.
OSHA believes that, if controlling entities had the responsibilities
set out in proposed paragraph (c), controlling entities would be more
likely to facilitate such communication.
Paragraph 1402(d)
In the event that no controlling entity exists, proposed paragraph
1402(d) provides that the requirement in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section shall be met by the employer that has authority at the site to
make or arrange for ground preparations needed to meet paragraph (b) of
this section. For example, if the employer who hires the crane has the
authority to get the ground prepared in the absence of a controlling
entity, the responsibility for complying with proposed paragraph (b)
would fall to that employer. However, that employer would not be
required to comply with proposed paragraph (c)(2) of this section. This
is because the information required to be disclosed under proposed
paragraph (c)(2) is not likely to be available to that employer.
Paragraph 1402(e)
Proposed paragraph 1402(e) would establish a mechanism for a
controlling entity to obtain information from the A/D supervisor or the
equipment operator about insufficient ground conditions and the
preparations needed to correct the problem. Specifically (as discussed
above in the context of proposed Sec. 1926.1402(c)(1)), if the A/D
supervisor or equipment operator determines that ground conditions do
not meet the criteria in proposed paragraph (b) of this section, that
person's employer would be required to have a discussion with the
controlling entity regarding the ground preparations needed so that,
with the use of suitable supporting materials/devices (if necessary),
the requirements in proposed paragraph (b) can be met.
The Committee believed that, in some instances, the controlling
entity may lack the expertise needed to know what ground preparations
may be needed. In such cases, it is necessary for the information it
needs to be provided by the A/D supervisor or operator, who have that
expertise, so that the preparations needed for safe crane operations
can be made.
For example, controlling entity C, who has experience working with
only relatively light, low capacity cranes, believes that the ground in
set-up area Q is suitable. However, the crane that is going to be used
is a high capacity crane. Because of the substantially greater weight
of the high capacity crane, a greater degree of compaction of the soil
in set-up area Q is needed. When the operator of the high capacity
crane arrives at the site, the operator recognizes the need for more
compaction. In this example, under this proposed provision, the
operator's employer would then be required to have a discussion with
controlling entity C regarding the need for greater compaction. As a
result of the ensuing discussion, controlling entity C would have the
additional information it needs so that it could then comply with
proposed paragraph (c)(1) of this section by ensuring that the
additional compaction needed to meet the criteria in proposed paragraph
(b) of this section is performed.
Also, proposed Sec. 1926.1402(e) would place a duty on the
employer of the A/D supervisor or equipment operator irrespective of a
controlling entity's lack of expertise. For example, if the controlling
entity fails to ensure necessary ground condition preparations, action
would be required of the A/D supervisor's or operator's employer. If
either determined that ground conditions were insufficient to meet the
proposed paragraph (b) criteria, that employer would be required to
discuss the preparations that needed to be made with the controlling
entity. The Committee believed that, in such circumstances, such a
discussion would make it more likely that the requirements in proposed
paragraph (b) would be met which, as discussed above, is necessary for
safe crane operations.
Sections 1403-1406 Assembly and Disassembly
Proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1403 through 1926.1406 set out
requirements designed to ensure the safety of employees while equipment
is assembled and disassembled, which includes the erecting and
dismantling of tower cranes. C-DAC members indicated that, in their
experience, the failure to adequately address hazards associated with
these processes is a significant cause of injuries and fatalities. Two
analyses of data support their view.
A recent analysis of data published in the Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, authored by J.E. Beavers, J.R. Moore, R.
Rinehart and W.R. Schriver, found that being ``crushed during assembly/
disassembly'' was the third highest proximate cause of crane related
fatalities during 1997 to 2003.\6\ (OSHA-2007-0066-0012). Contributing
physical factors included improper assembly, improper disassembly
(specifically, pin removal), and improper boom support. The study
indicates that these assembly/disassembly fatalities occurred while
using lattice boom cranes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This study found that being struck by a load was the number
one proximate cause of crane-related fatalities, followed by
electrocution. Crushed by assembly and disassembly made up 12% of
the total number of crane related fatalities in this study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1997 study by A. Suruda, M. Egger and D. Liu analyzed crane
related
[[Page 59742]]
fatalities from 1984 to 1994.\7\ This study determined that crane
assembly and disassembly was the second leading cause of crane related
fatalities, comprising 12% (or 58 deaths) of the total number of crane
fatalities from 1984 to 1994. More specifically, a majority of these
fatalities involved lattice boom cranes and a relatively small number
involved tower cranes.\8\ Almost 90 percent of the fatalities involving
lattice boom cranes resulted when employees were removing boom pins
from underneath an unsupported boom. (A. Suruda, et al., ``Crane-
Related Deaths in the U.S. Construction Industry, 1984-94'' (1997)
(OSHA-2007-0066-0013).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This study was limited to crane related fatalities in the
U.S. construction industry.
\8\ Out of the 58 fatalities, 93% involved lattice boom cranes
and 7% involved tower cranes.
\9\ In contrast, a 34-year study (1969-2002) conducted by the
Province of Ontario indicates that dismantling the boom is not a
leading cause of mobile crane fatalities. This study concluded that
dismantling the boom ranked sixth out of eight causes of mobile
crane fatalities within the Province of Ontario during 1969 through
2002. Dismantling the boom comprised only 4% of the fatalities
during this time period. (OSHA-2007-0066-0009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee also concluded that the most effective way to reduce
these injuries and fatalities would be to have a standard that
comprehensively addresses these hazards.
Note that the term ``procedures'' which is used in the proposed
assembly/disassembly provisions is defined (see Sec. 1926.1401) to
include (but is not limited to) instructions, diagrams,
recommendations, warnings, specifications, protocols and limitations.
The operation of an ``assist'' crane used to help in the assembly/
disassembly process is not covered by the assembly/disassembly
requirements but is covered by the other sections of this proposed
standard.
Section 1403 Assembly/Disassembly--Selection of Manufacturer or
Employer Procedures
In Sec. 1926.1401, ``assembly/disassembly'' is defined to mean
``the assembly and/or disassembly of equipment covered under this
standard. With regard to tower cranes, `erecting and climbing' replaces
the term `assembly,' and `dismantling' replaces the term `disassembly.'
'' C-DAC did not originally include a definition of ``assembly/
disassembly,'' but OSHA added this definition to avoid any implication
that Sec. Sec. 1926.1403-1406 on ``assembly/disassembly'' do not apply
to tower cranes because the terms ``assembly'' and ``disassembly'' are
not commonly used in the industry in referring to tower cranes.
Instead, the words ``erecting,'' ``climbing,'' and ``dismantling,'' are
used, and the definition of ``assembly/disassembly'' makes it clear
that Sec. Sec. 1926.1403-1406 apply to tower cranes and, for that
purpose, use tower crane terminology.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1403 would require employers to choose among
two options: Assemble and disassemble cranes and derricks by following
the manufacturer's procedures, or use their own assembly/disassembly
procedures (if they meet the proposed rule's criteria in Sec.
1926.1406). Note, though, that the assembly/disassembly requirements in
proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1404 and 1405 must be met regardless of which
option the employer selects.
Committee members discussed whether employers should be required to
comply with the manufacturer's procedures, or if deviations from those
procedures should be allowed. The Committee determined, and OSHA
agrees, that deviations should be allowed for two reasons. First,
manufacturers' procedures are typically designed for use in ``ideal''
environments: Large, flat, dry, unencumbered open areas. However, such
conditions are not typical, especially in urban areas. Consequently,
employers are currently unable to implement those procedures in those
situations. Second, members were of the view that there is often more
than one way to safely assemble and disassemble a crane, and that it is
unnecessary to mandate that in every case the manufacturer procedures
be used.
The Committee also agreed that, while use of methods other than
those of the manufacturer should be allowed, such employer-developed
procedures need to meet certain benchmarks (see the criteria in
proposed Sec. 1926.1406) to ensure that they are adequate to protect
the employees during the assembly/disassembly process.
Section 1404 Assembly/Disassembly--General Requirements (Applies to All
Assembly and Disassembly Operations)
In examining the underlying causes of fatalities and injuries from
assembly/disassembly accidents, the Committee determined that a
systematic, proactive approach, designed to highlight the key hazards
involved, was needed. C-DAC developed a list of those hazards and then
considered how to deal with each one. It became apparent in that
discussion that the action needed to address some of these hazards is
specific and straightforward. These are addressed in paragraphs (a)
through (g) and (j) through (q) of this proposed section. However, with
regard to others, the wide variety of circumstances and methods that
could be used to address them made specifying particular, detailed
actions impractical and needlessly inflexible. For those, C-DAC decided
to require that the hazard be addressed but to have an Assembly/
Disassembly supervisory (A/D supervisor) determine how to deal with
them; these are covered in paragraph (h). Note that the requirements in
proposed Sec. 1926.1404 would apply irrespective of whether
manufacturer or employer procedures were used.
New Issue
The Agency has been investigating a March 15, 2008 collapse of a
tower crane in New York City. One aspect of that investigation has
focused on the use of synthetic slings in the process of attaching a
bracing collar to the tower (the installation of such collars is part
of the crane assembly process). This prompted the Agency to examine the
existing OSHA standards applicable to the use of synthetic slings
during crane assembly/disassembly.
In the course of that examination, OSHA has determined that neither
Subpart N nor 29 CFR 1926.251, Rigging equipment for material handling,
specifically addresses the hazard posed when a synthetic sling is used
in a manner that can cause compression or distortion of the sling, or
when the sling is in contact with a sharp edge. Consequently, the
Agency is considering adding a provision to Sec. 1926.1404 to address
these hazards.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ C-DAC did not consider hazards associated with the use of
synthetic slings during assembly/disassembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One way of addressing these hazards would be to prohibit the use of
synthetic slings in the assembly/disassembly of equipment covered by
this proposed standard. Another way that the Agency is considering to
address these hazards is to require padding or similar measures when
needed to protect the slings from being damaged such as from being cut,
compressed or distorted. OSHA requests public comment on this issue.
Paragraph 1404(a) Supervision--Competent--Qualified Person
Proposed paragraph (a) would require supervision of the assembly/
disassembly process by an ``A/D supervisor.'' Section 1926.1401 defines
``A/D supervisor'' as ``an individual who meets this proposed
paragraph's criteria for being an A/D supervisor, irrespective of the
person's formal job title or whether the person is non-management or
management personnel.'' C-DAC defined the term in this way to make
[[Page 59743]]
clear that it is the substance of the individual's qualifications, and
not his or her job title or position in the company hierarchy, that
determines whether the person is qualified to act as an A/D supervisor.
The A/D supervisor would have to meet the definition of both a
``competent'' and ``qualified'' person as OSHA defines those terms.\11\
The Committee believed that having an A/D supervisor overseeing the
assembly/disassembly process who had both the authority to correct a
hazard or stop the process and who had the expertise of a qualified
person was necessary to ensure the safety of the operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Proposed Sec. 1926.1401, Definitions, defines a
``competent person'' as: One who is capable of identifying existing
and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions
which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who
has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate
them. Section 1401 defines a ``qualified person'' in this proposed
standard as: One who, by possession of a recognized degree,
certificate, or professional standing, or who by extensive
knowledge, training, and experience, has successfully demonstrated
his ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the subject
matter, the work, or the project. These definitions are essentially
the same as the definitions in 29 CFR 1926.32(f) and 29 CFR
1926.32(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the hazards involved in the process are not obvious to
those with limited knowledge and experience in assembly/disassembly.
There are numerous scenarios in which there is stored kinetic energy in
the equipment's component parts. The installation or removal of
components in the wrong order, or using the wrong procedure, can
release that energy in ways that would be unexpected to those with
little knowledge of the process.
For example, failure to place blocking in the correct position
under a boom can lead to unexpected movement or collapse of the boom
when a pin that is in tension is removed. Workers unfamiliar with the
concept of pins in tension may not recognize the dangers of removing it
in that circumstance. Having a person overseeing the process that has
the expertise needed to know how the process is supposed to be done,
the ability to recognize dangerous situations and how to remedy them,
and the authority to take corrective action, is crucial to ensuring
that the assembly/disassembly process is completed safely.
The Committee agreed that the A/D supervisor did not have to be one
individual since two people (one with the requisite expertise and the
other with the authority to take corrective action), working as a team,
would be as effective in overseeing the process as one individual.
The A/D supervisor would oversee the implementation of the proposed
requirements in paragraphs (a) through (g) and (j) through (q) of this
proposed section, and would also address the hazards as described in
paragraph (h) of this proposed section.
Paragraphs 1404(b) Knowledge of the Procedures, and 1404(c), Review of
the Procedures
Proposed paragraph (b) would require that the A/D supervisor
understand the assembly/disassembly procedures. In addition, proposed
paragraph (c) requires the A/D supervisor to review them prior to
starting the process unless experience in having used them on the same
type and configuration of equipment makes their review unnecessary. One
example would be an A/D supervisor who has overseen the erection of a
tower crane with the same configuration for numerous jobs in the past
year. If that A/D supervisor had, through that repetitive experience,
developed a knowledge and understanding of the assembly procedures to
the point where reviewing them prior to beginning assembly was no
longer necessary, he/she would not be required to review them.
Without a thorough knowledge of these procedures, the A/D
supervisor would be unable to ensure that the assembly/disassembly
process is conducted safely.
Paragraph 1404(d) Crew Instructions
Under this proposed provision, before beginning assembly/
disassembly operations, the A/D supervisor would have to determine that
the crew members understand their tasks and the associated hazards, as
well as any hazardous positions/locations that they need to avoid.
The Committee was of the view that accidents during assembly/
disassembly are often caused by misunderstandings of the employees
working in the assembly/disassembly crew as to their tasks and how they
are to be performed, as well as a failure to recognize potentially
dangerous areas in and around the equipment. The details of these tasks
and, in particular, the location of danger areas from which workers
need to keep themselves and their extremities clear, often vary from
one machine to another. Having the A/D supervisor check to make sure
that the crew members know this essential information before starting
the assembly/disassembly process would be, in the Committee's view, an
effective and practical means of addressing this aspect of the problem.
Paragraph 1404(e) Protecting Assembly/Disassembly Crew Members Out of
Operator View
One of the hazards identified by the Committee is an operator
swinging or moving the crane/derrick when assembly/disassembly
personnel are in a crush/caught-in-between zone and out of the
operator's view. The Committee believed that an effective and practical
means of preventing these accidents would be through a communication
procedure that would provide key information to, and coordination
between, the operator and these workers.
This provision would therefore require that the crew member inform
the operator that he/she is going to a location in, on, under, or near
the equipment or load that is out of view of the operator where the
movement of the equipment could injure the worker. The operator would
be prohibited from moving any part of the crane/derrick or load until
the operator gives a warning (the significance of which is understood
by the crew member) and sufficient time for the crew member to move to
a safe location, or the operator is informed through a pre-arranged
means of communication that the crew member has moved to a safe
location. Committee members indicated that the use of the (understood)
warning coupled with sufficient time to exit, and the use of a pre-
arranged means of communication, are each currently used by many
employers and have proved to be effective.
One Committee member suggested that instead of requiring that the
crew member directly inform the operator of his/her location, the rule
should permit the crew member to provide this information to the
operator through a third person. For example, the crew member would
instruct his/her foreman to radio the information to the operator. Such
a change could be made by changing the last phrase in proposed
paragraph (e)(1) of this section to read, ``the crew member shall
inform the operator directly or through someone instructed by the crew
member that the crew member is going to that location.'' OSHA is asking
for public comment on this suggestion. In particular, OSHA is asking
for comment on whether this approach would be as protective of the crew
members as the proposal, given that it would allow indirect
communication between the crew members and the operator.
[[Page 59744]]
Paragraph 1404(f) Working Under the Boom, Jib or Other Components
The proposed provision would establish a general prohibition
against employees being under the component when pins or similar
devices are being removed (note that this provision is similar to
section 5-3.1.3(l) of ASME B30.5-2004). An exception is provided for
instances where the employer demonstrates that site constraints require
being positioned under the component and the employer takes steps to
minimize the risk of dangerous movement and duration and extent of
exposure.
The Committee discussed the inherently hazardous nature of removing
pins while being under the boom (and jib or similar components). If the
wrong pins are removed while employees are under the component, it can
move or collapse, posing a severe hazard to the worker. Even when pins
are removed in the correct order, there may be unexpected stresses in
the component which, as stored kinetic energy that may not be apparent
until that energy is released upon the removal of the pin--at which
time unexpected movement of the component may result. While other
proposed provisions in the assembly/disassembly sections address this
same hazard in other ways, these provisions in combination form a
layered approach to safety.
The Committee discussed whether any exceptions should be allowed to
the prohibition against workers being under the component during pin
removal. It determined, after considerable discussion, that the only
type of situation where it may be inappropriate to apply the
prohibition involves site constraints. For example, in some
circumstances there is no room to assemble/disassemble the boom
horizontally using ground support, and the boom has to be assembled/
disassembled ``in the air'' (that is, at an angle well above
horizontal, or over an area, such as a large excavation, where there is
no ground available for support). In some of those situations, one or
more employees may have to be under the boom for certain periods of
time in the pin removal process.
Therefore, the proposed provision includes an exception to cover
such instances. However, in those instances the hazard of being under
the component is still present. Because of that, the Committee believed
it important to limit the application of the exception and, where it
would apply, to ensure that steps would be taken to limit the risks
involved. Therefore, the exception would be applicable only where the
employer demonstrates that site constraints require being positioned
under the component and the employer takes steps to minimize the risk
of dangerous movement and duration and extent of exposure.
An example of a method for minimizing that risk and the exposure is
provided in proposed Non-Mandatory Appendix D. The Committee considered
making that method mandatory, but decided to include it only as an
example because there may be other effective methods, which should not
be excluded.
Paragraph 1404(g) Capacity Limits
This proposed provision would require that the rated capacity
limits for loads imposed on the equipment, each of its components,
(including rigging), lifting lugs and equipment accessories being
assembled or disassembled not be exceeded. The provision would apply
``during all phases of assembly/disassembly.'' One example of the risk
created by not following capacity limits is the process of installing
counterweights. In some cases the crane being assembled is used to
install its own counterweights. Early in this process, when few
counterweights are in place, the crane's capacity will be so limited
that swinging beyond a certain point, or booming out beyond a certain
point, may cause it to overturn.
It should be noted that where an assist crane is being used during
the assembly/disassembly of another crane/derrick, the requirements for
rated capacity during operations must be met under proposed Sec.
1926.1417(o), Compliance with rated capacity, with respect to the
assist crane.
Paragraph 1404(h) Addressing Specific Hazards
For assembly and disassembly, this provision sets out specific
hazard topics which the A/D supervisor must address. The Committee
believed that requiring specific means and methods for protecting
against these hazards (and, where specified goals are stated, for
attaining those goals) would be too limiting. Therefore, the A/D
supervisor must consider each listed hazard, determine the appropriate
means of addressing it, and oversee the implementation of that method.
Paragraph 1404(h)(1) Site and Ground Bearing Conditions
This proposed provision would work in conjunction with proposed
Sec. 1926.1402, which addresses ground conditions for both assembly/
disassembly and use of the equipment, including ground condition
criteria. Proposed Sec. 1926.1404(h)(1) would require the A/D
supervisor to assess the ground conditions for conformance with those
criteria, and to assess the site for suitability for assembly and
disassembly.
Before beginning assembly/disassembly, the A/D supervisor would
have to make the determination that ground bearing conditions are
adequate to support the equipment during assembly/disassembly (the
concept of adequate ground bearing conditions is discussed in detail
above regarding proposed Sec. 1926.1402). In addition, the A/D
supervisor would have to consider the adequacy of site conditions which
might affect the safety of assembly or disassembly. For example, at a
construction site in an industrial facility with overhead piping
carrying hazardous materials, the A/D supervisor would have to consider
the potential for the equipment contacting the piping in determining
where and how to conduct the assembly/disassembly operations.
Paragraph 1404(h)(2) Blocking Material and 1404(h)(3) Proper Location
of Blocking
These two provisions address the hazards associated with inadequate
blocking. ``Blocking'' (also referred to as ``cribbing'') is defined in
Sec. 1926.1401 as ``wood or other material used to support equipment
or a component and distribute loads to the ground. Typically used to
support latticed boom sections during assembly/disassembly and under
outrigger floats.'' This definition is from the SC&RF Handbook.
Proper blocking plays an important role in assembly/disassembly
safety. Blocking is used in a variety of circumstances to compensate
for minor ground sloping and/or to enhance stability by spreading out
the area over which forces from the load are transferred to the ground.
It is used to help support assembled equipment (usually placed under
outrigger pads) and during assembly/disassembly to support components.
Blocking that is undersized, insufficient in type or number, in poor
condition, and/or stacked in an unstable manner could lead to a failure
of support and consequent unplanned movement or collapse of the
equipment or component.
When used to support lattice booms or lattice components, the
failure to place blocking in the correct location could have several
dangerous consequences. For example, incorrect placement in some
instances could cause a part of the lattice boom/component to bear too
much force and damage it. That damage could
[[Page 59745]]
compromise structural integrity and, in some cases, may not be
immediately noticed. If the assembly process were to continue
nonetheless, the boom/component could fail.
Improper blocking location may also result in a failure to provide
adequate support of the boom/component. One example is blocking used to
provide support to a boom section that will need it later in the
disassembly process, such as after pins are removed. If the blocking is
in the wrong place, once the pins are removed, unplanned movement or
collapse could result. Note that proposed Sec. 1926.1404(h)(3) on
proper blocking location is similar to section 5-3.1.3(k) of ASME
B30.5-2004 (blocking to be appropriately placed to prevent inadvertent
dropping of the boom).
Proposed paragraph (h)(3) (Proper location of blocking) is
unchanged from the C-DAC document and its applicability is limited to
lattice booms and components. However, it is the Agency's understanding
that other types of booms and components (i.e., those for hydraulic
cranes) also are at times assembled and disassembled in the field and
may similarly need blocking. Consequently, it appears to the Agency
that it may be appropriate to broaden the provision so that it would
apply to all booms and components, not just lattice boom and
components. OSHA is soliciting comments from the public on whether
proposed paragraph (h)(3) of this section should be broadened to apply
to all booms and components.
Paragraph 1404(h)(4) Verifying Assist Crane Loads
This proposed paragraph requires that, when using an assist crane,
the loads that will be imposed on the assist crane at each phase of
assembly/disassembly must be verified in accordance with proposed Sec.
1926.1417(o)(3) to avoid exceeding the assist crane's rated capacity.
``Assist crane'' is defined in Sec. 1926.1401 as ``a crane used to
assist in assembling or disassembling a crane.'' When used for this
purpose, an ``assist crane'' is subject to all applicable provisions of
this standard, including the requirement of proposed paragraph (o) of
this section that it not be used in a manner that exceeds its rated
capacity.
The Committee was concerned that, at times, resulting loads on
assist cranes during the assembly/disassembly process are not properly
anticipated. For example, when a boom is being disassembled in a
cantilevered position, an assist crane is sometimes used to help
support the boom. In some instances, the load prior to pin removal is
within the assist crane's rated capacity, but exceeds its rated
capacity once the pins are removed, causing a collapse.
The Committee discussed having one section on capacity limits for
equipment, equipment components and accessories as well as for any
assist equipment used while assembling or disassembling. The Committee
agreed that having a separate section on capacity limits for assist
cranes was less confusing and would help highlight the hazard as it
pertains to assembly/disassembly.
Paragraph 1404(h)(5) Boom and Jib Pick Points
This proposed provision would require the A/D supervisor to address
the hazard of using improper boom and jib pick points. Specifically,
the points of attachment of rigging to a boom/jib or boom/jib
section(s) must be suitable for preventing structural damage. Such
damage could compromise structural integrity and, in some cases, may
not be immediately noticed. If that component were nonetheless used,
the boom/component could fail.
The points of attachment also need to facilitate the safe handling
of these components. Typically facilitating the safe handling of the
boom/jib or boom/jib sections means using pick points that will result
in the boom/section being at an intended angle (that is, 90 degrees to
the load line or some other intended angle) when hoisted. For example,
if the boom/section is intended to be horizontal, and only one pick
point is going to be used, the pick point must coincide with the center
of gravity. If the boom/section is intended to be at some other angle,
a pick point would need to be identified that would generate that
intended angle. Failure to use an appropriate pick point in this regard
can create a situation in which there is a greater likelihood of
unintended movement in connecting or disconnecting the boom/section.
Paragraph 1404(h)(6) Center of Gravity
In a variety of instances the method used for maintaining stability
during assembly/disassembly depends on supporting or rigging a
component (or set of components) so that it remains balanced throughout
the process. In such instances the A/D supervisor would be required to
identify the center of gravity of the load.
The ``center of gravity'' of an object is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 as ``the point in the object around which its weight is
evenly distributed. If you could put a support under that point, you
could balance the object on the support.'' This definition is similar
to the one in the SC&RF Handbook.
One example of where it would be necessary to identify the center
of gravity is where the assembly/disassembly crew relies on an assist
crane to suspend a component in a horizontal position. In such
instances the center of gravity must be identified in order to
correctly install the rigging. If the center of gravity were not
identified, employees might try to compensate by riding on the section/
component while it is being moved into place, which is quite dangerous.
Also, in such a situation, if the component gets ``hung-up,'' it can
move unexpectedly if it becomes freed.
In contrast, some methods for maintaining stability do not depend
on rigging or supporting the component to attain horizontal balance.
For example, if two adjoining sections of a boom are being disconnected
from each other, and both sections are supported at all four end points
by blocking, identifying the center of gravity of each section would
not normally be necessary.
The Committee anticipated that there may be instances where the
assembly/disassembly method being used necessitates the identification
of the center of gravity, but the employer is unable to get sufficient
information to make that identification accurately. In those instances,
measures would be required to be put in place that would prevent
unintended dangerous movement resulting from an inaccurate
identification of the center of gravity. An example of one such method
is described in the proposed Non-Mandatory Appendix D of proposed
subpart CC.
Paragraph 1404(h)(7) Stability Upon Pin Removal
This proposed paragraph requires that boom sections, boom
suspension systems (such as gantry A-frames and jib struts) or
components must be rigged or supported to maintain stability upon the
removal of the pins. ``Boom suspension systems'' are defined in Sec.
1926.1401 as ``a system of pendants, running ropes, sheaves, and other
hardware which supports the boom tip and controls the boom angle.''
This definition is the same as that for ``boom suspension'' in the
SC&RF Handbook.
The Committee identified the process of pin removal as one that has
proved to be particularly hazardous. Potential energy in these
sections, systems and components can be released suddenly during this
process, resulting in unanticipated movement, ranging from shifting to
collapse. Even small movements can result in injury,
[[Page 59746]]
including amputations; larger movements and collapses can cause fatal
injuries.
The Committee determined that the key to preventing these injuries
and fatalities is through ensuring that the sections/components will
remain stable upon the removal of the pins. Instability can have a
variety of causes, including improper assembly/disassembly sequencing,
improper rigging, incorrectly designed support, blocking failures and
ground compression. Therefore, under this proposed provision, the A/D
supervisor would be required to make sure that the sections/components
are rigged or supported by maintaining stability once the pins are
removed.
Paragraph 1404(h)(8) Snagging
This proposed paragraph requires that suspension ropes and pendants
not be allowed to catch on the boom or jib connection pins or cotter
pins (including keepers and locking pins). In Sec. 1926.1401,
``pendants'' are defined to ``include both wire and bar types. Wire
type: a fixed length of wire rope with mechanical fittings at both ends
for pinning segments of wire rope together. Bar type: Instead of wire
rope, a bar is used. Pendants are typically used in a latticed boom
crane system to easily change the length of the boom suspension system
without completely changing the rope on the drum when the boom length
is increased or decreased.'' This definition is similar to that in the
SC&RF Handbook, but with the addition of the reference to ``bar type''
pendants.
Many times the pendant cables hang alongside the boom and may get
caught (snagged) on the pins, bolts, or keepers as the operator raises
the boom. If this were to occur the cables could be damaged or the boom
may rise then drop suddenly as a snagged cable releases from the pin.
This can result in shock loading and damaging cables and components.
For example, under this proposed provision, once all the boom sections
are installed and the pendants are pinned together, the A/D supervisor
must ensure that care is taken when raising the boom so that pendant
cables and hoist cables do not snag on the pins or any other component
during the boom raising process.
Paragraph 1404(h)(9) Struck by Counterweights
``Counterweight'' is defined in Sec. 1926.1401 as a ``weight used
to supplement the weight of equipment in providing stability for
lifting loads by counterbalancing those loads.'' This definition is
taken from the SC&RF Handbook.
Counterweights are usually large, heavy plates made of steel and/or
concrete. The A/D process typically involves the installation and
removal of counterweights. This proposed provision would require that
the A/D supervisor address the hazard of employees being struck by them
during their installation/removal. During the installation/removal
process, employees typically are in close proximity to them. An
employee could be struck by a counterweight or crushed between it and
the crane structure if it were to sway as it was being installed or
removed. The A/D supervisor would be required to address this aspect of
the hazard, such as by taking steps to have the operator minimize the
amount of sway and by positioning the employees to minimize their
hazard exposure.
Additionally, after the counterweights are installed, the crane may
have to swing to complete the boom assembly. The A/D supervisor would
be required to address this aspect of the hazard as well, such as
through the proper positioning of the employees and enhancing their
awareness of the counterweight swing zone so that they will avoid being
struck or crushed.
Paragraph 1404(h)(10) Boom Hoist Brake Failure
This proposed provision addresses a hazard that can occur both
during assembly and disassembly, although it is more typically a hazard
during assembly. In many older cranes the boom hoist brake mechanism
has an external or internal mechanical brake band that operates by
pressing against the hoist drum. As the configuration of the crane
changes and, for example, more boom is added, this type of boom hoist
brake may slip unless it has been adjusted to hold the extra weight.
The Committee was concerned that the inability of an unadjusted brake
to hold the increased load will not be evident until the additional
boom section(s) has been added and the operator attempts to rely on the
brake in a subsequent phase of the operation. If the operator does not
first raise the boom a small amount after the section has been added
(with the crew clear of the boom) to test the brake, employees could be
injured later in the process when the operator manipulates the boom and
finds that he/she is unable to brake it.
To address this hazard, the employer would be required to test the
brake to determine if it can hold the load. In many cases, if it is
insufficient, an adjustment to the brake will correct the problem. If
it remains insufficient, the employer would be required to use a boom
hoist pawl, other locking device, back-up braking device, or another
method of preventing dangerous boom movement (such as blocking or using
an assist crane to support the load) from a boom hoist brake failure.
The Agency is concerned that the text of the proposed provision may
not be sufficiently clear regarding the timing of this brake test.
OSHA's interpretation is that the test would need to be done
immediately after each section (or group of sections) is installed, and
after all sections are in place. OSHA is soliciting public comment on
this issue and if it is necessary to revise the language of the
provision to clarify when the test must be done.
Paragraph 1404(h)(11) Loss of Backward Stability
The Committee identified three points during the assembly/
disassembly process at which there is a heightened risk of loss of
backward stability; these are: when swinging the upperworks, during
travel, and when attaching or removing equipment components. Therefore,
under this proposed provision, before any of these occur, the A/D
supervisor would be required to consider whether precautions need to be
instituted to ensure that backward stability is maintained.
The illustration contained within the proposed requirements for
loss of backward stability (Sec. 1926.1404(h)(11)) is taken from the
``Mobile Crane Manual,'' published by the Construction Safety
Association of Ontario.
Paragraph 1404(h)(12) Wind Speed and Weather
Committee members believed that wind velocity and weather must be
considered so that crane stability and capacity are not compromised.
The Committee considered the option of establishing a maximum wind
speed, as well as the option of incorporating ANSI's provisions
regarding wind speed. However, it believed that selecting any one
particular speed as a maximum would be arbitrary because of the variety
of factors involved. For example: different cranes and crane types vary
with respect to the ``sail'' area they present; an assembly process
involving use of an assist crane may require lower wind speeds than one
in which no assist crane is used; and assembly/disassembly operations
done ``in the air'' (that is, with the boom elevated in the air,
without ground support for the boom) may require lower wind speeds than
a boom assembled/disassembled on the ground.
[[Page 59747]]
The Committee ultimately decided that a better approach would be to
have the A/D supervisor determine the maximum safe wind speed under the
circumstances.
Other weather conditions that can affect the safety of assembly/
disassembly would include, for example, ice accumulation on crane
components. Ice can both add to the weight of the components and create
slippery, dangerous surfaces on which employees work. The A/D
supervisor must consider if weather conditions affect the safety of the
operation.
Paragraph 1404(i). [Reserved.] OSHA is proposing to reserve this
paragraph because it can be difficult for readers to distinguish (i)
from (j).
Paragraph 1404(j) Cantilevered Boom Sections
Members of the Committee believed that a common mistake in
assembly/disassembly is cantilevering too much boom. When too much boom
is cantilevered structural failure can occur in components such as the
mast/gantry, boom sections and lifting lugs. Employees may be struck by
falling components from this type of failure. To prevent accidents from
cantilevering too much boom during assembly/disassembly, this provision
would require manufacturer's limitations on cantilevering not to be
exceeded.
If the manufacturer's limitations were not available, the employer
would be required to have a registered professional engineer (RPE)
determine the appropriate limitations, and to abide by those
limitations. The Committee believed that in such cases there would need
to be a requirement that the RPE's determination be in writing to
ensure that the assessment has been done.
Paragraph 1404(k) Weight of Components
As with any load to be lifted by a crane/derrick, the weight of the
components must be available to the operator so that the operator can
determine if the lift can be performed within the crane/derrick's
capacity. This proposed requirement would apply irrespective of whether
the component is being hoisted by the crane being assembled/
disassembled or by an assist crane.
Paragraph 1404(l). [Reserved.] OSHA is proposing to reserve this
paragraph because it is inconvenient for readers to distinguish the
letter ``l'' from the Arabic number ``1.''
Paragraph 1404(m) Components and Configuration
This proposed provision deals with the selection of components that
will be used to comprise the crane/derrick, the configuration of the
equipment, and its inspection upon completion of assembly. Proper
selection of components and proper configurations are explained in the
manufacturer's instructions, limitations, and specifications. Regarding
component selection, the provision would address the hazards associated
with use of components that the manufacturer had neither intended nor
planned for incorporation into the equipment.
The Committee believes that the use of such components could
adversely affect the capacity and performance of the crane/derrick,
cause the manufacturer's specifications (including the load chart) and
instructions to be inapplicable, and adversely affect other components
on the crane/derrick.
Similar hazards are posed by configuring the crane/derrick in a
manner that does not accord with the manufacturer's instructions,
limitations and specifications. An example given by the Committee was
trucks carrying boom sections arriving out of sequence. To save time,
some employers assemble the sections in the order in which they arrive
rather than waiting for the correct section. This would result in a
crane/derrick configured differently than intended by the manufacturer.
Because the crane/derrick is designed and tested as a unit, the failure
to configure the crane/derrick as the manufacturer had intended could
present the same hazards as those described above for improper
component selection.
The Committee recognized that, especially in the case of very old
equipment where the manufacturer no longer exists, there are instances
where the employer can no longer obtain the manufacturer's
instructions, limitations and specifications regarding the selection of
components and configuration of the equipment. In such instances the
proposed provision would require that a registered professional
engineer familiar with the type of equipment involved approve, in
writing, the component selection and configuration.
Another proposed section (Sec. 1926.1434) would allow cranes/
derricks to be modified under certain circumstances. To the extent a
crane/derrick were modified in accordance with that section, the
employer would not be required to follow the manufacturer's original
instructions, limitations and specifications regarding component
selection and configuration regarding those modifications. Instead,
under proposed paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this section, the employer would
be required to follow the component selection and configuration
requirements approved in accordance with proposed Sec. 1926.1434.
Finally, this proposed provision would require that the equipment
be inspected after assembly has been completed to ensure that the
component selection and configuration are correct.
Paragraph 1404(n) Manufacturer Prohibitions
As explained above regarding proposed Sec. 1926.1403, an employer
would be able to choose to use either manufacturer assembly/disassembly
procedures or its own (as long as they met the requirements in proposed
Sec. 1926.1406). However, in either case, the Committee believed that
manufacturer prohibitions regarding assembly or disassembly would need
to be met. In the Committee's view, a prohibition specified by the
manufacturer signals that, if not heeded, a significant hazard would
likely be created.
Paragraph 1404(o) Shipping Pins
In order to properly address the hazards the Committee was
concerned with, the Agency rewrote the language that C-DAC had
originally agreed upon for this proposed provision. The original (C-
DAC) language read as follows:
(o) Shipping pins. Reusable shipping pins, straps, links and
similar equipment must be removed and stowed in accordance with
manufacturer instructions.
In studying the regulatory text as it was originally drafted it
appeared the language did not accurately reflect the intentions of the
Committee. The provision was intended to address two hazards. The first
hazard is the failure to remove items such as shipping pins, which if
left in place during operation could damage the equipment. For example,
if shipping pins are not removed and the boom is raised up, the boom
could be damaged. The second hazard is injury to employees where items
such as shipping pins are removed but not properly stowed (i.e., placed
in a special hole or bracket designed to keep the item from being
dislodged) or stored on the equipment (such as in an equipment box in
the cab) after assembly. Where these items are left lying on the
equipment and not properly stowed or stored they present a falling
object hazard to employees. To better reflect the Committee's
intentions the Agency has altered the C-DAC language. The proposed
provision reads:
[[Page 59748]]
(o) Shipping pins. Reusable shipping pins, straps, links and
similar equipment must be removed. Once they are removed they must
either be stowed or otherwise stored so that they do not present a
falling object hazard.
The Agency welcomes any comments with respect to this change.
Paragraph 1404(p) Pile Driving
This proposed provision would prohibit equipment used in pile
driving operations from having a jib attached. The constant pounding of
the pile driving hammer and the sometimes rapid descent of the pile
causes the boom to bounce. If a jib were installed on the tip, as the
boom bounces the jib could be thrown backward against its stops, which
would likely cause structural damage to the boom. The damage could
cause the boom to immediately fail or could diminish its capacity.
Paragraph 1404(q) Outriggers
This proposed paragraph specifies requirements regarding outrigger
deployment. These requirements reflect current industry best practices
in the use of outriggers. Failure to use outriggers in accordance with
these practices could result in the overturning of the crane.
Section 1926.1405 Disassembly--Additional Requirements for Disassembly
of Booms and Jibs (Applies to Both the Use of Manufacturer Procedures
and Employer Procedures)
The Committee believed that many of the accidents associated with
cranes occur during the removal of pendant, boom and jib pins. These
accidents typically occur because of a failure to recognize that, in
certain situations, particular pins are ``in tension.'' If removed
while in that state the result will be unplanned movement of a
component or the collapse of the boom or jib.
Consequently, the Committee believed that the removal of pendant,
boom section and jib pins warrants heightened attention. This proposed
section focuses on protecting employees from these hazards during the
dismantling of booms and jibs, either when disassembling the crane/
derrick or when changing the length of a boom or jib. To make clear
that ``dismantling'' includes activities such as shortening a boom,
proposed Sec. 1926.1401 defines ``dismantling'' to include ``partial
dismantling (such as dismantling to shorten a boom or substitute a
different component).''
In this proposed section the Committee identified particular
scenarios that, in the experience of many of the Committee members,
pose specific hazards in disassembly if the wrong pins (that is, pins
that are in tension) are partly or completely removed. The failure to
follow the provisions would very likely result in unintended movement
and or collapse of the components. OSHA believes that these
requirements will help to prevent unintended movement or collapse of
booms or jibs as they are being disassembled.
While discussing the hazards associated with disassembly, the
Committee reviewed particular illustrations from the ``Mobile Crane
Manual'' by Construction Safety Association of Ontario. It was agreed
that including these illustrations would be an effective way of
communicating the dangers and the precautions specified in this
proposed section.
Section 1406 Assembly/Disassembly--Employer Procedures--General
Requirements
Under proposed Sec. 1926.1403, employers would be permitted to
follow their own procedures for assembling and disassembling a crane/
derrick instead of those of the manufacturer. When doing so, the
employer would have to ensure that its procedures met the general
requirements in proposed Sec. 1926.1406.
The proposed general requirements would focus on a ``layered''
strategy for preventing injuries and fatalities during this process:
maintaining stability of the equipment and its components and
positioning employees so that their exposure to unintended dangerous
movement is minimized. This reflects the Committee members' experience
that maintaining stability and avoiding dangerous positions are the key
elements to preventing these accidents.
In addition, under proposed paragraph (b) of this section, the
employer would be required to have its procedures developed by a
qualified person. The Committee believed that, due to the complexity of
the factors involved and the resultant expertise needed to develop such
procedures, it would be necessary for them to be developed by a
qualified person.
Note that the Agency wording in proposed Sec. 1926.1406(a)(1)
includes a modification of the language in the C-DAC document. The C-
DAC document stated:
(1) Prevent unintended dangerous movement, and to prevent
collapse, of part or all of the equipment.
Read literally, this would mean that the employer could choose to
design the procedures to prevent collapse either of part or of all of
the equipment. The intent of the Committee was that the procedures must
not allow unintended dangerous movement of any part of the equipment.
Therefore, the Agency modified this language so that the proposed
provision reads as follows:
(1) Prevent unintended dangerous movement, and to prevent
collapse, of all parts of the equipment.
Sections 1407-1411 Power Lines
Introduction
Proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1407 through 1926.1411 set out proposed
requirements designed to help ensure the safety of employees while
cranes/derricks are being assembled, disassembled, operated, or while
they travel under power lines. Section 1401 defines ``power lines'' as
``electric transmission and distribution lines.'' This definition makes
it clear that these sections apply to all electric transmission and
distribution lines. C-DAC defined ``power lines'' as ``electrical
distribution and electric transmission lines,'' but OSHA changed the
definition to make the terminology consistent with Subpart V of 29 CFR
part 1926, which applies to the construction of ``electric transmission
and distribution lines and equipment.'' 29 CFR 1926.950(a).
The Committee believed that there is a need to reduce the number of
fatalities resulting from electrical contact with power lines. In its
experience, the presence of power lines at construction sites poses a
significant hazard to employees at the site. Power lines can be a
hazard not only during the operation of cranes and derricks, such as
lifting operations, but also during assembling and disassembling the
equipment and traveling with such equipment under power lines.
Employees are at risk of serious injury or death if the equipment they
are in, on or near is at a construction site where there are power
lines.
The Committee's perception of the significance of this problem is
confirmed by data that indicate that electrocution is one of the
leading causes of crane-related fatalities on construction sites.
During the years 1992 to 2005, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
reported 1,153 crane-related fatalities. These statistics include
fatalities across all industries and are not exclusive to construction
crane-related fatalities. Of those total crane-related fatalities the
second highest cause is attributed to cranes contacting overhead power
lines (19% or 219 fatalities). Specifically for the year 2005, BLS
reported 85 crane-
[[Page 59749]]
related fatalities and 12 (or 14%) of those fatalities resulted from
cranes contacting overhead power lines. (OSHA-2007-0066-0026).
In addition, a recent analysis of data published by the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), authored by J.E. Beavers, J.R.
Moore, R. Rinehart and W.R. Schriver, found that electric shock caused
by cranes and other lifting equipment contacting a power source was the
second highest proximate cause (after being struck by a load) of crane-
related fatalities in the construction industry from 1997 to 2003.
These fatalities all involved the failure to maintain the minimum
approach distances set out in the existing Subpart N, Sec. 1926.550
provisions.\12\ J.E. Beavers et al., ``Crane-Related Fatalities in the
Construction Industry,'' 132 Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 901, 903-04 (2006) (OSHA-2007-0066-0012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The authors determined that a crane's boom was generally
the component which made contact with the power line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Construction Safety Association of Ontario conducted an
extensive study which reviewed crane fatalities from 1969 through 2002
in the Province of Ontario. (OSHA-2007-0066-0009). This study showed
that the number one cause of mobile crane fatalities in the Province of
Ontario construction industry during these 34 years was due to power
line contact, with 50 of the 115, or 43%, of the mobile crane
fatalities caused by power line contact.
A 1997 study by A. Suruda, M. Egger and D. Lui, analyzed crane
related fatalities in the U.S. construction industry from 1984 to 1994.
This study determined that electrocution by power line contact was the
leading cause of crane related fatalities in the U.S. construction
industry, with 39% of the 502 fatalities caused by electrocution from
power lines. In addition, the findings of this study further confirmed
previous studies which indicated that power line contact contributes to
a significant number of crane related fatalities.\13\ A. Suruda et al.,
``Crane-Related Deaths in the U.S. Construction Industry, 1984-94,''
The Center to Protect Workers' Rights (Oct. 1997) (OSHA-2007-0066-
0013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ These studies include: D. MacCollum, ``Critical Hazard
Analysis and Crane Design,'' Professional Safety (1980); D. Dickie,
``Crane Study Confirms Downward Trend, Underlines Importance of
Training,'' The Crane Report (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 1926.1401 defines ``electrical contact'' as follows:
When a person, object, or equipment makes contact or comes in
close proximity with an energized conductor or equipment that allows
the passage of current.
The Committee decided that it was necessary to define the term
``electrical contact'' to clarify that the term is not limited to a
person, object, or equipment making physical contact with a power line
but includes situations in which the object comes close enough to a
power line for current to arc between the power line and the object and
thereby energize the object.
Currently Subpart N, in 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(15)(i) and (ii),
addresses power line hazards by specifying the minimum distance that
must be maintained between a crane and an energized power line. For
lines rated 50 kilovolts (kV) or below, the minimum distance is 10
feet; for lines over 50 kV, the minimum distance is 10 feet plus 0.4
inches for each 1 kV over 50 kV (we will refer to this Subpart N
requirement in this preamble as the ``10 foot rule''). However, the
existing Subpart N provisions, which instruct employers to maintain a
minimum clearance distance, do little by way of requiring employers to
implement measures to help prevent operators from inadvertently
breaching that distance.
The only preventative measure in Subpart N is a requirement, in
paragraph 1926.550(a)(15)(iv), to use a spotter ``where it is difficult
for the operator to maintain the desired clearance by visual means.''
In discussing how to reduce power line fatalities, the Committee
determined that a systematic, proactive approach to preventing power
line contact is needed.
First, in the Committee's experience, it is difficult for the
operator, from his/her position in the crane's cab, to determine if the
crane or load is 10 feet (or other applicable minimum distance) from a
power line. According to C-DAC, generally operators know the 10 foot
rule but they have problems being able to perceive or visually
determine when the part of the equipment or load closest to the power
line has reached the 10 foot rule's distance. The operator might think
he/she is maintaining the required minimum distance when in fact the
crane or load is closer than that to the line. Except for the limited
requirement to use a spotter mentioned above, the existing Subpart N
standard does not require any methodology or aids to be provided in
each case to help the operator identify the location of this invisible
boundary or otherwise avoid it.
Second, the Committee believed that operators sometimes breach the
minimum clearance distance when they forget about the presence of a
power line. For example, an operator might conclude at the beginning of
a shift that he/she can pick and set all necessary loads while
maintaining the required minimum distance but may thereafter be called
upon to pick or set a load closer to the power line than normal. Having
once concluded that the power line presents no problem, the operator
might not recognize that the situation has changed and that there is
now a danger of breaching the minimum distance.
Another scenario is when an operator concentrates so strongly on
tasks related to moving the load, particularly if the load is one that
requires the crane to be operated near its capacity, that he/she
forgets about the power line. By not providing encroachment prevention
measures, the current standard does not help the operator maintain the
10 foot rule and therefore does not address scenarios where operators
forget about the presence of a power line.
Further, the current standard's provision for a spotter does not
adequately address these scenarios. By requiring a spotter only ``where
it is difficult for the operator to maintain the desired clearance by
visual means,'' the provision implies that typically it is not
difficult for the operator to accurately judge the distance and the
equipment's or load's distance from the boundary. However, a crane
operator, no matter how experienced, is normally not well-positioned to
judge either the boundary distance or the distance the equipment or
load is from it. In most cases the power line is thin, high up, and
poorly contrasted against the sky.
Adding to the operator's difficulty is a confusion of angles posed
by the power lines, load line, boom, and position of the operator away
from the boundary. These factors are compounded by the distorting
effects of distance on depth perception. Despite these factors, the
operator must be able to accurately ascertain the location of an
invisible boundary and judge relatively small distances with a high
degree of precision.
Even a small misjudgment can result in the minimum clearance
distance being breached. In short, the current standard assumes a
degree of visual acuity that experience has shown is unrealistic. The
high number of fatalities that continue to result from electrocution by
power lines demonstrates that the current, limited provision regarding
a spotter is not effective.
Third, the Committee discussed the reality that many employers
intentionally perform work closer than the 10 foot rule to energized
power lines. In only two circumstances does the current standard allow
the operation of cranes closer than the 10 foot rule.
[[Page 59750]]
The first instance is where the power lines have been deenergized and
visibly grounded and the second is where insulating barriers (separate
from the equipment) have been erected to prevent physical contact.
Committee members noted that typically neither of these measures is
implemented. Specifically, the Committee believed that most employers
elect not to use the option to deenergize and ground because of the
time, expense and difficulty in making those arrangements. In addition,
the Committee determined that an ``insulating barrier'' of the type
that is currently available does not, by itself, adequately protect
employees because these barriers are only effective for ``brush''
contact. If there is more than brush contact, they will not protect
employees from electrocution because the equipment will pierce the
device. In order to address the lack of compliance and the insufficient
protections provided to employees who work closer than the 10 foot
rule, the Committee developed new provisions that it believed would be
both realistic and effective for safely working in such circumstances.
To summarize, the Committee found that the existing Subpart N
provisions are inadequate. They fail to require employers to implement
measures that would help prevent operators from inadvertently breaching
the minimum clearance distance. The Committee determined that a
systematic, proactive approach to preventing power line contact is
needed. It recognized that while such an approach is necessarily more
complex than the current 10 foot rule, it is essential to accomplishing
the goal of reducing power line related fatalities and injuries.
Brief Overview of Proposed Requirements
The proposed standard would require the implementation of a
systematic, proactive approach to dealing with the hazard of power
lines. This approach would be comprised of the following steps: (1)
Identify the work zone and assess it for power lines--determine how
close the crane could get to them. The employer would have the option
of doing this assessment for the area 360 degrees around the crane or
for a more limited, demarcated area; (2) If the assessment showed that
the crane could get closer than a trigger distance--20 feet for lines
rated up to 350 kV (50 feet for lines rated over 350 kV)--then
requirements for additional action would be triggered.
Specifically, unless the power lines were deenergized and grounded,
encroachment/electrocution prevention measures would have to be
implemented to prevent the crane from breaching a minimum clearance
distance and protect against electrocution. The employer would be
allowed to choose among several minimum clearance distance options.
For example, for lines up to 350kV, the minimum clearance distance
options would be: (1) 20 feet; or (2) the distance specified in Table A
for the line's voltage (Table A is the ``10 foot rule''; see discussion
of Table A below); or (3) a distance closer than what is specified in
Table A.
However, there are limitations to the availability of some of these
options, and the number of mandatory encroachment prevention (and
other) measures increases when using a clearance distance closer than
Table A.
The proposed standard uses the word ``encroachment'' to describe a
situation in which equipment gets closer than the minimum allowed
clearance distance to a power line. Under Sec. 1926.1401, Definitions,
encroachment ``is where any part of the crane, load line or load
(including rigging and lifting accessories) breaches a minimum
clearance distance that this Subpart requires to be maintained from a
power line.'' Encroachment prevention measures are critical to
compliance with this proposed standard's minimum distance requirements.
A similar approach to power line safety was developed for
preventing electrocutions during the assembly and disassembly of
equipment. This is addressed in a separate proposed section because the
assembly/disassembly process involves some different circumstances than
are present during operation.
Section 1407 Power Line Safety (Up to 350 kV)--Assembly and Disassembly
The proposed requirements in Sec. 1926.1407 address the hazards of
assembling and disassembling equipment near power lines up to 350 kV.
The requirements in proposed 1407 are similar in most respects to the
requirements in proposed Sec. 1926.1408, which address operations of
equipment near power lines.
OSHA notes that when an assist crane is used during the assembly or
disassembly of another crane/derrick, the use of the assist crane, with
respect to power line safety, would be considered ``operations'' and
therefore covered by proposed Sec. 1926.1408 (or, for power lines over
350 kV, proposed Sec. 1926.1409). This is because the assist crane has
already been assembled and is being used for a crane operation.
Therefore, use of the assist crane would be required to comply with
proposed Sec. 1926.1408 during the assembly/disassembly process rather
than with proposed Sec. 1926.1407.
In contrast, a crane that is not yet fully assembled is often used
to complete its own assembly. For example, a crane is often used to
load its own counterweights. Similarly, it may unload its
counterweights in its own disassembly process. Such activities would be
covered under proposed Sec. 1926.1407 since it is being assembled/
disassembled.
Paragraph 1407(a)
Under this proposed paragraph, before beginning assembly or
disassembly, the employer would be required to determine if any part of
the crane, load or load line (including rigging and lifting
accessories) could get, in the direction or area of assembly, closer
than 20 feet to a power line. In other words, the employer would use
the direction or area of assembly or disassembly in evaluating whether
any such part could come closer than 20 feet. If this 20 foot
``trigger'' determination is positive, then the employer would be
required to take additional steps. Specifically, the employer would be
required to meet the proposed requirements under either, Option (1),
Option (2) or Option (3) of Sec. 1926.1407(a). If any part of the
crane, load or load line could not come within more than 20 feet of a
power line the employer would not be required to take any further
action under this proposed section.
Upon further review of C-DAC's Sec. 1926.1407(a), OSHA realized
there was an inadvertent omission. The C-DAC regulatory text read:
(a) Before assembling or disassembling a crane, the employer
must determine if any part of the crane, load, or load line
(including rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in the
direction or area of ``assembly,'' within 20 feet of a power line
during the assembly/disassembly process.
These provisions were intended to apply to both assembly and
disassembly. The employer needs to evaluate power lines with respect to
the direction or area of assembly when preparing to assemble the crane,
and the direction or area of disassembly when preparing to disassemble
the crane. A reference to ``disassembly'' in this regard was
inadvertently omitted. Therefore, OSHA has changed the regulatory text
to read:
(a) Before assembling or disassembling a crane, the employer
must determine if any part of the crane, load, or load line
(including rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in
[[Page 59751]]
the direction or area of ``assembly/disassembly,'' closer than 20
feet to a power line during the assembly/disassembly process.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As explained below, OSHA is changing ``within 20 feet of a
power line'' wherever it appears in the C-DAC document to ``closer
than 20 feet to a power line'' to avoid potential confusion over
whether ``within'' means breaching or not breaching the 20 foot
distance.
The phrase ``direction or area of assembly/disassembly'' is
designed to address the fact that, in some cases, the assembly or
disassembly of a crane takes place not just in an ``area,'' that is, a
fixed portion of the work site, but also in a ``direction.'' For
example, when disassembling a crane, the disassembly process takes
place in an area that includes the area under and around the boom's
path as it is lowered to the ground (in most, but not all cases, the
boom is lowered to the ground for the disassembly process). Under this
provision, the employer would be required to assess the promixity that
the boom will be in to the power line in its path of travel to (and on)
the ground.
In another example, when assembling a lattice boom crane, the
``area'' involved will expand as boom sections are added.\15\ This area
expands in the ``direction'' in which the boom sections are added. The
power line assessment has to be made for the portion of the site that
will be involved as these boom sections are added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ This also occurs with telescopic extensible boom cranes
when a ``dead man section'' is added to the boom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, ``direction'' includes the direction that, for
example, the boom will move as it rises into the air after the boom has
been assembled on the ground. For example, the boom, when fully
assembled on the ground, may be more than 20 feet from a power line.
However, when raising it from the ground, it may get closer than 20
feet. Accordingly, under this language, the ``direction'' that the boom
will travel as it is raised must also be evaluated for proximity to
power lines.
Another example is the assembly of a tower crane. As tower sections
are added, the assembly process may get closer to power lines than when
the process began on the ground. That ``direction'' of assembly upwards
must also be evaluated.
Paragraph (a)(1) Option (1)
An employer choosing Option 1 would protect against electrocution
by having the power lines deenergized and visibly grounded. Where the
employer elects this option, it would not have to implement any of the
encroachment/electrocution prevention measures listed in proposed Sec.
1926.1407(b). This option helps to eliminate the electrical hazards
which are present with power lines.
However, some amount of time is needed to arrange for the utility
owner/operator \16\ to deenergize and ground the line. Also, in some
instances, especially where the construction project is small, the cost
of deenergizing and grounding may be a substantial portion of the cost
of the project. The Committee recognized that, in practice, largely
because of these factors, deenergizing and grounding has not been
routinely done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ OSHA notes that the phrase ``utility owner/operator''
reflects scenarios where utilities may not be operated by an owner
but by some entity other than the owner. Therefore wherever the
phrase ``utility owner/operator'' is used in the standard or in the
preamble it is meant to apply to utility owners or utility
operators. In addition, in various places in the original C-DAC
document, the Committee had used the terms ``power line owner,''
``power line owner/operator'' or a variation of those terms. The
Agency has changed those terms to ``utility owner/operator'' or a
variation of those terms. The Agency has changed those terms to
``utility owner/operator'' to be consistent throughout the proposed
regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the Committee believed that providing other safe and
practical options would help to reduce unsafe practices in the
industry. Those other options (Options 2 and 3 in proposed Sec.
1926.1407(a)) combined with proposed Sec. 1926.1407(b) are designed to
be effective protection against the hazards of electrocution.
Paragraph (a)(2) Option (2)
Under Option 2 (proposed Sec. 1926.1407(a)(2)), the employer would
be required to maintain a minimum clearance distance of 20 feet. To
help ensure that this distance is not breached, the employer would have
to implement the encroachment prevention measures in proposed Sec.
1926.1407(b). Under this proposed option, no part of the crane, load or
load line, including rigging and lifting accessories, would be
permitted closer than 20 feet to the power line.
Employers using this proposed option would, in most cases, have to
stay further away from the power line than under the existing Subpart
N's 10 foot rule (employers wanting to use the 10 foot rule would have
to use proposed Option 3, discussed below).\17\ However, an advantage
of this proposed option to many employers is that they would not have
to determine the exact voltage of the power line as they would if they
were to apply Subpart N's 10 foot rule. They would only have to
determine that the line voltage is equal to or less than 350 kV. As a
practical matter, since many employers rely on the utility owner/
operator to provide voltage information, this option would save them
that step.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As discussed above, the 10 foot rule is a scale of voltages
and distances that begins at 10 feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believed that, since the minimum clearance distance
would be 20 feet, there would be no diminution of safety under this
option since the maximum possible clearance distance under the current
Subpart N's formula is 20 feet. In fact, in the Committee's experience,
most power lines encountered by most employers have voltages that,
under the current Subpart N formula, require a minimum clearance
distance of 10 feet. Therefore, use of this option would, in most
cases, result in a higher margin of safety. Employers who do not need
to get closer than 20 feet in order to assemble/disassemble the crane
could use this option and would be saved the step of obtaining the
exact line voltage.
As noted above, in addition to maintaining a minimum clearance
distance of 20 feet, employers using this option would be required to
implement the encroachment prevention and other measures specified in
proposed Sec. 1926.1407(b).
Paragraph (a)(3) Option (3)
Under Option 3 (proposed paragraph Sec. 1926.1407(a)(3)), the
employer would be required to maintain a minimum clearance distance in
accordance with Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408). Under Table A,
depending on the voltage of the power line, the minimum approach
distance ranges from 10 feet to 20 feet for lines up to 350 kV.
Therefore, the minimum clearance distance would be essentially the same
under Option 3 as under Subpart N's 10 foot rule. Under this option the
employer would be required to determine the line's voltage.
As a practical matter, in the Committee's experience, the power
lines most typically encountered by most employers would require a
minimum clearance distance of 10 feet under Table A. As a result,
employers could usually assemble/disassemble equipment closer to the
lines under this option than under Option 2.
Table A in essence is based upon the same formula as is currently
used in existing Subpart N (the 10 foot rule) and is similar to Table 1
in ASME B30.5-2004. Unlike Subpart N, which requires employers to
calculate the minimum clearance distance from a formula, Table A sets
forth specified clearance distances in a readily understood table and
requires no calculations. The Committee believed that a table with
specified clearance distances is more
[[Page 59752]]
readily applied than the formula set out in the existing Subpart N
requirements.
The enhanced safety that would result under this option would stem
from the fact that, first, there would be an affirmative obligation on
the employer to determine the power line voltage so that the correct
Table A minimum clearance distance could be determined. Second, in
addition to maintaining the minimum clearance distance specified in the
Table, employers using this option would be required to implement the
encroachment prevention and other measures specified in proposed Sec.
1926.1407(b).
In reviewing C-DAC's draft of this provision, the Agency realized
that C-DAC inadvertently failed to explicitly state that the Table A
minimum clearance distance must not be breached. OSHA has modified
proposed paragraph Sec. 1926.1407(a)(3)(ii) to correct this error.
Therefore, the last sentence of the C-DAC language has been expanded to
read as follows:
If so, then the employer must follow the requirements in
paragraph (b) to ensure that no part of the crane, load line, or
load (including rigging and lifting accessories), gets closer to the
line than the minimum clearance distance.
Paragraph 1407(b) Preventing Encroachment/Electrocution
Once an employer has determined that some part of the crane, load
or load line could come within the trigger distance of 20 feet of a
power line (see Sec. 1926.1407(a)), if it chooses either Option (2) or
(3) of Sec. 1926.1407(a) it would be required to implement
encroachment prevention measures to help ensure that the applicable
minimum clearance distance (20 feet under Option 2 or the Table A
distance under Option 3) is not breached.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Alternatively, under Option (1), the employer could have
the lines deenergized and grounded. If Option (1) were selected, no
further action under this section would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the measures in this proposed paragraph are designed to
help the employer maintain the appropriate clearance distance and
thereby prevent electrical contact while in the process of assembling
or disassembling equipment. Some of the measures are designed to
prevent electrocution in the event of electrical contact. The committee
believed these proposed requirements would add layers of protection to
help keep employees safe from power lines during the assembly or
disassembly of the equipment.
Paragraph 1407(b)(1)
Under proposed paragraph (b)(1), the employer would be required to
conduct a planning meeting with the Assembly/Disassembly Supervisor (A/
D Supervisor), operator, assembly/disassembly crew and other workers
who will be in the assembly/disassembly area (including the area of the
load). This planning meeting must include reviewing the location of the
power line(s) and the steps that will be implemented to prevent
encroachment and electrocution.
As discussed below, under this proposed paragraph, certain
encroachment/electrocution prevention measures would be required (they
are listed in proposed paragraph (b)(1) and (2) of this section). In
addition, the employer would be required to select at least one
additional measure from the list in proposed Sec. 1926.1407(b)(3). In
the planning meeting, the employer would be required to make that
selection and review all the measures that will be used to comply with
this section.
The purpose of this proposed requirement is to ensure that the
operator and other workers who will be in the area understand these
measures and how they will be implemented. That understanding is
important to their successful implementation. Because of the critical
nature of these measures, and the seriousness of the consequences to
the safety of the employees if they are not implemented correctly, the
Committee believed that it is necessary for there to be a structured
process by which the employer communicates this information.
Paragraph 1407(b)(2)
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require that where tag lines are
used they must be non-conductive. This provision uses two terms that
are defined in Sec. 1401. ``Tag lines'' is defined as ``a rope
(usually fiber) attached to a lifted load for purposes of controlling
load spinning and pendular motions or used to stabilize a bucket or
magnet during material handling operations.'' Thus, one end of a tag
line is attached to the load and the other end is held by an employee
who controls the load's motion by exerting force on the line.
If the equipment or load were to make electrical contact with a
power line while an employee was holding a tag line that was able to
conduct electricity, the employee could be electrocuted. The
requirement that the tag line be non-conductive is designed to protect
against such an event. Section 1926.1401 defines ``non-conductive'' as
meaning that, ``because of the nature and conditions of the materials
used, and the conditions of use (including environmental conditions and
condition of the material), the object in question has the property of
not becoming energized (that is, it has high dielectric properties
offering a high resistance to the passage of current under the
conditions of use).''
This definition recognizes that it is not only the inherent
property of the tag line material that results in it being non-
conductive but also the conditions of use. For example, if an otherwise
non-conductive material were to become wet and therefore able to
conduct electricity, it would no longer qualify as non-conductive under
this proposed paragraph.
Paragraph 1407(b)(3)
Under this proposed paragraph the employer would be required to
choose one of five encroachment prevention measures (Sec.
1926.1407(b)(3)(i) through (v)) to implement. The Committee concluded
that the use of any one of these measures, in combination with the
required measures listed elsewhere in proposed Sec. 1926.1407(b),
would be feasible and effective in protecting against encroachment.
Specifically, the employer would be required to choose either: (i) The
use of a dedicated spotter; (ii) a proximity alarm; (iii) a device that
automatically warns the operator when to stop (i.e., a range control
warning device); (iv) a device that automatically limits the range of
movement of the equipment; or (v) an elevated: Warning line, barricade,
or line of signs, in view of the operator, equipped with flags or
similar high-visibility markings. Providing the ability to choose among
these options would give the employer flexibility so that it could pick
one that was well suited and efficient in the circumstances.
A definition of ``dedicated spotter (power lines)'' is included in
proposed Sec. 1926.1401, Definitions. That definition provides:
In order to be considered a dedicated spotter, the requirements
of Sec. 1926.1428 (signal person qualifications) must be met and
his/her sole responsibility is to watch the separation between the
power line and: the equipment, load line and load (including rigging
and lifting accessories), and ensure through communication with the
operator that the applicable minimum distance is not breached.
When the employer uses a dedicated spotter to prevent encroachment
under this section, that person has the critical responsibility of
ensuring, through communication with the operator, that the equipment
maintains a specified minimum clearance distance from a power line.
This definition makes clear that the dedicated spotter cannot have any
other responsibilities that detract him/her from this task. Also, the
[[Page 59753]]
dedicated spotter must have the qualifications required of a signal
person under proposed Sec. 1926.1428, discussed below. Those
qualifications will ensure that the signal person can communicate
effectively with the operator. They also ensure that the signal person
is knowledgeable about crane dynamics and therefore is able to
recognize situations in which the minimum clearance distance may
inadvertently be breached if, for example, the load is stopped quickly
while it is being moved near a power line.
The devices listed in proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1407(b)(3)(ii) and
(iii) are also defined in Sec. 1401. ``Proximity alarm,'' is defined
as ``a device that provides a warning of proximity to a power line that
has been listed, labeled, or accepted by a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.7.'' \19\ A
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory is an organization that has
been recognized by OSHA pursuant to 29 CFR 1910.7 as competent to
evaluate equipment for conformance to appropriate safety test standards
for that type of equipment. Thus, approval of a proximity alarm by a
nationally recognized testing laboratory provides assurance that the
device will work as intended. ``Range control warning device,'' is
defined as ``a device that can be set by an equipment operator to warn
that the boom or jib tip is at a plane or multiple planes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The C-DAC version of this provision defined proximity alarm
as: ``a device that provides a warning of proximity to a power line
that has been approved by a Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory.'' OSHA has modified the provision to conform its
language to that used in 29 CFR 1910.7, the OSHA rule governing
nationally recognized testing laboratories, and to explicitly refer
to Sec. 1910.7 to make clear that the listing, labeling, or
acceptance of a device under this rule must be in accord with Sec.
1910.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing this proposed provision, OSHA realized that some of
the devices listed in proposed Sec. 1926.1407(b)(3) would not be
operational or effective against electrocution during certain phases of
the assembly or disassembly process of certain types of cranes. For
example, for lattice boom cranes, proximity alarm devices may not be
able to be used when the boom is not yet fully assembled; at that point
the proximity alarm typically cannot be connected and functioning.
Therefore, during certain phases of assembly/disassembly, one of the
other options would need to be used (such as a dedicated spotter) in
order to provide the needed protection.
However, the regulatory text, as currently drafted, would permit an
employer to select an option irrespective of whether it would be
effective under the circumstances. In order to address this concern,
OSHA requests public comment on whether proposed Sec. 1926.1407(b)(3)
should be revised to preclude the employer from selecting an option
that, in the employer's situation, would be ineffective, such as by
revising the provision to read:
(3) At least one of the additional measures listed in this
paragraph must be in place. The measure selected from this list must
be effective in preventing encroachment. The additional measures
are: * * *
In situations where an employer chooses the option of using a
dedicated spotter, the employer would be required to meet the proposed
requirements for spotters in proposed Sec. 1926.1407(b)(3)(i). As
specified in proposed paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section, the
spotter would have to be equipped with a visual aid to assist in
identifying the minimum clearance distance. The Committee concluded
that a visual aid is needed for the spotter because of the difficulty
in visualizing the minimum clearance distance boundary in the air (as
discussed above).
In the C-DAC version of this paragraph, examples of visual aids
included a line painted on the ground, a clearly visible line of
stanchions or a set of line-of-sight landmarks. An example of a clearly
visible set of line-of-sight landmarks would be a fence post and a
building corner.
In reviewing C-DAC's draft of this provision, the Agency noted that
the stanchions and landmarks would have to be ``clearly visible,'' but
that this language was not used with respect to the example of a
painted line on the ground. Since all such visual aids would have to be
clearly visible to be effective, and that was the evident intent of C-
DAC, the Agency has modified the C-DAC language so that, in the
proposed provision, all the listed examples would have to be ``clearly
visible.'' This revision was also made in proposed Sec.
1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(A).
Under proposed paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(B)-(D), the spotter would have
to be positioned so that he/she can effectively gauge the clearance
distance from the power line; the spotter, where necessary, would have
to use equipment that enables him/her to communicate directly with the
equipment operator; and the spotter would have to give timely
information to the operator so that the required clearance distance can
be maintained. C-DAC believed that each criterion is needed for the
spotter to be able to be effective.
Paragraph 1407(c) Assembly/Disassembly Below Power Lines Prohibited
This proposed paragraph would preclude employers from assembling or
disassembling cranes/derricks beneath energized power lines. The
Committee agreed that assembly/disassembly below energized power lines
presents an extreme risk and needs to be prohibited. The assembly/
disassembly process necessarily involves moving and hoisting parts of
the equipment into place. If some of this work took place beneath a
power line, the risk that a part, load, load line, or other equipment
would make electrical contact is very high. Also, in both assembly and
disassembly, maneuvering an assembled crane out from under the power
lines, or maneuvering a crane that is about to be disassembled under
them, itself poses a high risk of such contact.
C-DAC's agreement on this provision indicates a belief by the
Committee that, in almost all cases, the employer can plan the
assembly/disassembly so that there will be no need to be beneath power
lines. The Committee also concluded that, in the very few instances
where this is not possible, in light of the extreme risk involved, it
is essential that the lines be deenergized and visibly grounded.
Paragraph 1407(d) Assembly/Disassembly Closer Than Table A Clearance
Prohibited
Assembly and disassembly of cranes/derricks closer than the minimum
clearance distance in proposed Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408) to
an energized power line would be prohibited. If assembly or disassembly
needed to take place closer than that distance, the employer would be
required to have the line deenergized and visibly grounded. The
rationale for this proposed provision is similar to that discussed
above for assembly/disassembly beneath power lines. Engaging in
assembly/disassembly activity closer to an energized power line than
the Table A distance was considered by the Committee to be too
hazardous to be permitted under any circumstances.
This reflects certain inherent characteristics of the assembly/
disassembly process that preclude the employer from being able to
reliably maintain clearance distances closer than Table A (of proposed
Sec. 1926.1408). For example, when disassembling a lattice boom, pins
that hold boom sections together are removed. Even when done properly,
this can release stored kinetic energy and cause the boom section
[[Page 59754]]
being removed, as well as the remaining sections, to move. It is too
difficult to estimate the amount of such potential movement with the
precision that would be necessary when working closer than the Table A
distances.
Another example is when assembling a boom, an error in the assembly
process may similarly cause unanticipated movement. Using clearances
closer than those in Table A would not allow sufficient room in light
of the difficulty of predicting the amount such movement.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In this respect this proposed provision differs from
proposed Sec. 1926.1408. As discussed below, Sec. 1926.1408 would
allow use of minimum clearance distances closer than Table A in some
circumstances for crane ``operations.'' In contrast, proposed Sec.
1926.1407(d) reflects a determination by the Committee that there
are no circumstances for ``assembly/disassembly'' when it would be
safe for any part of the crane, load or load line (including rigging
and lifting accessories) to get closer than the Table A minimum
clearance distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 1407(e) Voltage Information
This proposed section operates in conjunction with proposed Sec.
1926.1407(a)(3). Under proposed Sec. 1926.1407(a)(3), employers who
elect to use Option (3) of Sec. 1926.1407(b) must determine the line's
voltage. Under proposed Sec. 1926.1407(e), where the employer asks the
utility owner/operator for that voltage information, the utility owner/
operator of the line would be required to provide the voltage
information within two working days of the request.
This reflects a belief of the Committee that, in the absence of
such a time limitation on the utility owner/operator, in many instances
Option (3) (proposed Sec. 1926.1407(b)) would not be useful because
the employer would not be able to get the voltage information in
sufficient time to be able to use it. Many employers would rely on the
utility owner/operator to get this information. The Committee was
concerned that an extended delay in getting it would result in
employers, to some extent, doing the work anyway without the
information. Therefore, for Option (3) (proposed Sec. 1926.1407(b)) to
be viable, the Committee believed that a reasonable time limitation for
the utility owner/operator to respond is needed.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ As noted in the introduction, C-DAC included two members
from the electric utility industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believed that two business days would be a reasonable
amount of time to allow the utility owners/operator to respond and be
sufficiently short to be useful to the employer requesting the
information.
In reviewing this provision, the Agency noted that the C-DAC
provision reads:
Voltage information. Where Option (3) is used, owner/operators
of power lines must provide the requested voltage information within
two working days of the employer's request.
In a different context--determining the timeliness of notices of
contest to OSHA citations--OSHA defines ``working days'' to mean
``Mondays through Fridays but shall not include Saturdays, Sundays, or
Federal holidays.'' 29 CFR 1903.22(c). Since the term is already
defined in an OSHA regulation, the Agency would apply the same
definition here unless this rule were to specify a different
definition. Therefore, OSHA solicits comments on whether the phrase
``working days'' should be defined differently for purposes of this
rule than it is in 29 CFR 1903.22(c).
Paragraph 1407(f) Power Lines Presumed Energized
This proposed paragraph would require that employers always assume
that all power lines are energized unless the utility owner/operator
confirms that the power line has been and continues to be deenergized
and visibly grounded at the worksite. This fundamental precaution is
essentially the same as currently in Subpart N at Sec.
1926.550(a)(15)(vi).
Paragraph 1407(g) Posting of Electrocution Warnings
This proposed paragraph would require the posting of electrocution
warnings as follows: One inside the cab in view of the operator and
(except for overhead gantry and tower cranes) at least two on the
outside of the equipment. The Committee believes that these
electrocution warnings are necessary to protect the operator as well as
any employees working in the area around the crane by increasing their
awareness of the hazard. This provision is similar to section 5-
3.4.5.2(d) of ASME B30.5-2004.
Section 1408 Power Line Safety (Up to 350 kV)--Operations
As discussed above with respect to power line safety in assembly/
disassembly, the proposed standard would require the implementation of
a systematic approach to power line safety for crane/derrick
operations. This approach would consist of two basic steps. First, the
employer would need to identify the work zone, assess it for power
lines, and determine how close the crane could get to them. The
employer would have the option of doing this assessment for the area
360 degrees around the crane or for a more limited, demarcated area.
Second, if the assessment showed that the crane could get closer than a
trigger distance--20 feet for lines rated up to 350 kV (50 feet for
lines rated over 350 kV)--then requirements for additional action would
be triggered.
Specifically, unless the power lines were deenergized and grounded,
encroachment prevention measures would have to be implemented to
prevent the crane from breaching a minimum clearance distance. The
employer would be allowed to choose among three minimum clearance
distance options. For example, for lines up to 350kV, the minimum
clearance distance options would be 20 feet, or the distance specified
in Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408) for the line's voltage (Table
A is the ``10 foot rule''; see discussion of Table A below), or a
distance closer than what is specified in Table A.
However, there are limitations to the availability of some of these
options, and the number of mandatory encroachment prevention (and
other) measures increases when using a clearance distance closer than
Table A.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ An employer engaged in subpart V (of 29 CFR part 1926) work
(power transmission and distribution) would also have to comply with
most of these provisions. However, when certain prerequisites are
met, it would be permitted to use the minimum clearance distances in
Subpart V's Table V-1. In addition, where additional prerequisites
are met, it would be permitted to work closer than the Table V-1
distances. These are explained in the discussion of proposed Sec.
1926.1410.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 1408(a) Hazard Assessments and Precautions Inside the Work
Zone
Before beginning crane/derrick operations, the employer would be
required to determine if power lines would pose a hazard. The first
step in this process would be to identify the work zone for which this
hazard assessment will be made (proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)(1)). The
employer would have two options for defining the work zone.
Under the first option (proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)(1)(i)), the
employer would be required to define the work zone by marking
boundaries and prohibiting the operator from operating the equipment
past those boundaries. Examples of how to demarcate the boundaries
include using flags or devices such as a range limit device or range
control warning device. ``Range control warning device'' is defined in
Sec. 1926.1401 as ``a device that can be set by an equipment operator
to warn that the boom or jib tip is at a plane or multiple planes.''
See the explanation
[[Page 59755]]
below of ``range limit device'' at the end of the discussion of this
section.
Employers would not be permitted to use existing landmarks to
demarcate boundaries unless they are marked. For example, a line of
trees would be insufficient. Without anything more the trees would not
signal a reminder to the operator of there being a boundary that must
be maintained. However, adding flags to those trees would be sufficient
because the flags would serve as a reminder that the trees are located
along a boundary that the operator must not breach.
The boundaries must mark the limits of all crane movement. For
example, a work zone could be defined by demarcating boundaries: (1) To
the left and right of the operator, to limit the lateral movement of
the boom, and (2) in front of the operator, in a line connecting the
side boundaries, limiting the boom's radius.
In identifying the work zone, the employer must consider the entire
area in which the crane will need to operate. If the crane will need to
be positioned in more than one spot to accomplish its work, or to
travel with a load, the employer would be required to consider the
total area in which it will need to operate and set the boundaries
accordingly.
The second option for identifying the work zone (proposed Sec.
1926.1408(a)(1)(ii)) would be to define the work zone as the area 360
degrees around the crane, up to the crane's maximum working radius. In
other words, under this option, the work zone would be the area within
a circle, with the crane at the center, and the radius defined by the
maximum working radius of the crane. No boundaries would have to be
marked under this option since the crane would be permitted to operate
in the entire area that it could reach.
Paragraph 1408(a)(2)
Once the employer has identified the work zone according to
proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)(1), it would then be required to make the
power line hazard assessment. Specifically, it must determine if any
part of the crane, load or load line (including rigging and lifting
accessories) could come within a ``trigger'' distance--20 feet of a
power line. This determination must be made based upon the assumption
that the crane would be operated up to its maximum working radius (or,
if a demarcated boundary is closer than the maximum working radius, the
assessment must be made with the assumption that the crane would be
operated up to that boundary).
Even if the employer has no intention of working up to the crane's
maximum radius in the work zone, the assessment must still be made
using this assumption. The Committee believed that this is crucial
since, even if the employer's original intention was not to operate in
that part of the work zone, unexpected events may occur that may lead
the operator to operate the equipment there.
If this 20 foot ``trigger'' determination is positive, then the
employer would be required to take additional steps. Specifically, the
employer would be required to meet the proposed requirements under
either, Option (1), Option (2), or Option (3) of proposed Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ If any part of the crane, load or load line could not come
closer than 20 feet to a power line the employer would not be
required to take any further action under this proposed section.
However, the employer may encounter a situation where it
unexpectedly needs to increase the size of the work zone. This may
occur, for example, as a result of an unanticipated need to change
the crane's position or to have the crane operate beyond the
original work zone boundaries. In such a case the employer would be
required to go back to the first step under proposed Sec.
1926.1408(a)(1), re-identify a work zone and conduct a new 20 foot
``trigger'' assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 1408(a)(2)(i) Option (1)
An employer choosing Option (1) would protect against electrocution
by having the power lines deenergized and visibly grounded at the
worksite. This option would prevent equipment that contacts the power
line from becoming energized. The power line must be ``visibly grounded
at the worksite'' so that the employer can verify, through observation,
that the protection provided by this option remains in place for as
long as the employer continues to rely on it.
Where the employer elects this option, it would not have to
implement any of the encroachment/electrocution prevention measures
listed in proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b). However, some amount of time is
needed to arrange for the utility owner/operator to deenergize and
ground the line. Also, in some instances, especially where the
construction project is small, the cost of deenergizing and grounding
may be a substantial portion of the cost of the project. The Committee
recognized that, in practice, largely because of these factors,
deenergizing and grounding has not been routinely done.
Therefore, the committee believed that providing other safe and
practical options would help to reduce unsafe practices in the
industry. Those other options (Options 2 and 3 in proposed Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) and (iii), discussed below) combined with proposed
Sec. 1926.1408(b) are designed to afford effective protection against
the hazards of electrocution.
Paragraph 1408(a)(2)(ii) Option (2)
Under Option 2 (proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)), the employer
would be required to maintain a minimum clearance distance of 20 feet.
To help ensure that this distance is not breached, the employer would
have to implement the encroachment prevention measures in proposed
Sec. 1926.1407(b). Under this proposed option, no part of the crane,
load or load line, including rigging and lifting accessories, would be
permitted closer than 20 feet to the power line.
Employers using this proposed option would, in most cases, have to
stay further away from the power line than under the existing Subpart
N's 10 foot rule (employers wanting to use the 10 foot rule would have
to use proposed Option 3 (in Sec. 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)). However,
proper application of the 10 foot rule, as a practical matter,
necessitates determining the exact voltage of the power line.\24\ An
advantage of this proposed option to many employers is that they would
not have to determine the exact voltage of the power line (they would
only have to determine that the line is equal to or less than 350 kV).
As a practical matter, since many employers rely on the utility owner/
operator to provide voltage information, this option would save them
that step.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ As discussed above, the 10 foot rule is a scale of voltages
and distances that begins at 10 feet and increases to 20 feet (for
line voltages up to 350kV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believed that, since the minimum clearance distance
would be 20 feet, there would be no diminution of safety under this
option since the maximum possible clearance distance under the current
Subpart N's formula is 20 feet. In fact, in the Committee's experience,
most power lines encountered by most employers have voltages that,
under the current Subpart N's formula, require a minimum clearance
distance of 10 feet. Therefore, use of this option would, in most
cases, result in a higher margin of safety. Employers who do not need
to get closer than 20 feet in order to do their work could use this
option and would be saved the step of obtaining the exact line voltage.
As noted above, in addition to maintaining a minimum clearance
distance of 20 feet, employers using this option would be required to
implement the encroachment prevention and other
[[Page 59756]]
measures specified in proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b).
Paragraph 1408(a)(2)(iii) Option (3)
Under Option 3 (proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)), the employer
would be required to maintain a minimum clearance distance in
accordance with Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408). Under Table A,
depending on the voltage of the power line, the minimum approach
distance ranges from 10 feet to 20 feet.\25\ Under this option the
employer would be required to determine the line's voltage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The range referred to here is the range in the part of the
table that is applicable up to 350kV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a practical matter, in the Committee's experience, the power
lines most typically encountered by most employers have a minimum
clearance distance of 10 feet under Table A. As a result, employers
could usually work closer to the lines under this option than under
Option 2 (proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)). Table A in essence is
based upon the same formula as is currently used in existing Subpart N.
Therefore, the minimum clearance distance would be similar under Option
3 (in proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)) as under the existing
requirements.
The information in Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408) of the
proposed rule is similar to information in Table 1 of ASME B30.5-2004.
The Committee believed that a table with specified clearance distances
is more understandable than the formula set out in the existing Subpart
N requirements. Proposed Table A is intended to be a clear way of
conveying the minimum clearance distances.
The enhanced safety that would result under this option would stem
from the fact that, first, there would be an affirmative obligation on
the employer to determine the power line voltage so that the correct
Table A minimum clearance distance could be determined. Second, in
addition to maintaining the minimum clearance distance specified in the
Table, employers using this option would be required to implement the
encroachment prevention and other measures specified in proposed Sec.
1926.1408(b).
In reviewing C-DAC's draft of this provision, the Agency realized
that C-DAC inadvertently failed to explicitly state that the Table A
minimum clearance distance must not be breached. Therefore, OSHA has
modified proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)(2) to correct this error. The last
sentence of the C-DAC language has been expanded to read as follows:
If so, then the employer must follow the requirements in
paragraph (b) to ensure that no part of the crane, load line, or
load (including rigging and lifting accessories), gets closer to the
line than the minimum clearance distance.
Paragraph 1408(b) Preventing Encroachment/Electrocution
Once the employer has determined that some part of the crane, load
or load line could come within the work zone assessment trigger
distance of 20 feet of a power line (see proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)),
if it chooses either Option (2) or (3) (of proposed Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) and (iii)), it would be required to implement
encroachment prevention measures to help ensure that the applicable
minimum approach distance (20 feet under Option 2 or the Table A (of
proposed Sec. 1926.1408) distance under Option 3 is not breached.\26\
Most of the measures in this proposed paragraph are designed to help
the employer maintain the appropriate distance and thereby prevent
electrical contact while operating the equipment. Some of the measures
are designed to prevent electrocution in the event of electrical
contact. The committee believed these proposed requirements would add
layers of protection to help keep employees safe from energized power
lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Alternatively, under Option (1) of proposed Sec.
1926.1408(a)(i), the employer could have the lines deenergized and
grounded. If Option (1) were selected, no further action under this
section would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 1408(b)(1)
Under proposed 1408(b)(1) the employer would be required to conduct
a planning meeting with the operator and other workers who will be in
the area of the crane or load. This planning meeting must include
reviewing the location of the power line(s) and the steps that will be
implemented to prevent encroachment and electrocution.
As discussed below, under this proposed paragraph, certain
encroachment/electrocution prevention measures would be required (they
are listed in proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(1) through (3)). In addition,
the employer would be required to select at least one additional
measure from the list in proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4). In the
planning meeting, the employer would be required to make that selection
and review all the measures that will be used to comply with this
section. The purpose of this proposed requirement is to ensure that the
operator and other workers who will be in the area understand these
measures and how they will be implemented. That understanding is
important to their successful implementation. Because of the critical
nature of these measures, and the seriousness of the consequences to
the safety of the employees if they are not implemented correctly, the
Committee believed that it is necessary for there to be a structured
process by which the employer communicates this information.
Paragraph 1408(b)(2)
Proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(2) would require that where tag lines
are used they must be non-conductive. This provision would provide
additional protection to those employees who would be exposed to
electrical hazards in the event that the equipment, load line, tag line
or load contacts a power line and the tag line they are holding becomes
energized.
Paragraph 1408(b)(3)
Proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(3) would require elevated: Warning
lines, barricades or line of signs, in view of the crane operator
equipped with flags or similar high-visibility markings, at 20 feet
from the power line (if using Option (2) (of proposed Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)) or at the minimum approach distance under Table A
(if using Option (3) (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)). This
provision is designed to serve as a reminder to the operator that there
are power lines with associated minimum clearance distances that must
be met. Warning lines, barricades or a line of signs in the operator's
view equipped with high-visibility markings would also indicate to the
operator where the minimum approach distance boundary is located. This
would serve as one of two layers of protection (the second layer would
consist of an additional means selected by the employer under proposed
Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4), discussed below).
C-DAC discussed and ultimately rejected the idea of permitting a
visual line on the ground which would mark the minimum approach
distance because an operator would generally not notice or see a line
on the ground and because, from where the operator sits, it would be
particularly difficult for the operator to extrapolate from that line
the location of the boundary in the air. The committee decided that
these visual reminders need to be elevated, or as the proposed
definition states, sufficiently elevated from the ground level to
accurately enable the operator to judge the distance between the load,
load line (including rigging and lifting
[[Page 59757]]
accessories) or crane and the boundary marked by the elevated warning
line.
In reviewing the C-DAC draft of this provision, OSHA realized that
there may be situations where the employer would not be able to place
such a line so that it would be visible to the operator. In such a
case, in order to have two layers of protection, it would be necessary
to require that a dedicated spotter be used in addition to one of the
other (non-spotter) methods described below in proposed Sec.
1926.1408(b)(4). Therefore, OSHA is planning on modifying this proposed
provision by adding the following after the last sentence in proposed
Sec. 1926.1408(b)(3):
If the operator is unable to see the elevated warning line, a
dedicated spotter must be used as described in Sec.
1926.1408(b)(4)(ii) in addition to implementing either the measure
described in Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4)(i), (iii), (iv) or (v).
The Agency requests public comment on this issue.
Paragraph 1408(b)(4)
This proposed section sets out a list of five prevention measures,
from which the employer would be required to select at least one, when
the employer elects to use either Option (2) or Option (3) under Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2). In the Committee's experience, the use of any one of
these measures, in combination with the required measures listed
elsewhere in proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b), would be feasible and
effective in protecting against encroachment/electrocution. The first
four measures are methods for encroachment prevention. The fifth
measure is a method of electrocution prevention in the event of
electrical contact with a power line. Specifically, the employer would
be required to choose either: (i) A proximity alarm; (ii) the use of a
dedicated spotter; (iii) a device that automatically warns the operator
when to stop (i.e., a range control warning device); (iv) a device that
automatically limits the range of movement of the equipment; or (v) an
insulating link/device.
C-DAC believed that allowing the employer to choose from a variety
of options for this second layer of protection would allow the employer
to select a method that it believed would be suitable, would increase
the likelihood of employer compliance and would be an effective
approach to reducing power line related injuries and fatalities.
In situations where an employer chooses the option of using a
dedicated spotter, the employer would be required to meet the proposed
requirements for spotters in proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii). As
specified in proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(A), the spotter would
have to be equipped with a visual aid to assist in identifying the
minimum clearance distance. The Committee concluded that a visual aid
is needed for the spotter because of the difficulty in visualizing the
minimum clearance distance boundary in the air (as discussed above).
In the C-DAC version of this paragraph, examples of visual aids
included a line painted on the ground, a clearly visible line of
stanchions or a set of line-of-sight landmarks. An example of a clearly
visible set of line-of-sight landmarks would be a fence post positioned
behind the dedicated spotter and a building corner ahead of the
spotter.
In reviewing C-DAC's draft of this provision, the Agency noted that
that the stanchions and landmarks would have to be ``clearly visible,''
but that this language was not used with respect to the example of a
painted line on the ground. Since all such visual aids would have to be
clearly visible to be effective, and that was the evident intent of C-
DAC, the Agency has modified the C-DAC language so that, in the
proposed provision, all the listed examples would have to be ``clearly
visible.'' This revision was also made in proposed Sec.
1926.1407(b)(3)(i)(A).
Under proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(B)-(D), the spotter would
have to be positioned so that he/she can effectively gauge the
clearance distance from the power line; the spotter, where necessary,
must use equipment that enables him/her to communicate directly with
the equipment operator; and the spotter must give timely information to
the operator so that the required clearance distance can be maintained.
C-DAC believed that each criterion is needed for the spotter to be able
to be effective.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4)(iii) would give the employer the
option of using a device that automatically warns the operator when to
stop movement, such as a range control warning device. Such a device
must be set to give the operator sufficient warning to prevent
encroachment. ``Range control warning device''defined in Sec.
1926.1401 as ``a device that can be set by an equipment operator to
warn that the boom or jib tip is at a plane or multiple planes.'' For
example: an employer has chosen the option of maintaining a 20 foot
distance from the power line. Under proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4), it
has chosen to use a range control warning device to help maintain that
distance. The device would have to be set to alert the operator in time
to prevent the boom, load line or load (which ever is closest to the
line) from breaching that 20 foot distance. As a practical matter, the
device would have to be set to sound the warning more than 20 feet from
the line, since the operator will need some time to react and to
account for the momentum of the equipment, load line and load.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1408 (b)(4)(iv) would give the employer the
option of using a device that automatically limits the equipment's
range of motion and is set to prevent encroachment. Such a device could
be particularly suitable for tower cranes, for which the swing angle
can be programmed so that the operator cannot move the boom or jib past
a certain range. The Committee recognized that it may be more
technically difficult to apply swing limitation devices for use in
mobile cranes but believed that the technology may develop so that they
could be used in such cranes.
As noted above, the insulating link option that would be available
under proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4)(v) would not protect against
encroachment but would provide protection to employees handling the
load against electrocution in the event encroachment did occur. Such a
device would have to be installed between the end of the load line and
the load. When so installed, it prevents the load from becoming
energized in the event the load line or other part of the equipment
makes electrical contact with a power line. Preventing the load from
becoming energized helps protect riggers, who often guide crane loads
manually and who are therefore at high risk of being electrocuted if a
load becomes energized.
As stated in proposed Sec. 1926.1401, ``Insulating link/device''
would be defined as ``an insulating device that has been listed,
labeled, or accepted by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory in
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.7.'' This proposed definition reflects the
Committee's concern that there be some assurance that the insulating
link/device would work as intended. That assurance would be
accomplished by requiring that such link/device be approved by a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory.
Paragraph 1408(b)(5)
Employers engaged in construction of electric transmission and
distribution lines, which is regulated by 29 CFR part 1926 subpart V
(Sec. Sec. 1926.950 through 960), would also have to meet the
requirements in proposed Sec. 1926.1408, with several exceptions.
First, in accordance with proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(5), work
involving
[[Page 59758]]
cranes/derricks that is covered by Subpart V would not be required to
comply with the proposed requirements in Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4). Subpart
V applies to the construction of electric transmission and distribution
lines and equipment, which includes the alteration, conversion, and
improvement of existing lines and equipment. Thus, when employees are
engaged in Subpart V work near energized lines, by the nature of the
job, their full attention is on the power lines.
Subpart V contains additional requirements to protect those
employees against making electrical contact with the lines. These
include requirements in Sec. 1926.950(c) for guarding the line or
using insulation (such as insulating gloves) to prevent electrical
contact. Non-Subpart V workers, by contrast, do not work directly with
the lines, and their attention is primarily directed elsewhere. In view
of these differences, the Committee believed that the protective
measures listed in proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4) were not necessary
for Subpart V work.
Second, as explained below in the discussion of proposed Sec.
1926.1410, when certain prerequisites are met, the employer would be
permitted to use the minimum clearance distances in Subpart V's Table
V-1. Also explained in that discussion is that where additional
prerequisites are met, work would be permitted closer than the Table V-
1 distances.
Third, an employer engaged in Subpart V work would not be subject
to the restrictions regarding operations below power lines, as
explained in the discussion below of proposed Sec. 1926.1408(d).
Paragraph 1408(c) Voltage Information
This proposed section operates in conjunction with proposed Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2)(iii) (Option 3--Table A clearance). Where an employer
elects to use Option (3) (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)), it
would be required under proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)(A) to
determine the voltage of the power lines. Under proposed Sec.
1926.1408(c), utility owners/operators of these lines must provide the
requested voltage information within two working days of the request.
The Committee believed that for Option (3) (of proposed Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)) to be viable, a reasonable time limit for the
utility owner/operator to respond is needed. Employers must generally
rely on the utility owner/operator to provide the voltage of the power
line. The Committee was concerned that an extended delay in obtaining
the information would lead some employers to do the work anyway without
the information. The committee believed that two business days would be
a reasonable amount of time to allow the utility owners/operator to
respond and be sufficiently short to be useful to the employer
requesting the information.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ As noted in the introduction, C-DAC included a member from
the electric utility industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above with respect to proposed Sec. 1926.1407(e), the
Agency would interpret ``working days'' to mean Monday through Friday,
excluding federal holidays, unless this rule contains a different
definition, and is asking for comment on whether a different definition
should be included in the rule.
Paragraph 1408(d) Operations Below Power Lines
The Committee believed that there is a substantially enhanced
likelihood of breaching the applicable minimum clearance distance when
a crane operates below a power line. This is due to several factors,
including the greater difficulty of judging the distance to the line
when the line is above the equipment and the fact that in most such
situations the operator has to purposely look up to see the line (and
therefore is more likely to forget its location or that it is there).
This proposed section addresses this problem by prohibiting any
part of a crane, load or load line (including rigging and lifting
accessories) from being below a power line unless the employer has
confirmed with the utility owner/operator that the power line is
deenergized and visibly grounded at the worksite or unless the employer
can demonstrate that it meets one of the four exceptions in proposed
Sec. 1926.1408(d)(2).
The first exception, Sec. 1926.1408(d)(2)(i), is that the work the
employer is doing is covered by 29 CFR part 1926 subpart V. Subpart V
work involves work on the power line itself and commonly requires
equipment to operate below a power line. As explained above with
respect to proposed paragraph Sec. 1926.1408(b)(5), Subpart V work
does not require all of the precautions required of other work because
the full attention of the workers is directed at the power line. The
Committee believed that the other precautions required during Subpart V
work would provide adequate protection when equipment operates below
power lines during Subpart V work.
The second exception, Sec. 1926.1408(d)(2)(ii), would be for
equipment with non-extensible booms and the third exception, Sec.
1926.1408(d)(2)(iii), would be for equipment with articulating or
extensible booms. These exceptions would apply when the boom, either at
its most vertical point (for non-extensible booms) or at its fullest
extension (for extensible booms), will be more than 20 feet below the
plane of the power line or more than the Table A (of proposed Sec.
1926.1408) minimum clearance distance below the plane of the power
line. Where this criterion is met, it is not possible for the minimum
clearance distance to be breached.
The last exception, Sec. 1926.1408(d)(2)(iv), is where the
employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible to comply with proposed
Sec. 1926.1408(d)(1), which prohibits any part of a crane, load or
load line from being below a power line unless the line is deenergized
and visibly grounded. Under this proposed exception, the employer must
not only show that compliance with Sec. 1926.1408(d)(1) is infeasible,
it must also comply with the requirements in proposed Sec. 1926.1410.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1410 governs equipment operations closer than the
Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408) minimum approach distances. The
Committee believed that in such instances those additional protective
measures are needed to prevent the minimum clearance distance
established under proposed Sec. 1926.1410(c) from being breached and
to protect the employees in the event of electrical contact with the
power line.
Paragraph 1408(e) Power Lines Presumed Energized
This proposed paragraph would require employers to assume that all
power lines are energized unless the utility owner/operator confirms
that the power line has been and continues to be deenergized and
visibly grounded at the worksite. This fundamental precaution is
essentially the same as currently in Subpart N at Sec.
1926.550(a)(15)(vi).
Paragraph 1408(f)
Proposed paragraph (f) addresses the danger that employees could
receive electrical shock from equipment that is operating near a
transmission or communication tower. During such operation, the
equipment could act as an antenna and become energized by the
electromagnetic signal emitted by the tower. When the equipment is
close enough for an electrical charge to be induced in the equipment or
load, proposed Sec. 1926.1408(f) would require the transmitter to be
deenergized or the following precautions taken: the
[[Page 59759]]
equipment must be grounded, and non-conductive rigging or an insulating
link/device must be used.
Currently, Subpart N, at Sec. 1926.550(a)(15)(vii), requires that
when equipment is close enough to a transmission tower for an
electrical charge to be induced, the equipment must be grounded and a
ground jumper cable must connect the load to the equipment. In
addition, nonconductive poles having large alligator clips or other
similar protection must be used to connect the ground jumper cable to
the load. By connecting the load to the grounded equipment, any
electrical charge induced in the load will be dissipated. In the
Committee's experience, this precaution is neither necessary nor
commonly taken. The Committee believed that the proposal's requirement
for nonconductive rigging or an insulating link reflects current safe
industry practice.
OSHA notes that the requirement for nonconductive rigging or an
insulating link in proposed Sec. 1926.1408(f) is a fundamentally
different approach than requiring a ground jumper cable to be used as
specified in current Sec. 1926.550(a)(15)(vii). The latter connects
the load to the equipment and grounds the load, while proposed
paragraph (f) would insulate the load from the equipment. It appears
that only an employee who is contacting the load would be affected by
this provision. The Agency requests public comment on the following
questions: (1) Is it necessary to take special precautions to ground
the equipment to protect an employee who contacts the equipment? (2)
Are employees best protected by proposed paragraph (f), by current
Subpart N, or by some other means, such as requiring that they only
handle the load with an insulated tag line or other means of
insulation?
Paragraph 1408(g) Training
During C-DAC discussions, members stressed the importance of
providing appropriate training to operators and their crew regarding
power line safety. The Committee believed that training is a necessary
component in reducing crane related fatalities.
The training topics listed are designed to ensure that both the
operator and the other crew members have the information they need to
protect themselves from power line hazards.
The Committee believed that training for power line safety should
not be limited to operators because any crew member who is near the
equipment is potentially at risk of electrocution.
The Agency notes that proposed Sec. 1926.1408(g) does not address
the timing and frequency of this training. OSHA requests public comment
on whether and, if so, how the standard should address training timing
and frequency.
In addition, proposed Sec. 1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(E) would requiring
training in the need to avoid approaching or touching ``the
equipment.'' OSHA believes that C-DAC inadvertently failed to add the
phrase ``and the load'' to this provision, since whenever the equipment
is in electrical contact with a power line, the load may also be
energized. OSHA requests public comment on whether this provision
should be modified to correct this omission.
Paragraph 1408(h)
This proposed provision would require that where devices originally
designed by the manufacturer for use as safety devices, operational
aids, or a means to prevent power line contact or electrocution are
used to comply with proposed Sec. 1926.1408, they must meet the
manufacturer's procedures for use and conditions of use. The Committee
believed that this provision is necessary to ensure that the devices
will work as intended.
OSHA notes that Sec. 1926.1408 uses the term ``range limit
device'' in Sec. 1926.1408(a)(1)(i) but that no definition of this
term is provided in Sec. 1926.1401. OSHA believes that C-DAC
understood a range limit device to be a device that physically limits
how far a crane can boom out and the angle within which the boom can
swing. OSHA requests public comment on whether a definition of ``range
limit device'' should be added to Sec. 1926.1401 and, if so, whether
the definition in this paragraph is appropriate.
Section 1409 Power Line Safety (Over 350 kV)
Under this proposed section, the requirements in proposed
Sec. Sec. 1926.1407 and 1926.1408 would apply to power lines rated
over 350 kV in all respects except one: wherever the regulatory text
states ``20 feet,'' ``50 feet'' is substituted. Therefore, the
``trigger'' distance that would be used when assessing the work zone
would be 50 feet. In addition, an employer engaged in assembly/
disassembly that is using Option 2 of proposed Sec. 1926.1407 (a)(2),
or an employer engaged in crane operations that is using Option 2 of
proposed Sec. 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii), would be required to maintain a
minimum clearance distance of 50 feet. This would apply to all power
lines rated over 350 kV, including power lines over 1,000 kV.
For power lines over 1,000 kilovolts, employers electing to use
Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408 in either assembly/disassembly
(Option 3 in proposed Sec. 1926.1407(a)(3)) or crane operations
(Option 3 in proposed Sec. 1926.1408 (a)(2)(iii) would be required,
pursuant to instructions in the Table, to maintain a minimum clearance
distance determined by the utility owner/operator or a registered
professional engineer who is a qualified person with respect to
electrical power transmission and distribution.
In reviewing this regulatory language, OSHA recognized that a
minimum clearance distance of 50 feet may be inadequate for the open-
ended category of ``over 1,000 kV.'' In fact, at some point in that
range, a utility owner/operator or a registered professional engineer
may well specify a minimum clearance distance of more than 50 feet.
However, as currently drafted, employers using Option 2 (in both
proposed Sec. 1926.1407(a)(2) and Sec. 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)) would
only have to maintain a minimum clearance distance of 50 feet. OSHA
requests public comment on whether Option 2 is insufficiently
protective for power lines rated over 1,000 kV.
Section 1410 Power Line Safety (All Voltages)--Crane Operations Closer
Than the Table A Zone
The existing Subpart N requirements do not permit work closer than
the 10 foot rule.\28\ The only exceptions to the 10 foot rule are where
the lines are deenergized and visibly grounded or where insulating
barriers, separate from the equipment, have been erected. However, the
Committee recognized that many employers, without meeting the
exceptions, nonetheless work closer than the 10 foot rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ As described earlier, the ``10 foot rule'' is shorthand for
the formula in existing 29 CFR 1926, Subpart N for minimum clearance
distances. Under the 10 foot rule, for lines rated 50 kV or less,
work is not permitted closer than 10 feet to an energized power
line. For lines rated more than 50 kV, a clearance of 10 feet plus
.4 inch for each 1 kV over 50 kV is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the Committee believed that most employers do not use
the option to deenergize and ground because of the time, expense and
difficulty in making those arrangements. In addition, the Committee
concluded that an ``insulating barrier'' of the type that is currently
available does not, by itself, adequately protect employees because
these barriers are only effective for ``brush'' contact. If there is
more than brush contact, they will not protect employees from
electrocution because the equipment will pierce the device.
[[Page 59760]]
In order to address the insufficient protections provided to
employees who work closer than the 10 foot rule, the Committee
developed a new approach, which is contained in proposed Sec.
1926.1410. It consists of prerequisites and criteria that would apply
when work must be conducted closer than the minimum clearance distance
specified in Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408). The Committee
believed that these provisions would be both realistic and effective
for safely working in these circumstances.
This proposed section starts out by explicitly prohibiting
equipment from operating closer than the distances specified in Table A
(of proposed Sec. 1926.1408) of an energized power line except where
the employer demonstrates compliance with the requirements in proposed
Sec. 1926.1410.
Note that, in the discussion below of proposed Sec. 1926.1410,
references to a ``registered professional engineer'' are, in accordance
with proposed Sec. 1926.1410(c)(1), references to a registered
professional engineer who is a qualified person with respect to
electrical power transmission and distribution.
Paragraphs 1410(a) and (b)
These proposed paragraphs set forth prerequisites that must be met
for the employer to be permitted to operate equipment closer to a power
line than the applicable Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408)
distance. Proposed Sec. 1926.1410(a) would require the employer to
determine that it is infeasible to do the work without breaching the
minimum approach distance under Table A. If the employer determines it
is infeasible to maintain the Table A distance, under proposed Sec.
1926.1410(b) it would also have to determine, after consulting with the
utility owner/operator, that deenergizing and grounding the power line,
as well as relocating the line, are infeasible.
Paragraph 1410(c) Minimum Clearance Distance
After the employer makes the infeasibility determinations required
by proposed Sec. 1926.1410(a) and (b), a minimum clearance distance
would have to be established. Under proposed Sec. 1926.1410(c)(1), the
employer can establish this distance by either having the utility
owner/operator determine the minimum clearance distance that must be
maintained or by having a registered professional engineer who is a
qualified person with respect to electrical transmission and
distribution determine the minimum clearance distance that must be
maintained. The Committee believed that either of these sources of this
information has sufficient expertise to accurately apply the factors
discussed below in setting an appropriate minimum clearance distance.
Under proposed Sec. 1926.1410(c)(1), regardless of whether it is
the utility owner/operator or a registered professional engineer that
makes this determination, several factors must be considered when
establishing the minimum clearance distance. These factors include, but
are not limited to: Conditions affecting atmospheric conductivity; time
necessary to bring the equipment, load and load line (including rigging
and lifting accessories) to a complete stop; wind conditions; degree of
sway in the power line; lighting conditions, and other conditions
affecting the ability to prevent electrical contact.
Under proposed Sec. 1926.1410(c)(2), the proposed requirement in
Sec. 1926.1410(c)(1) described above would not apply to work covered
by part 1926 subpart V. Instead, the minimum clearance distance
specified in Sec. 1926.950 Table V-1 would apply. This proposed
paragraph, along with the other proposed provisions affecting work
covered by Subpart V, are discussed below at the end of the portion of
this preamble addressing proposed Sec. 1926.1410.
Paragraph 1410(d)
Once a minimum clearance distance has been established, under
proposed Sec. 1926.1410(b) the employer would be required to have a
planning meeting with either the owner/operator of the power line or
the registered professional engineer to determine what procedures will
be implemented to prevent electrical contact and electrocution. In
accordance with proposed Sec. 1926.1410(e), these procedures would
have to be documented and immediately available on-site. In addition,
in accordance with proposed Sec. 1926.1410(f) and (g), these
procedures would have to be reviewed with the operator and other
workers who will be in the area of the equipment and the procedures
must be implemented (proposed Sec. 1926.1410(e)-(g) are discussed
below).
Proposed Sec. 1926.1410(d) sets out the minimum protective
measures which would have to be included in the procedures set by the
employer and utility owner/operator (or registered professional
engineer). The committee believed that these procedures need to include
more stringent protective measures than those set out in proposed Sec.
1926.1408, because equipment will be in closer proximity to power lines
and there would otherwise be a greater risk of contacting a power line
and causing electrocution. Therefore, these procedures would have to
include, at the minimum, the following:
Paragraph 1410(d)(1)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(1), for power lines that are equipped
with a device that automatically reenergizes the circuit in the event
of a power line contact, the automatic reclosing feature of the circuit
interrupting device must be made inoperative prior to beginning work.
This would help ensure that, in the event of a power line contact and
activation of the automatic reclosing feature, the line would not be
automatically re-energized.
Paragraph 1410(d)(2)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(2), a dedicated spotter who is in
continuous contact with the operator would have to be used. In
addition, the dedicated spotter must be equipped with a visual aid to
assist in identifying the minimum clearance distance, must be
positioned to effectively gauge the clearance distance, where necessary
must use equipment that enables him or her to communicate directly with
the operator, and the spotter must give timely information to the
operator so the required clearance distance can be maintained. The need
for a spotter meeting this criteria is explained above in the
discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii).
Paragraph 1410(d)(3)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(3), an elevated warning line, or
barricade that is not attached to the equipment, positioned to prevent
electrical contact, would have to be used. This warning line or
barricade must be in view of the operator either directly or by use of
video equipment and must be equipped with flags or similar high-
visibility markings. The need for an elevated warning line or barricade
is explained above in the discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(3).
As discussed above in relation to proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(3),
there may be situations where the operator is not able to see an
elevated warning line or barricade. To address such situations, under
proposed Sec. 1926.1408 or Sec. 1926.1409, OSHA is planning to change
the regulatory text so that the employer would be required to use both
a dedicated spotter and one of the other (non-spotter) measures listed
in proposed Sec. 1926.1408(b)(4). Here, when working closer than the
Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408) clearance
[[Page 59761]]
distance, C-DAC believed it is necessary to provide an additional layer
of protection by requiring the use of video equipment to enable the
operator to see the warning line or barricade. Therefore, in all cases
when working closer than the Table A clearance distance, the operator
will have ``two sets of eyes'' (in addition to other protection
required under this proposed section) to ensure that the equipment
maintains the minimum clearance distance established under proposed
Sec. 1926.1410(c).
As explained in, Subpart V-working closer than Table A, that
follows the discussion of Sec. 1926.1410(k), this provision would not
apply to subpart V work.
Paragraph 1410(d)(4) Insulating Link/Device
Under proposed paragraph (d)(4), an insulating link/device would
have to be installed at a point between the end of the load line (or
below) and the load. An insulating link is a barrier to the passage of
electrical current. When used on a crane, it prevents the load from
becoming energized if the boom or the load line makes electrical
contact with a power line. In such situations it protects employees who
make contact with the load or are holding a tag line.
As explained in, Subpart V-working closer than Table A, that
follows the discussion of Sec. 1926.1410(k), this requirement to
install an insulating link/device would only apply when working closer
than the Sec. 1926.950 Table V-1 clearance distances.
Paragraph 1410(d)(5)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(5), if the rigging may be closer than
the Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408) distance during the
operation, it would be required to be non-conductive rigging. This
would provide protection to those employees who would be exposed to
electrical hazards in the event that the rigging contacts a power line,
which otherwise could energize the rigging and the load.
Paragraph 1410(d)(6)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(6), if the crane is equipped with a
device that automatically limits range of movement, it would have to be
used and set to prevent any part of the crane, load or load line
(including rigging and lifting accessories) from breaching the minimum
approach distance established under proposed paragraph (c) of Sec.
1926.1410.
Paragraph 1410(d)(7)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(7), if a tag line is used it would
have to be non-conductive. This requirement would provide additional
protection to those employees who would be exposed to electrical
hazards in the event that the equipment contacts a power line and the
tag line they are holding becomes energized, or in the event that the
tag line makes contact with the power line.
Paragraph 1410(d)(8)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(8), barricades would have to be used
to form a perimeter at least 10 feet away from the equipment to prevent
unauthorized personnel from entering the work area. In areas where
obstacles prevent the barricade from being at least 10 feet away, the
barricade would be required to be as far from the equipment as
feasible. This provision, along with proposed Sec. 1926.1410(d)(9) and
(d)(10), would minimize the likelihood that any more employees than are
absolutely necessary to the operation would be near the equipment in
the event the equipment, load or load line makes electrical contact
with the power line.
Paragraph 1410(d)(9)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(9), employees other than the operator
would be prohibited from touching the load line above the insulating
link/device and equipment. It is the Agency's understanding that the
Committee's rationale for not extending this prohibition to the
operator is that the operator, by being in the cab, is going to be in
electrical contact with both the equipment and load line. However, this
assumes that the operator is in fact standing or sitting on the
equipment. There may be some situations where this is not the case. For
example, some equipment may be operated by pendant control or wireless
control; in such cases the operator need not be on the equipment to
control it. OSHA requests public comment on this issue.
Paragraph 1410(d)(10)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(10), only personnel essential to the
operation would be permitted to be in the area of the equipment and the
load. In conjunction with proposed Sec. 1926.1410(d)(8) and (d)(9),
this would minimize the likelihood that any more employees than are
absolutely necessary to the operation would be near the equipment in
the event the equipment, load or load line makes electrical contact
with the power line.
Paragraph 1410(d)(11)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(11), the equipment would be required
to be properly grounded. In the event the equipment inadvertently makes
electrical contact with the power line, proper grounding would protect
employees in two ways. First, if the line is equipped with a circuit
interrupting device, the grounding will result in a current surge that
will trip the device and deenergize the line. Second, in the event an
employee on the ground is touching the equipment when it contacts the
power line, proper grounding will reduce the danger to the employee by
providing an alternative, low resistance path to ground for the
electric current.
In reviewing this proposed paragraph, OSHA has identified what
appears to be a conflict between this proposed provision and a
provision in Subpart V's Sec. 1926.952(c)(2)(iii) regarding grounding
of equipment. This issue is explained under the heading, Subpart V
work--working closer than Table V-1, that follows the discussion of
Sec. 1926.1410(k).
Paragraph 1410(d)(12)
Under proposed paragraph (d)(12), insulating line hoses or cover-
ups would be required to be installed by the utility owner/operator
except where such devices are unavailable for the line voltages
involved. The Committee noted that Subpart N, at Sec. 1926.550(a)(15),
currently allows such insulating barriers to be used as a complete
alternative to deenergizing and grounding or to maintaining the
applicable minimum clearance distance from the power line. However, the
Committee believed that such insulating devices do not provide complete
protection because they can be pierced if the equipment makes more than
brushing contact with the device. However, the Committee believed that
these insulating devices do provide protection if there is brushing
contact and that such devices are useful to supplement the other
protective measures provided by the requirements of this proposed Sec.
1926.1410(d).
Paragraph 1410(e)
Under proposed paragraph (e), the procedures that are developed to
comply with proposed Sec. 1926.1410(d) would have to be documented and
immediately available on-site. This would ensure that these procedures
are available to be used as a reference while the work is in progress.
Paragraph 1410(f)
Under proposed paragraph (f), the equipment user and utility owner/
operator would be required to meet with
[[Page 59762]]
the equipment operator and the other employees who will be in the area
of the equipment or load to review the procedures that are developed
under proposed Sec. 1926.1410(d) to prevent a breach of the minimum
clearance distance established under proposed Sec. 1926.1410(c). The
Committee believed that it is important that this review take place so
that the operator and other employees understand this critical
information and have the opportunity to discuss the procedures with the
utility owner/operator, who has a high level of expertise regarding the
power lines.
Paragraphs 1410(g) and (h)
Under proposed paragraphs (g) and (h), the employer would be
required to implement the procedures developed in accordance with
proposed Sec. 1926.1410(d). The utility owner/operator and all
employers of the employees involved in the work would have to identify
one person who will direct the implementation of the procedures. This
person would have to direct the implementation of the procedures and
have the authority to stop work at any time to ensure safety.
The Committee believed that, in view of the fact that more than one
employer is typically involved in these situations, coordination among
the employers of these employees is needed for the protective measures
to be effectively implemented. Once the operation is underway, safety-
related orders typically need to be given and followed without delay.
Since an employee of one employer typically would not immediately
follow an instruction from another employer, it is necessary that,
before these operations begin, all employees understand that the one
designated person will have this authority. For these reasons, the
Committee believed that there needs to be one person who all involved
in the operation recognize as having this role and authority.
Paragraph 1410(i). [Reserved.] This paragraph would be reserved
because it is inconvenient for readers to determine whether ``(i)'' is
being used as a letter or a roman numeral.
Paragraph 1410(j)
This proposed provision would require the employer to safely stop
operations if a problem occurs with implementing the procedures in
paragraph (d) or if there is an indication that those procedures are
inadequate to prevent electrocution. In addition, this proposed
provision would require that the employer either develop new procedures
which comply with paragraph (d) or contact the utility owner/operator
and have them deenergize and visibly ground or relocate the power
line(s) before resuming operations.
Paragraph 1410(k)
This proposed provision would require that where a device
originally designed by the manufacturer for use as a safety device,
operational aid, or a means to prevent power line contact or
electrocution is used to comply with proposed Sec. 1926.1410 it must
meet the manufacturer's procedures for use and conditions of use. The
Committee believed that this provision is necessary to ensure that the
devices will work as intended.
Subpart V Work--Working Closer Than Table A
In considering the circumstances under which work closer than the
Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408) distances would be permitted, C-
DAC recognized that it was necessary to address the special
circumstances of power line work covered by 29 CFR 1926 subpart V. That
subpart applies to the erection of new electric transmission and
distribution lines and equipment, and the alteration, conversion, and
improvement of existing transmission and distribution lines and
equipment.
Currently, under subparts V and N of part 1926, employers engaged
in subpart V work are not required to comply with the ``10 foot rule.''
Instead, with some exceptions, they are required to maintain the
minimum clearance distances specified in subpart V's Table V-1.\29\
Table V-1 has minimum clearance distances that are less than the ``10
foot rule'' (and, therefore, less than the proposed rule's Table A
distances). As discussed below, under this proposed standard, employers
engaged in subpart V work would continue to be permitted to use the
Table V-1 minimum clearance distances. However, C-DAC believed that
additional protection is needed for these workers. Therefore, this
proposed rule includes new prerequisites and criteria that must be met
before the Table V-1 minimum clearance distances could be used.\30\ The
Committee believed that it is appropriate for employers using equipment
for subpart V of part 1926 activities to work closer than the Table A
(of proposed Sec. 1926.1408) distances only where the prerequisites
and criteria for doing so set out in proposed Sec. 1926.1410, which
are applicable to all employers, are met. Therefore, for subpart V
work, the employer would be required to maintain the clearance
distances in Table A except where the employer demonstrates
infeasibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Since C-DAC developed its consensus document, OSHA has
proposed t amend part 1926 subpart V by, among other things,
replacing Table V-1. 70 FR 34821 (June 15, 2005). If OSHA issues a
final rule modifying Subpart V before issuing a final rule based on
this proposal, OSHA will take into account any modifications to
Subpart V, including Table V-1, in drafting this final rule.
\30\ The only exceptions to the application of this proposed
rule to subpart V of part 1926 V of part 1926 work are those
contained in Sec. Sec. 1926.1407-1411; all other aspects of the
proposed rule would apply. This is consistent with the current
Subpart V, for Sec. 1926.952(c) of Subpart V requires equipment
operating near power lines to comply with the current cranes and
derricks standard in Subpart N. Therefore, the portion of the
current Sec. 1926.952(c) that requires equipment operating near
power lines to comply with the cranes and derricks standard would be
retained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, it would be required to implement most of the
protective measures required by this proposed standard. As discussed
above, Subpart V work would not be subject to the requirement for an
additional protective measure from the list in proposed Sec.
1926.1408(b)(4). The Committee believed that, with certain exceptions
explained below, such additional measure would not be necessary for
such work. Also, subpart V work would not be subject to the prohibition
in proposed Sec. 1926.1408(d)(1) against equipment operating under
power lines (see discussion above of proposed paragraph 1408(d)(2)(i)).
However, when, as will often be the case, it is not feasible to
maintain the Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408) distances for
subpart V work, under proposed Sec. 1926.1410(c)(2), the clearance
distances in Table V-1 would normally apply. The Committee concluded
that it was not necessary to require employers engaged in subpart V
work to undertake the process in proposed Sec. 1926.1410(c)(1) for
establishing a minimum clearance distance when it is infeasible to
comply with the Table A (of proposed Sec. 1926.1408) clearances. The
existing clearance distances for subpart V work found in Table V-1
recognize that such work often requires that equipment get closer to
the lines than the clearance distances specified in Table A and were
specifically drafted to address subpart V work. Therefore, proposed
Sec. 1926.1410 (c)(2) would exempt subpart V work from proposed Sec.
1926.1410(c)(1) and would state instead that the minimum clearance
distances specified in Sec. 1926.950 Table V-1 would apply.
Furthermore, under proposed Sec. 1926.1410(d)(3), an employer
engaged in subpart V work closer than the Table A distance would not be
required to use an elevated warning line or barricade. It is the
Agency's understanding that the
[[Continued on page 59763]]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
]
[[pp. 59763-59812]] Cranes and Derricks in Construction
[[Continued from page 59762]]
[[Page 59763]]
Committee's rationale for this exclusion was that when subpart V work
takes place closer than the Table A distances, a warning line would
interfere with the tools, cables, and other material used in subpart V
work. However, it is unclear to the Agency why this would also be the
case if a barricade were used. The Agency requests public comment on
this issue.
The provisions of this proposed standard would necessitate certain
conforming amendments to the subpart V provisions dealing with lifting
equipment to eliminate obsolete requirements and promote clarity.
Currently, Sec. 1926.952(c)(1) reads as follows
:(c) Derrick trucks, cranes and other lifting equipment. (1) All
derrick trucks, cranes, and other lifting equipment shall comply
with subpart N and O of this part except:
(i) As stated in Sec. 1926.550(a)(15)(i) and (ii) relating to
clearance (for clearances in this subpart see Table V-1) and
(ii) Derrick truck (electric line trucks) shall not be required
to comply with Sec. 1926.550(a)(7)(vi), (a)(17), (b)(2), and (e).
These subpart V provisions would need to be modified in several
respects. First, service trucks with mobile lifting devices designed
specifically for use in the power line and electric service industries,
such as digger derricks (radial boom derricks), when used in these
industries for auguring holes to set power and utility poles, or
handling associated materials to be installed or removed from utility
poles, are excluded from the scope of this proposed standard. They
would, however, continue to be covered by subpart V when used in this
manner. Specifically, subpart V's current requirement that the minimum
clearance distances of Table V-1 be met when using such equipment would
be retained when such equipment is used outside the coverage of the new
cranes and derricks standard.
Since these trucks, when used in the manner described, would be
outside the scope of the new cranes and derricks standard, subpart V's
provision in Sec. 1926.952(c)(1)(ii) stating that derrick trucks need
not comply with Sec. Sec. 1926.550(a)(7)(vi), (a)(17), (b)(2), and
(e), which incorporate the requirements of certain industry consensus
standards, would no longer be necessary.
Second, the subpart V provisions would be changed to reflect the
terminology used in the scope section of this proposed standard and its
new subpart designation (Subpart CC). With respect to ``cranes and
other lifting equipment,'' Sec. 1926.952(c)(1)(i) would be unnecessary
since proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1407 through 1926.1411 of this proposed
standard address the applicable minimum clearance distances, including
the circumstances under which the clearance distances in Table V-1
would apply.
Accordingly, Sec. 1926.952(c)(1) would be amended to read:
(c) Cranes and other lifting equipment. (1) All equipment
covered by Subpart CC that is used for work covered by this standard
[Subpart V], including cranes and other lifting equipment, shall
comply with subparts CC and O of this part.
(2) Service trucks with mobile lifting devices designed
specifically for use in the power line and electric service
industries, such as digger derricks (radial boom derricks), when
used in these industries for auguring holes to set power and utility
poles, or handling associated materials to be installed or removed
from utility poles, must meet the applicable minimum clearance
distance in Table V-1.
Subpart V Work--Working Closer Than Table V-1
Currently, Sec. 1926.952(c)(2) recognizes that there are
circumstances when the Table V-1 clearance distances cannot be
maintained during Subpart V work and lists requirements that must be
met when this is the case. OSHA believes that C-DAC intended to permit
Subpart V work closer than the Table V-1 clearances when the
precautions in Sec. 1926.952(c)(2), as well as additional precautions
contained in proposed Sec. 1926.1410(d), are followed.
To make this clear, OSHA is proposing to add the following language
to proposed Sec. 1926.1410(c)(2): ``Employers engaged in Subpart V
work are permitted to work closer than the distances in Sec. 1926.950
Table V-1 where both the requirements of this section and Sec.
1926.950(c)(2)(i) and (ii) are met.'' [Note that subsections (i) and
(ii) are currently subsections (iii) and (iv) but would be renumbered
under the proposed amended language of Sec. 1926.950(c)(2) discussed
below]. OSHA requests public comment on this proposed addition.
This proposed change would require conforming amendments to Sec.
1926.952(c)(2), which currently reads as follows:
(2) With the exception of equipment certified for work on the
proper voltage, mechanical equipment shall not be operated closer to
any energized line or equipment than the clearances set forth in
Sec. 1926.950(c) unless:
(i) An insulated barrier is installed between the energized part
and the mechanical equipment, or
(ii) The mechanical equipment is grounded, or
(iii) The mechanical equipment is insulated, or
(iv) The mechanical equipment is considered as energized.
Under this proposed section, the precautions specified in
paragraphs Sec. 1926.952(c)(2)(i) and (ii) would be required under
proposed Sec. 1926.1410(d) when equipment used in Subpart V work is
operated closer than the Table V-1 clearances. Since these precautions
would now be required by proposed Sec. 1926.1410(d), OSHA is proposing
to delete them from Subpart V as redundant. OSHA is therefore proposing
to amend Sec. 1926.952(c)(2) to read as follows:
(2) With the exception of equipment certified for work on the
proper voltage, mechanical equipment shall not be operated closer to
any energized line or equipment than the clearances set forth in
Sec. 1926.950(c) unless, in addition to the requirements in Sec.
1926.1410:
(i) The mechanical equipment is insulated, or
(ii) The mechanical equipment is considered as energized.
OSHA requests public comment on the proposed amendments to Sec.
1926.950(c)(1) and (2) of Subpart V described above.
In addition, OSHA notes that, under the current 29 CFR Part 1926
Subpart V requirement in Sec. 1926.952(c)(2), when doing Subpart V
work closer than the Table V-1 distances, the equipment must be
insulated or considered energized.\31\ However, proposed Sec.
1926.1410 does not have a similar requirement. Therefore, an employer
engaged in Subpart V work that was closer than the Table V-1 distances
would continue to be required (under Sec. 1926.952(c)(2)) to insulate
or consider the equipment energized, but an employer engaged in non-
Subpart V work at the same distance would not. The Agency requests
public comment on whether such requirements should also apply to non-
Subpart V work when working closer than the Table V-1 distances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ In Subpart V, when equipment is considered energized, a
number of Subpart V requirements are triggered. See, for example,
Sec. 1926.951(c)(1) (restricting use of metal or conductive ladders
near energized equipment); Sec. 1926.951(f)(3) (hydraulic tools
used on or around energized equipment shall use nonconducting
hoses); Sec. 1926.953(c) (materials or equipment shall not be
stored near energized equipment if it is practical to store them
elsewhere).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, OSHA notes that in this zone, one of the options that an
employer engaged in Subpart V currently has under Sec.
1926.952(c)(2)(iii) is to insulate the equipment. Under proposed Sec.
1926.1410(d)(11), that employer would also have to ground the
equipment. The Agency's understanding of how equipment can be
simultaneously
[[Page 59764]]
insulated and grounded is illustrated by the following example:
Equipment that has a boom constructed of an insulating material (such
as fiberglass) is typically mounted on a carrier (the ``truck'' portion
of the equipment), which is constructed mostly of conductive material
(i.e., steel). Because the boom (and the linkages, pneumatic and
hydraulic lines, and other associated parts on the boom) is insulated,
the equipment is considered insulated under (Sec.
1926.952(c)(2)(iii)). If the employer were to ground the carrier, the
parts of the equipment that could form an electrical path to ground
(the carrier and the conducting parts of the equipment forming an
electrical path to the carrier, such as the load line and hoist) would
be grounded. Therefore, the equipment would meet both the insulating
option in Sec. 1926.952(c)(2)(iii) and the proposed grounding
requirement in proposed Sec. 1926.1410(d)(11).
Subpart V Work--Summary
The differences between how the proposed requirements for power
line safety would apply generally to crane operations and how they
would apply to an employer engaged in work covered by Subpart V are
summarized in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Subpart V Work Subpart V Work
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Using Table A Distances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1926.1408:
Must pick one additional prevention Additional measure not required
measure from list in Sec. (Sec. 1926.1408(b)(5)).
1926.1408(b)(4).
Sec. 1926.1408(d): Operations Operations below power lines
below power lines generally permitted (Sec.
precluded.. 1926.1408(d)(2)(i)).
(All other requirements in Sec. 1926.1408 would apply equally to both
Non-Subpart V work and Subpart V)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working Closer Than Table A Distances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1926.1410:
Sec. 1926.1410(c)(1) (utility or Instead, use Subpart V's Table
registered professional engineer V-1 minimum clearance distance
sets minimum clearance distance). (Sec. 1926.1410(c)(2)).
Sec. 1926.1410(d)(3) (warning Not required.
line or barricade).
Sec. 1926.1410(d)(4) (insulating Only required if working closer
link). than Table V-1 (Sec.
1926.1410(d)(4)(ii)); see
below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working Closer Than Table V-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The proposed Sec. 1926.1410 (Under both Sec. 1926.1410
requirements would apply to all and current Sec.
distances closer than those specified 1926.952(c)(2)).
in Table A; there are no additional
proposed requirements for working
closer than the Table V-1 distances
for non-Subpart V work].
(Insulating link required under Sec. Must use insulating link (Sec.
1926.1410(d)(4)). 1926.1410(d)(4)(ii)).
Not required....................... Equipment must be insulated or
considered energized (Sec.
1926.952(c)(2)).
(All other requirements in Sec. 1926.1410 would apply equally to both
Non-Subpart V work and Subpart V work)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1411 Power Line Safety -While Traveling
This proposed section is designed to protect against electrical
hazards while equipment is traveling with no load under power lines on
construction sites. These proposed requirements would apply only to
cranes/derricks while traveling on a construction site under power
lines; they would not apply to equipment while traveling on roads (or
in areas) that are not part of a construction site.
The following scenario is an example of the parameters of the scope
of this provision: A crane travels on a public road to the entrance of
a new residential tract development. While traveling on the public road
it passes under powerlines. No construction is taking place on the
public road. The tract, including a road that runs through the
development, is open to construction traffic but is otherwise closed to
the public. In the development, homes are in various stages of
construction. The crane enters the development and travels along the
development road to the area where the crane is going to be operated.
The crane will pass under power lines as it travels along this
development road.
In this scenario, proposed Sec. 1926.1411 would not apply with
respect to the crane traveling along the public road to the entrance of
the development, since that road is not part of a construction site.
However, it would apply with respect to traveling under power lines on
the development road since the development road is part of a
construction site.
It was the intention of the Committee that the requirements of
proposed Sec. 1926.1411 apply only with respect to such equipment when
traveling with no load. Power line hazards regarding equipment
traveling on a construction site with a load would be governed by the
proposed provisions in Sec. Sec. 1926.1408, 1926.1409 and 1926.1410.
The C-DAC draft of Sec. 1926.1411(a) stated:
(a) This section applies to equipment while traveling under a
power line on the construction site with no load and the boom/mast
and boom/mast support system lowered sufficiently to meet the
requirements of paragraph (b).
In reviewing that draft, the Agency realized that it could be
misconstrued to mean that the requirements of Sec. 1926.1411 would
only apply once the crane was traveling under a power line; in other
words, that no action would be required of an employer prior to the
equipment being under the power line. To make it clear that there are
certain proposed provisions in this section that would require the
employer to make determinations and take action before the equipment is
actually under the power line, the Agency has revised the Committee's
original language in Sec. 1926.1411(a) to read:
(a) This section establishes procedures and criteria that must
be met for equipment traveling under a power line on the
construction site with no load.
[[Page 59765]]
This change clarifies that the employer would be required to make
determinations and take certain actions prior to the equipment
traveling under the power line. For example, under proposed Sec.
1926.1411(b)(4), if any part of the equipment while traveling would get
closer than 20 feet to the power line, the employer would be required
to have a dedicated spotter who is in continuous contact with the
operator. If this requirement were to only apply at the moment the
equipment was under the power line, it would not serve the purpose of
providing the operator with someone to assist in gauging the clearance
distance while the equipment is traveling under the power line.
In addition, the C-DAC draft of Sec. 1926.1411(a) included a
reference to the boom/mast and boom/mast support system being lowered
to meet the criteria specified in proposed Sec. 1926.1411(b). The
Agency was concerned that inclusion of that reference could be
misconstrued as meaning that the section is inapplicable where the
boom/mast and boom/mast support system had not been sufficiently
lowered. Therefore, the Agency has modified the paragraph by moving
that reference to proposed 1926.1411(b) to explicitly make it part of
the required criteria for traveling under powerlines without a load.
The C-DAC's draft of 1926.1411(b)(1) stated:
(b) The employer shall ensure that:
(1) The clearances specified in paragraph (c), Table T, are
maintained.
This has been changed so that the proposed Sec. 1926.1411(b)(1)
and (b)(2) now state:
(b) The employer shall ensure that:
(1) The boom/mast and boom/mast support system are lowered
sufficiently to meet the requirements of this paragraph.
(2) The clearances specified in Table T of this section are
maintained.
Therefore, under these proposed provisions, the employer would be
required to ensure that equipment traveling with no load on a
construction site under a power line has the boom/mast and boom/mast
support system lowered sufficiently so that the clearances specified in
Table T are maintained.
In addition to maintaining the Table T minimum clearance distances,
proposed Sec. 1926. Sec. 1926.1411(b)(3) would require the employer
to ensure that the effects of speed and terrain are considered so that
those effects do not cause the minimum clearance distances specified in
Table T to be breached. OSHA is modifying the C-DAC language as follows
to clarify this requirement.
(b)(3) The effects of speed and terrain on equipment movement
(including movement of the boom/mast) are considered so that those
effects do not cause the minimum clearance distances specified in
Table T of this section to be breached.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would require the employer to use a
dedicated spotter if any part of the equipment while traveling will get
closer than 20 feet to a power line. This provision would also require
that the dedicated spotter be in continuous contact with the crane
operator; be positioned to effectively gauge the clearance distance;
where necessary, use equipment that enables the spotter to communicate
directly with the crane operator; and give timely information to the
crane operator so that the required clearance distance can be
maintained. The Committee believed that each of these measures is
necessary for the spotter to be effective.
In reviewing proposed Sec. 1926.1411(b)(4), OSHA noted that the
language ``crane operator'' was used rather than ``driver.'' For
example, proposed Sec. 1926.1411(b)(4) reads:
(4) Dedicated spotter. If any part of the equipment while
traveling will get within 20 feet of the power line, the employer
shall ensure that a dedicated spotter who is in continuous contact
with the crane operator is used * * *
Because proposed Sec. 1926.1411 deals with power line safety while
equipment is traveling without a load, OSHA recognizes that the
language ``crane operator'' may not be appropriate in all situations.
In some cases a crane operator may not be the driver of such equipment
on the construction site. Therefore, OSHA is soliciting comments on
whether the language ``crane operator'' used in proposed Sec.
1926.1411(b)(4) should be changed to ``driver'' or ``driver/operator.''
The Committee members were also concerned about equipment traveling
underneath power lines in low visibility situations, such as at night,
in the rain or fog. The electrical hazards posed by power lines are
exacerbated when the driver's ability to see the power line is reduced.
The Committee believed that additional precautions are necessary in
light of this heightened danger. Therefore, proposed Sec.
1926.1411(b)(5) would require the employer to ensure the power lines
are either illuminated or another means of identifying them is used and
a safe path of travel is identified.
In reviewing the C-DAC draft of this provision, OSHA recognized
that Sec. 1926.1411(b)(5)(ii) did not clearly state the Committee's
intentions. The committee intended for employers to both identify a
safe path of travel and also use the identified safe path of travel.
However, the C-DAC draft stated only that a safe path be
``identified,'' which only implicitly means that it be used. Therefore
OSHA has revised the language in Sec. 1926.1411(b)(5)(ii) from:
(ii) A safe path of travel is identified.
to read:
(ii) A safe path of travel is identified and used.
The proposed requirements of this section are similar to section 5-
3.4.5.5 of ASME B30.5-2004. The values in proposed Table T of proposed
Sec. 1926.1411, which provides the minimum clearance distances while
traveling with no load and a lowered boom, are substantially similar to
the values used by ASME. The distinction between these proposed
requirements and those requirements in ASME are that the proposed
requirements govern equipment while traveling under a power line and
the ASME provisions govern mobile cranes while in transit. ASME defined
``transit'' as the moving or transporting of a crane from one jobsite
to another.
The Agency notes that ASME B30.5-2004 calls for equipment in
transit to maintain a specific clearance distance to power lines in
accordance with Table 1 of ASME B30.5. While proposed Sec. 1926.1411
governs equipment traveling without a load directly under power lines,
it does not otherwise address the potential hazards associated with
equipment traveling without a load near power lines. Further, as stated
earlier, equipment traveling with a load, whether or not under a power
line, would be considered ``operations'' and employers would have to
comply with the proposed requirements in Sec. 1926.1408, 1926.1409, or
1926.1410 in such instances.
However, equipment traveling without a load is not covered by
either proposed Sec. 1926.1410 (operations) or Sec. 1926.1411
(traveling under power lines). Therefore, OSHA requests public comment
on whether it is necessary to establish requirements for equipment
traveling on a construction site without a load near power lines.
Additional Changes to the Regulatory Text In Proposed Sec. Sec.
1926.1407-1411
In the C-DAC draft of provisions dealing with the ``trigger''
distance for further action, the draft referred to situations in which
the crane, load or load line could get ``within'' the trigger distance.
Because of the potential for confusion as to whether ``within'' means
breaching or not breaching that
[[Page 59766]]
distance, the Agency has changed ``within'' to ``closer than.'' For
example, the C-DAC draft of 1926.1407(a) read:
Before assembling or disassembling a crane, the employer must
determine if any part of the crane, load line or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in the direction or area
of assembly, within 20 feet of a power line during the assembly/
disassembly process. If so, the employer must meet the requirements
in Option (1), Option (2), or Option (3) of, as follows: * * *
This provision now reads:
Before assembling or disassembling a crane, the employer must
determine if any part of the crane, load line or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in the direction or area
of assembly, closer than 20 feet to a power line during the
assembly/disassembly process. If so, the employer must meet the
requirements in Option (1), Option (2), or Option (3) of Sec.
1926.1407(a), as follows:
Section 1412 Inspections
The purpose of this proposed section is to prevent injuries and
fatalities caused by equipment failures. A key method of accomplishing
this goal is through the use of an inspection process that identifies
and addresses safety concerns.
Currently, Subpart N requires the employer to designate a competent
person to inspect all machinery and equipment prior to each use, and
during use, to make sure it is in safe operating condition. Any
deficiencies shall be repaired, or defective parts replaced, before
continued use. 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(5). In addition, Subpart N requires a
thorough annual inspection of the hoisting machinery by a competent
person or by a government or private agency recognized by the U.S.
Department of Labor. 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(6).
Subpart N also contains inspection requirements for specific types
of equipment that incorporate national consensus standards or
manufacturer recommendations by reference. Section 1926.550(b)(2)
requires crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes to meet the inspection
requirements of ANSI B30.5-1968, ``Crawler, Locomotive and Truck
Cranes'' (with a modified version of the ANSI standard's monthly
inspection documentation requirement). Overhead and gantry cranes,
under Sec. 1926.550(d)(4), must be inspected pursuant to ANSI B30.2.0-
1967, ``Overhead and Gantry Cranes.'' For derricks, Sec. 1926.550(e)
requires compliance with the inspection requirements of ANSI B30.6-
1969, ``Derricks.'' Hammerhead tower cranes must be inspected (Sec.
1926.550(c)(5)) and floating cranes and derricks must be tested (Sec.
1926.550(f)(2)(iii)) in accordance with manufacturer specifications.
The Committee believed it would avoid confusion and promote
compliance to establish, as far as possible, uniform inspection
schedules and requirements applicable to all types of equipment. At the
same time, it recognized that the wide variety of equipment covered by
this proposed standard necessitated some equipment-specific inspection
provisions. Thus, proposed paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section
would set inspection requirements for all covered equipment that would
be supplemented by other sections of this proposed standard relative to
specific equipment. The proposed section is structured so that the
inspection requirements would be triggered by activity (e.g., equipment
modification, repair/adjustment, assembly, severe service or equipment
not in regular use) and the passage of time (e.g., shift, monthly and
annual/comprehensive).
Note that for each of these inspections, as discussed in detail
below, this proposed standard specifies a requisite level of
qualification of the person conducting the inspection (for certain
inspections, a competent person; for others a qualified person).
However, like Subpart N, the proposed rule does not include a testing/
evaluation requirement for such employees for assessing their ability
to conduct the inspections.
Since the C-DAC document was completed, crane accidents have
occurred that have raised concerns regarding the level of expertise
needed by those who inspect the equipment covered by this proposed
standard. In Sec. 1926.1428, this proposed rule specifies a protocol
for ensuring that signal persons have adequate expertise to perform
their duties. The Agency requests public comment on whether a similar
approach is needed for those who inspect equipment as required by this
proposed standard.
Paragraph 1412(a) Modified Equipment
Proposed paragraph (a) would require an inspection (that includes
functional testing) to be performed by a qualified person for equipment
that has been modified or has additions that affect the safe operation
of the equipment prior to initial use after that modification/addition.
In essence, the proposed provision would require assurance that such
modifications or additions are performed in accordance with the
approval obtained in proposed Sec. 1926.1434, Equipment modifications.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1412(a)(2) would prohibit the use of the equipment
until that requirement was met. The purpose is to prevent modification-
related equipment failure.
This proposed paragraph is generally similar to consensus and
government standards, including ANSI B30.5-1968, ASME B30.5-2004, COE
(Corps of Engineers)--EM 385-1-1 (3-Nov-03), and DOE (Department of
Energy)--STD-1090-2004 in that each require an inspection and some
degree of functional testing prior to using equipment that has been
modified/altered. However, the inspection in the proposed paragraph
differs from these in that it is limited to equipment that has
modifications/additions that affect the safe operation of the equipment
and is limited to confirming compliance with modifications or additions
that are approved by the manufacturer or a registered professional
engineer pursuant to Sec. 1434. Further, this proposed paragraph does
not contain a documentation requirement.
The Committee was of the view that many changes made to equipment
do not implicate safe operation, and application of an inspection
requirement to such changes would be unnecessary and unduly burdensome.
The proposed paragraph reflects this concern and is tailored to require
this inspection only when the modification is of the type that could
affect safety. As such, the inspection would only be required for
modifications that affect ``safe operation'' as illustrated by a non-
exclusive list of examples (``modifications or additions involving a
safety device or operator aid, critical part of a control system, power
plant, braking system, load sustaining structural components, load
hook, or in-use operating mechanisms'').
The first criterion to be used in conducting the inspection
(proposed Sec. 1926.1412(a)(1)(i)) is the modification approval
obtained under proposed Sec. 1926.1434. This would ensure that the
modification was accomplished as intended under that approval.
The second criterion (proposed Sec. 1926.1412(a)(1)(ii)) is
functional testing. This reflects the Committee's view that functional
testing is essential to ensuring that the modification was completed
correctly. Such testing can reveal faults that often would not
otherwise be apparent.
As drafted, Sec. 1926.1412(a)(1)(ii) would not limit the
functional testing requirement to only those components that are or may
be affected by the modification or addition but would require testing
of the entire equipment. OSHA requests public comment on
[[Page 59767]]
whether the provision should be modified to limit the functional
testing requirement to those components that are or may be affected by
the modification or addition.
During the SBREFA process, a Small Entity Representative suggested
adding an exception to proposed Sec. 1926.1412(a) for ``transportation
systems,'' by which the SER meant any system dispersing the weight of
the crane for movement on the highways. The Panel recommended that OSHA
solicit public comment on whether to include such an exception and, if
so, what the appropriate terminology for such an exception would be.
OSHA welcomes public comment on whether an explicit exception for such
transportation systems should be included in Sec. 1926.1412(a).
Paragraph 1412(b) Repaired/Adjusted Equipment
Proposed paragraph (b) provides that equipment that has had a
repair or adjustment that affects the safe operation of the equipment
must be inspected (including functional testing) by a qualified person
prior to initial use after the repair/adjustment. In summary, the
qualified person would be required to determine if such repairs and
adjustments have been performed in accordance with manufacturer
equipment criteria.
As defined in Sec. 1926.1401, ``equipment criteria'' include
``instructions, recommendations, limitations and specifications.'' This
definition is included to make clear that ``equipment criteria'' is to
be broadly construed to include the full range of information regarding
the equipment's functions and operation provided by the manufacturer.
If those criteria were unavailable or inapplicable, the qualified
person would be required to determine whether a registered professional
engineer (RPE) is needed to develop criteria. If an RPE were not
needed, a qualified person would be required to develop them. Use of
the equipment would be prohibited until the inspection demonstrates
that the repairs and adjustments met the criteria. The purpose of this
provision is to avoid the failure of equipment due to improper repairs
and adjustments.
The Committee was of the view that many repairs and adjustments
made to equipment do not implicate safe operation, and application of
an inspection requirement to all repairs and adjustments would be
unnecessary and unduly burdensome. The proposed paragraph reflects this
concern by limiting this proposed inspection requirement to those
repairs and adjustments that are of the type that could affect safety.
A non-exclusive list of examples of repairs and adjustments that would
trigger the inspection is included in the provision.
The Committee believed that functional testing is essential to
ensuring that a repair or adjustment has been completed correctly. Such
testing can reveal faults that may not otherwise be apparent.
As discussed above in relation to proposed Sec.
1926.1412(a)(1)(ii), the functional testing requirement is not limited
to those components that are or may be affected by the repair or
adjustment. OSHA requests public comment on whether the provision
should be modified to add such a limitation.
The Agency believes that this inspection provision is needed to
prevent injuries and fatalities from accidents caused by faulty repairs
and adjustments. As evidenced by similar provisions in other standards
(see COE--EM 385-1-1 (3-Nov-03), and DOE--STD-1090-2004; see also the
consensus standard ASME B30.5-2004), the industry has recognized the
hazards associated with improperly repaired and adjusted equipment and
the importance of this type of inspection.
Paragraph 1412(c) Post-Assembly
Proposed paragraph (c) would require a post-assembly inspection of
equipment by a qualified person prior to its use. In sum, the provision
would require the qualified person to assure that the equipment is
configured in accordance with the manufacturer's equipment criteria.
Where those criteria are unavailable, the equipment would have to meet
criteria developed by either the qualified person or an RPE familiar
with the equipment (if the qualified person decides that an RPE is
needed). Equipment use would be prohibited until the inspection
demonstrates that the criteria have been met.
ANSI B30.5-1968, and ASME B30.5-2004 do not call for this type of
inspection. COE in EM 385-1-1 (3 Nov 03), Appendix H, does include a
post-assembly inspection.
The Committee was of the view that a post-assembly inspection is
needed because of the dangers associated with incorrectly assembled
equipment. For example, the equipment's load chart may overstate the
equipment's capacity if the equipment has been incorrectly assembled.
Also, a component may be stressed beyond its design capacity if
incorrectly assembled.
The Committee considered whether to recommend requiring that this
inspection be conducted by a person who is not only qualified but is
also a ``competent person,'' i.e., a person with the authority to take
corrective action. The Committee ultimately decided that this would not
be necessary because proposed Sec. 1926.1412(c)(3) would prohibit the
use of equipment until the post-assembly inspection demonstrates that
the equipment is configured in accordance with the applicable criteria.
Therefore, if the qualified person were to find that the equipment was
incorrectly assembled, it could not be used until the error was
corrected.
Also discussed was whether a registered professional engineer
(RPE), as opposed to a qualified person, is needed to develop the
criteria for the equipment configuration where the manufacturer
criteria are unavailable. The Committee agreed that an RPE would
typically not be needed for, as one member stated, ``a basic machine
that goes together in a basic manner,'' but that an RPE would be needed
for some of the more complex types of equipment. As a result, the
Committee found that it would be appropriate to have the qualified
person determine if an RPE were needed to develop the criteria.
Paragraph 1412(d) Each Shift
Proposed paragraph (d) would require a shift inspection, the first
of three regularly scheduled equipment inspections that would be
required. Specifically, 1926.1412(d)(1) sets forth the frequency of
this inspection, the degree of scrutiny required and the level of
expertise required of the person performing this inspection. The
proposed paragraph lists the items that would be required to be
included in this inspection and specifies the corrective action that
would be required. The purpose of this provision is to identify and
address safety hazards before they cause accidents.
This inspection (which would begin prior to each shift and be
completed before or during that shift) is broadly similar to the
current requirement in 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(5) of Subpart N to conduct an
inspection ``prior to each use, and during use * * *'' Similarly,
several other current standards, including 29 CFR part 1926 subpart R
(Steel Erection) and COE--EM 385-1-1 (3-Nov-03) require some type of
shift inspection for cranes. In contrast, ANSI B30.5-1968 as well as
the more current ASME B30.5-2004, call for a ``Frequent Inspection'' at
``daily to monthly'' intervals. The ``Frequent Inspection'' in the
ANSI/ASME standards, though, includes a reference to ``observation
during operation.''
[[Page 59768]]
The ``each shift'' inspection in the proposed rule is designed to
ensure that the equipment will be removed from service if there is a
visually apparent deficiency that constitutes a safety hazard. The
Committee considered adopting the ``daily to monthly'' inspection
interval that is in the ANSI/ASME B30.5 consensus standard, but
determined that that approach was too vague for use as a mandatory OSHA
requirement. Instead, the Committee found that, in accordance with
long-standing, common industry practice, an inspection of the items
listed in the proposed paragraph each shift is an appropriate means of
ensuring that the equipment's condition will be sufficient for safe
operation.
The Committee also discussed whether the shift inspection should be
required to be completed before a shift's crane operations begin. It
determined that it is not necessary to complete the inspection in that
short of a time frame. The Agency believes that this determination is
reasonable for several reasons. First, this would be an inspection that
would be done for every shift, and therefore would be done quite
frequently. This would substantially diminish the likelihood that a
critical problem would suddenly occur, since symptoms of such a problem
developing would likely have been detected in prior shift inspections.
Second, as discussed below, one of the purposes of the annual/
comprehensive inspection is to detect developing deficiencies that,
while not yet safety hazards, need to be monitored. In such cases the
employer under the annual/comprehensive requirements in proposed Sec.
1926.1412(f)(4) would be required to monitor them in the monthly
inspections. Finally, the competent person that conducts the shift
inspection would be required to reassess his or her determinations in
light of observations made during the equipment's operation. The
Committee designed these proposed requirements to work together, and in
light of that combined approach, the Agency believes that it would be
sufficient for the shift inspection to be completed during the shift.
The Committee also discussed the degree of scrutiny that would be
required during the shift inspection. Specifically, it considered
whether the shift inspection should involve any disassembly of the
equipment. It determined that disassembly should not normally be needed
for this type of inspection since its purpose is not to duplicate the
annual/comprehensive inspection (which is where the equipment would be
subjected to a level of scrutiny that would necessarily involve
disassembly). Instead, disassembly would only be required where ``the
results of the visual inspection or trial operation indicate that
further inspection necessitating disassembly is needed.''
Finally, a competent person would be required to perform the shift
inspection. The Committee believed that a person that meets the
definition of a competent person (see the definition discussion above)
is needed to perform the shift inspection for two reasons. First, such
a person would have the capability to identify apparent deficiencies,
determine if any disassembly was needed, and determine if the
deficiency constitutes a safety hazard. Second, a competent person
would have the authority necessary to take corrective action in the
event a deficiency was such a hazard.
OSHA anticipates that the equipment operator will often be used by
the employer as the competent person who conducts the shift inspection.
The operator will be at the site and, in most cases, by virtue of his
or her qualification or certification under proposed Sec. Sec.
1926.1427 and 1926.1430 and experience and familiarity with the
equipment, would meet the requirements for a competent person. However,
the employer would have the flexibility to use someone else to conduct
the shift inspection as long as that person met the definition of
competent person.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (xiv) sets forth the list of
items that, at a minimum, would be required to be inspected each shift.
The Committee believes that this is an appropriate list for ensuring
safety and builds on well established industry practice in terms of
what needs to be inspected in this type of inspection. For example, the
list is similar to the one for pre-shift inspections in 29 CFR Part
1926 subpart R, the list in ASME B30.5-2004 for its Frequent
Inspection, and with the exception of a few additional items, to the
list for Frequent Inspections in ANSI B30.5-1968.
Overall, except as noted below in the discussion of the particular
items on this list, the concerns of C-DAC members relative to this list
focused on whether items not listed as ``daily'' inspection items but
included instead in the ``Frequent Inspection'' list in ASME B30.5a-
2002 (which are identical to those in the more recent ASME B30.5-2004
standard) should be inspected each shift. A concern was raised in the
Committee meetings about the nature of the visual inspection and
whether including all of the listed items in ANSI/ASME would be too
burdensome. To address this concern, the Committee decided to include
these items (and a few others) but to also include the language
discussed above limiting the circumstances in which disassembly would
be required.
The following discussion addresses only those items for which the
Committee recommended inspection descriptions that vary in some
significant way from past or current consensus standards (apart from
their being designated for inspection each shift).
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) lists ``[c]ontrol and drive
mechanisms for apparent excessive wear of components and contamination
by lubricants, water or other foreign matter.'' Though similar to the
requirement in ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004 (on the ``Frequent''
list), and in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart R, this provision reflects some
differences. For example, unlike the ANSI/ASME standards (but similar
to Subpart R), it adds ``drive'' mechanisms, which the Committee
believed more accurately reflects the type of mechanisms that need to
be inspected. In addition, ``excessive'' was added to account for the
fact that some wear in these mechanisms is normal and not unsafe. The
extent of wear needed to trigger further evaluation of the item is that
which is apparently excessive.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) addresses ``[a]ir, hydraulic, and
other pressurized lines for deterioration or leakage, particularly
those which flex in normal operation.'' This paragraph is similar to an
item listed in ANSI B30.5--1968 and in ASME B30.5-2004, with the
difference being the reference to ``air'' and ``other pressurized
lines.'' These additions reflect the Committee's belief that it is
necessary to check all types of pressurized lines.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(v) lists ``[h]ooks and latches for
deformation, cracks, excessive wear, or damage such as from chemicals
or heat.'' This substantially mirrors Subpart R, and is similar to ANSI
B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004, but also differs in certain ways.
First, the Committee believed that latches can be damaged by causes
other than the examples listed. The proposed paragraph therefore adds
the words ``such as'' so that the examples listed would be a non-
exclusive list. Second, the Committee believed that ``heat'' should be
added as another example of a cause of damage to highlight this as an
area of concern (since, for example, welding is sometimes done near a
hook or latch). Finally, the proposed
[[Page 59769]]
provision would require the competent person to inspect for ``excessive
wear,'' as opposed to ``wear.'' This change was made because the
Committee believed that hooks and latches are designed to withstand a
degree of wear, and it is only when the wear is excessive that it is of
concern.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(vii) lists ``[w]ire rope, in accordance
with Sec. 1926.1413(a).'' This item references the Shift Inspection
provision of Sec. 1926.1413, Wire rope--inspection, which specifies
how the wire rope would be required to be inspected in the shift
inspection. As discussed below in the section of this Preamble on that
proposed provision, the timing, degree of scrutiny, and level of
expertise required of the person conducting the wire rope inspection
essentially mirror those for proposed Sec. 1926.1412(d)(1). This was
done to ensure consistency with the wire rope inspections and the other
general items inspected each shift.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(viii) lists ``[e]lectrical apparatus for
malfunctioning signs of apparent excessive deterioration, dirt or
moisture accumulation.'' This essentially mirrors provisions in ANSI
B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004 (for Frequent Inspection) and Subpart R
except for the insertion of the word ``apparent.'' That word was added
to be consistent with proposed Sec. 1926.1412(d)(1)'s reference to
``apparent deficiencies.''
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ix) lists ``[t]ires (when in use) for
proper inflation and condition.'' ASME B30.5-2004 calls for tires be
checked for ``inflation pressure'' and Subpart R contains a similar
provision, although it does not contain the ``when in use'' limitation.
The Committee believed that it is unnecessary to check tires for proper
inflation on equipment that is not in use. In addition, it decided to
not include the word ``pressure'' because it believed that checking
pressure each shift with a gauge is unnecessary and inconsistent with
the visual nature of the shift inspection.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(x) lists ``[g]round conditions around the
equipment for proper support, including ground settling under and
around outriggers and supporting foundations, ground water
accumulation, or similar conditions.'' This item is new, in that it is
not included in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N or the ANSI/ASME standards.
The Committee believed that ground conditions can change from shift to
shift, and in light of the critical importance of sufficient ground
support, included this item in the C-DAC document.
A nearly identical provision is included in 29 CFR part 1926
subpart R. However, the C-DAC provision differs from the Subpart R
provision in that the language ``and supporting foundations'' was added
by C-DAC to reflect that some cranes (particularly towers cranes) are
set on surfaces other than ``ground'' (e.g., concrete) and that ground
settling could occur ``under and around'' those foundations. As such,
the Agency believes that the C-DAC language is appropriate in the
proposed rule. It should also be noted that a separate provision, Sec.
1926.1402, Ground conditions, is included in this proposed rule, which
more specifically addresses responsibility for and adequacy of ground
conditions.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xi) lists ``[t]he equipment for level
position, both shift and after each move and setup.'' This item is not
included in the ANSI/ASME standards; however, it mirrors the language
of the similar pre-shift inspection in Subpart R. The Committee found
that, as with ground conditions, maintaining the equipment's level
position is essential for its safe operation. Since factors affecting
the equipment's angle of inclination can change from shift to shift
(such as compression of dunnage, ground settling from freeze/thaw
conditions and ground compression), the Committee believed that it is
necessary to include this in the shift inspection.
The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public comment about
whether it is necessary to clarify the requirement of proposed Sec.
1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) that the equipment be inspected for ``level
position'' by clarifying the amount of tolerance that would be allowed
for the equipment to be considered ``level.'' The Agency requests
public comment on this issue.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xii) lists ``[o]perator cab windows for
significant cracks, breaks, or other deficiencies that would hamper the
operator's view.'' \32\ The purpose of this proposed provision is to
ensure adequate visibility. The Committee believed that it is important
to ensure that the windows' condition does not hamper the operator's
view. Since a significant crack, break or other defect hampering the
operator's view may occur during a shift, it believed that this item
needs to be included in the shift inspection. The inclusion of the
words ``significant'' and ``hamper the operator's view'' were to
clarify that minor deficiencies that do not materially impair the
operator's view are not considered safety hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Currently, 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart N contains a
requirement specifying that the type of glazing in cabs must not
cause ``a visible distortion.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xiii) lists ``[r]ails, rail stops, rail
clamps and supporting surfaces when the equipment has rail traveling.''
This item is not specifically listed as an inspection item in the pre-
shift inspections of Subpart R or in the Frequent Inspections of the
1968 or 2004 ANSI/ASME B30.5 standards. However, they are included
because of the essential role they play in the holding and emergency
stopping of rail mounted equipment. Their importance to safe operation
is similarly recognized by their inclusion in proposed Sec. 1926.1415,
Safety Devices, as safety devices that must be working properly for
crane operations to continue.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xiv) lists ``[s]afety devices and
operational aids for proper operation.'' Subpart N, through its
incorporation by reference of ANSI B30.5-1968, includes a daily
inspection of safety devices for malfunction for the equipment it
covers, while ASME B30.5-2004 requires a daily inspection of
operational aids for malfunction. Finally, Subpart R includes a
nonexclusive list of safety devices in its pre-shift inspection. The
equipment's safety devices and operational aids would be included
because of their important role in assisting the operator in the safe
operation of equipment.
Concern was raised in Committee about including this item because
the industry did not have clear, consistent definitions for terms
``safety devices'' and ``operational aids.'' This concern was addressed
by referencing the lists of devices for each of these terms in proposed
Sec. 1926.1415, Safety devices and Sec. 1926.1416, Operational aids.
The language also reflects the Committee's view that the inspection
of these devices and aids is more accurately described as an inspection
for ``proper operation'' rather than for ``malfunction.'' The Committee
considered this a more accurate description because the person
conducting the inspection does so by checking the safety device or
operational aid for proper operation. If it is found to be working
properly, the inspection is finished.
Another concern was including both safety devices and operational
aids in this provision, since many members were of the view that these
two categories of devices necessitate different levels and types of
action when a deficiency is found. That concern was addressed by
specifying in proposed Sec. 1926.1412(d)(3) that if a deficiency is
found, the action that
[[Page 59770]]
would be required in response would be the actions delineated in
proposed Sec. 1926.1415, Safety devices and Sec. 1926.1416,
Operational aids, which address these two categories differently. See
additional discussions of these procedures in Sec. Sec. 1926.1415 and
1926.1416 of this explanation of the rule.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would establish the follow-up actions to
the identification of apparent deficiencies during the shift inspection
that would be required. Specifically, under proposed 1926.1412(d)(2),
immediately following the discovery of any deficiency identified
pursuant to proposed Sec. 1926.1412(d)(1)(i) through (xiii), or
pursuant to other equipment-specific inspections (e.g., see proposed
Sec. 1926.1436(p) (inspection of derricks), the competent person must
determine whether the deficiency is a safety hazard. If so, equipment
operations must cease until it has been corrected. The correction
procedure described in proposed Sec. 1926.1412(d)(2) is similar to
that in ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004 for their Frequent
Inspections.
This approach reflects the Committee's determination that not all
deficiencies constitute safety hazards. The proposed language in Sec.
1926.1412(d)(2) reflects that approach by linking the requirement for
removing the equipment from service to deficiencies that constitute
safety hazards. The provision is designed to ensure that this
determination is made appropriately by requiring that it be made by a
competent person. The competent person would have the capability
necessary to make an accurate determination. In addition, requiring a
competent person to make the determination would ensure that his or her
findings were implemented; i.e., the competent person would have the
authority to order the equipment out of service if the deficiency
constituted a hazard. The Agency believes that this would be an
appropriate means of protecting employees from equipment with
deficiencies that constitute safety hazards.
The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public comment on
whether, and under what circumstances, booming down should be
specifically excluded as a part of the shift inspection, and whether
the removal of non-hinged inspection plates should be required during
the shift inspection. Proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(1), discussed below,
explicitly states that booming down is not required as part of the
shift inspection for wire rope. It is the Agency's understanding that
C-DAC did not include a similar provision in the general shift
inspection provision in proposed Sec. 1926.1412(d) because booming
down would not be required to observe a deficiency in any of the items
requiring inspection under that paragraph. Similarly, OSHA does not
believe that inspection for a deficiency in any of those items would
require removal of non-hinged inspection plates. However, OSHA welcomes
public comment on these points.
Paragraph 1412(e) Monthly
Proposed paragraph (e) would require a monthly inspection of the
equipment, the second of the three regularly scheduled general
inspections that would be required by this proposed standard. The
monthly inspection is identical in coverage and manner to the shift
inspection required by proposed Sec. 1926.1412(d), with one addition
discussed below. Thus, the monthly inspection would be a visual
inspection of the items listed in the shift inspection for apparent
deficiencies, conducted by a competent person. However, unlike a shift
inspection, a written record of the monthly inspection is proposed to
be kept and retained for at least 3 months.
In addition, under the annual/comprehensive inspection in proposed
Sec. 1926.1412(f)(4), the employer would be required to identify
developing deficiencies that, while not yet safety hazards, need to be
monitored. In such cases the employer under proposed Sec.
1926.1412(f)(4) and (f)(6) would be required to monitor them in the
monthly inspections.
This provision differs in some ways from the current requirement in
29 CFR part 1926 Subpart N that incorporates by reference ANSI B30.5-
1968 and from ASME B30.5-2004. For example, rather than a monthly
inspection, these industry standards call for a ``Frequent'' inspection
to be done at ``daily to monthly'' intervals. The Committee believed
that the proposed approach is an improvement over the ANSI/ASME
approach by eliminating ambiguity over the frequency of inspections.
Also, the consensus standards do not call for the monitoring of
developing deficiencies, a change the Committee believed would lead to
the elimination of hazards before they develop. However, many of the
items listed in those consensus standards for frequent inspections are
similar to those listed in the shift and monthly inspections of the
proposed rule (See discussion of items inspected under proposed
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (xiv) for comparison).
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would establish a documentation
requirement for this monthly inspection. Specifically, proposed Sec.
1926.1412(e)(3)(i) would require that the inspection ``be documented by
the employer that conducts the inspection'' and indicate the items
checked with results, the name and signature of the person of the
inspector, and the date. In these respects this proposed requirement is
similar to that currently in effect under Sec. 1926.550(b)(2) of 29
CFR part 1926 Subpart N for crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1412(e)(3)(ii) would establish a minimum three-
month retention period for the monthly inspection documentation.
These two proposed provisions have several purposes. The Committee
believed that, on a monthly basis, it is necessary to record the items
checked and the results of an inspection that for the most part
parallels a shift inspection. It believed that the documentation of
this inspection, signed by the person who conducted the inspection and
retained for three months, would have several effects. First, it would
increase the likelihood that more employers would implement systems for
conducting and responding to inspections. The failure to do so would be
more readily apparent if a record were not made, and the signature of
the person who conducted the inspection would be an inducement to that
person to ensure that the inspection was done correctly. Second, it
would create a record that the employer could use to help track
developing problems so that they could be corrected in time to assure
continued safe operation of the equipment.
The Agency notes that the proposed three month retention period
also reflects a desire of the Committee to have a retention period that
is consistent with Department of Transportation (``DOT'') truck
inspection documentation requirements. Also, proposed Sec.
1926.1412(e)(3) parallels the monthly inspection for wire rope in
proposed paragraph 1413(b) in terms of timing, level of scrutiny,
expertise of the inspector, and documentation.
The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public comment on
whether the provision for monthly inspections should, like the
provision for annual inspections, specify who must keep the
documentation associated with monthly inspections. (The provision for
annual inspections states that the documentation must be ``maintained
by the employer who conducts the inspection.'') OSHA requests public
comment on the issue raised by the Panel's recommendation.
[[Page 59771]]
The SBREFA Panel also recommended that OSHA restate the corrective
action provisions from the shift inspection (proposed Sec.
1926.1412(d)(2) and (3)) in proposed Sec. 1926.1412(e). Under proposed
Sec. 1926.1412(e)(1), the monthly inspection must be conducted in
accordance with proposed Sec. 1926.1412(d) on shift inspections, and
this means that the corrective action provisions in proposed Sec.
1926.1412(d)(2) and (3) must also be followed in the monthly
inspections. OSHA requests comment on whether the language in proposed
Sec. 1926.1412(d)(2) and (3) should be repeated under proposed Sec.
1926.1412(e).
Paragraph (f) Annual/Comprehensive
Proposed paragraph (f) would require an annual (i.e., once every
twelve months), general inspection of the equipment, the third of the
three regularly scheduled general inspections that would be required by
this proposed standard. It would promote safety by ensuring that a
thorough, comprehensive inspection of the equipment is performed to
detect and address deficiencies that might not be detected in the
proposed shift and monthly inspections.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would require that a qualified person
inspect the equipment, at least every 12 months, in accordance with
Sec. 1926.1412(d) (shift inspections). The Committee's intent was to
have the items specified in the shift inspection examined more
thoroughly, by a qualified person, on an annual basis. This would
ensure that deficiencies necessitating a greater degree of scrutiny
than what would be required in the shift inspection (such as a
deficiency that is not apparent in a visual inspection but is
detectable through disassembly), and a greater degree of expertise to
detect, would be discovered.
The Committee believed that, in light of this need for greater
scrutiny, a higher level of expertise is needed of the person
conducting the inspection than is currently required for the annual
inspection in 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart N (Subpart N, at Sec.
1926.550(a)(6), requires that it be conducted by a competent person).
The Committee's view is similar to that reflected in COE-EM 385-1-1 (3
Nov 03) and ASME B30.5-2004, both of which call for a qualified person
to perform those standards' ``periodic'' inspections. The Agency
believes that, to effectuate the purpose of the proposed annual/
comprehensive inspection, a qualified person would be needed to conduct
this inspection.
The Agency notes that neither this paragraph nor the subsequent
paragraphs under proposed Sec. 1926.1412(f) specify the level of
scrutiny that would be required for the annual/comprehensive
inspection. As it is the Agency's understanding that it was the
Committee's belief that this inspection needs to be more thorough than
a visual inspection for apparent deficiencies, OSHA solicits comments
from the public as to whether language specifying a higher level of
scrutiny (for example, ``thorough, including disassembly when
necessary'') should be added.
In terms of timing, this proposed annual/comprehensive inspection
is essentially the same as currently specified in Subpart N, which
requires an ``annual'' inspection.
The requirement that the inspection be conducted at least every 12
months means that an inspection must be conducted on or before the
anniversary date of the last annual inspection. A situation that may
arise is where the equipment is not in service on the anniversary date.
In that situation, since the equipment is not in service, the annual
inspection would not have to be done at that point. However, the
equipment could not be put back into service until the annual
inspection had been done.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Note that, under proposed Sec. 1926.1412(h), discussed
below, equipment that has been out of regular service for three
months or more must receive a monthly inspection before being
returned to service. However, if the equipment had been out of
regular service for more than three months but it was due for its
annual inspection, the annual inspection would have to be done and
there would therefore be no need to also do the Sec. 1926.1412(h)
(out of regular service) inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed below, proposed Sec. 1926.1412(f)(4)-(f)(6) contain
specific proposed responsive actions in the event a deficiency is
discovered in the annual/comprehensive inspection. C-DAC recommended
that proposed Sec. 1926.1412(f)(1) state that `` * * * the equipment
shall be inspected * * * in accordance with paragraph (d) (shift
inspections).'' Read literally, the C-DAC language would have required
the employer to comply with the responsive actions specified for the
shift inspections in proposed Sec. 1926.1412(d). However, the
specified responsive actions for the proposed shift inspection differ
from those proposed for the annual/comprehensive inspection. Therefore,
the Agency modified the C-DAC language for proposed Sec.
1926.1412(f)(1) to make it clear that the responsive actions that would
be required if a deficiency were found under Sec. 1926.1412(f)(1) are
those specified in proposed Sec. 1926.1412(f)(4)-(f)(6). This has been
done by adding the following language to the C-DAC (f)(1) provision:
At least every 12 months the equipment shall be inspected by a
qualified person in accordance with paragraph (d) (shift
inspections) of this section, except that the corrective action set
forth in Paragraph (f) Annual/comprehensive, of this section shall
apply.
The difference is that while both require that the equipment be
removed from service if safety hazards are identified, paragraphs
(f)(4) through (f)(6) also provide that a deficiency that might, but
has not yet, reached the safety hazard stage must be monitored on a
monthly basis. (Also, the determinations in Sec. 1926.1412(f)(4)
through (f)(6) are made by a qualified person, whereas the
determinations in the shift inspection are made by a competent person.)
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (xxi) supplement the list of
inspection items in proposed Sec. 1926.1412(f)(1) that would be
required to be inspected in the annual/comprehensive inspection. The
Committee developed this list based on the members' experience and
current industry practice as reflected in current consensus standards
for annual/periodic inspections. The Committee believed that each item
plays an important role in the safe operation of equipment.
The list in proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (xxi) differs
somewhat from those in consensus standards. Among other differences,
the list in these proposed paragraphs is more user-friendly to the
employer and qualified person because the item inspected is at the
beginning of each sentence. Also, some items not in consensus standards
are included because, as discussed below, in the view of the Committee,
they also have a significant effect on the safe operation of equipment.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) lists ``[e]quipment structure
(including the boom and, if equipped, the jib),'' including ``(A)
Structural members: deformed, cracked, or significantly corroded. (B)
Bolts, rivets and other fasteners: loose, failed or significantly
corroded. (C) Welds for cracks.'' Differences with similar items listed
in ANSI B30.5-1968, ASME B30.5-2004 and COE-EM 385-1-1 (3 Nov 03) are
as follows: ``Welds for cracks'' was added to better ensure that the
equipment is structurally sound; ``Other fasteners'' was added to
``bolts and rivets'' (referenced in the ANSI/ASME standards) because
there are now other types of fasteners which also need to be inspected
to ensure they are not loose, failed or significantly corroded; and
``significantly'' was added to describe
[[Page 59772]]
the degree of corrosion on a structural member or fastener needed to
trigger further examination because some corrosion on those items is
normal and has no effect on safety.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) through (iv) list: ``[s]heaves and
drums for cracks or significant wear;'' ``[p]arts such as pins,
bearings, shafts, gears, rollers and locking devices for distortion,
cracks or significant wear;'' and ``[b]rake and clutch system parts,
linings, pawls and ratchets for excessive wear.'' These items are
similar to the items currently listed in the Periodic Inspection
(monthly to twelve month intervals) in ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-
2004. The Committee believed that these items, as reflected in their
inclusion in current consensus standards, need to be checked in an
annual inspection to ensure the safe operation of the equipment.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(v) lists ``[s]afety devices and
operational aids for proper operation (including significant
inaccuracies).'' The Committee included the term ``significant
inaccuracies'' in recognition of the fact that such devices normally
operate within a tolerance range. Corrective action would not be
required if the inaccuracy is so small as to be irrelevant with regards
to the safe operation of the equipment. In contrast, significant
inaccuracies in these devices could mislead the operator and contribute
to actions that could result in the equipment being inadvertently used
in an unsafe manner. Consequently, the Committee believed that these
devices and aids need to be inspected for both proper operation and
significant inaccuracies.
This provision is broader than similar provisions in the ANSI and
ANSI/ASME standards. Specifically, ANSI B30.5-1968 only addresses
``safety devices for malfunction'' (the Periodic Inspection includes
the items listed in the Frequent Inspection) while the Periodic
Inspection for ASME B30.5-2004 only includes operational aids.
Another significant difference between this paragraph and the ASME
standard is the follow-up action required subsequent to the discovery
of a deficiency involving operational aids. Under this paragraph, the
discovery of such a deficiency that is determined to be a safety hazard
would require the equipment to be removed from service until the safety
hazard is corrected. In contrast, under the 2004 ASME standard,
alternatives to the removal of equipment from service are
available.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Section 5-3.2.1.2 of the ASME standard allows the employer
to follow the recommendations of the manufacturer of the equipment
or device for continued operation or shutdown of the equipment. The
same section of the ASME standard also sets forth alternative
precautions, which may be taken unless the manufacturer specifies
otherwise, when specific operational aids malfunction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 1926.1416 would permit equipment with operational
aids that are not functioning properly to continue to be used with
specified alternative measures in place. Proposed Sec. 1926.1416(d)
and (e) would set time limits for such use. It is the Agency's
understanding that the Committee intended that this same approach
should apply with respect to the follow-up action required when an
operational aid is found in the annual inspection to be not working
properly. In other words, the equipment could be returned to service
but the time limits in proposed Sec. 1926.1416(d) and (e) would apply,
as would the alternative measures requirements.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1412(f) does not explicitly describe how the
follow-up measures in proposed Sec. 1926.1412(f)(4)-(f)(6) would apply
to operational aids. As explained below in the discussion of proposed
Sec. 1926.1412(f)(4)-(f)(6), the Agency believes that it would be
appropriate to add language to clarify that the follow-up action
required when an operational aid is found in the annual inspection to
be not working properly is the action specified in proposed Sec.
1926.1416(d) and (e).
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(vi) lists ``[g]asoline, diesel, electric,
or other power plants for safety-related problems (such as leaking
exhaust and emergency shut-down feature), conditions and proper
operation.'' This proposed provision was derived from ANSI B30.5-1968
and ASME B30.5-2004 and reworded to emphasize and limit its application
to safety related issues, and to include examples to better communicate
those concepts. Leaking exhaust was included as an example because it
could asphyxiate an employee. The emergency shut-down feature was added
as an example because a failure of this feature could result in an
employee being struck by a suspended load.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(vii), (viii) and (ix) list ``[c]hains
and chain drive sprockets for excessive wear of sprockets and excessive
chain stretch,'' ``[t]ravel steering, brakes, and locking devices, for
proper operation,'' and ``[t]ires for damage or excessive wear.'' These
proposed provisions were derived from ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-
2004. The Committee believed that these items, as their presence in
these industry standards reflects, play a significant role in the safe
operation of equipment.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(x) lists ``[h]ydraulic, pneumatic and
other pressurized hoses, fittings and tubing, as follows: (A) Flexible
hose or its junction with the fittings for indications of leaks. (B)
Threaded or clamped joints for leaks. (C) Outer covering of the hose
for blistering, abnormal deformation or other signs of failure/
impending failure. (D) Outer surface of a hose, rigid tube, or fitting
for indications of excessive abrasion or scrubbing.'' The purpose of
this proposed paragraph, as noted during C-DAC meetings, is to ``call
attention to specific parts of these hoses'' and thus prevent the
failure of mechanisms, such as the brakes, hoist mechanisms and limit
switches, that are powered or affected by the movement of fluids or air
through the equipment's system of hoses.
Neither the general provisions in 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart N nor
the provisions in ANSI B30.5-1968 that are incorporated by reference in
Subpart N contain a specific requirement for an inspection of these
hoses, fittings and tubing. However, several more recent consensus and
government standards do contain similar items in their annual/Periodic
inspections. ASME B30.5-2004, COE-EM 385-1-1 (3 Nov 03) and DOE STD
1090-2004 all contain some form of this item in their Periodic
inspection provisions.
The Committee's discussion of this item focused on whether language
used in ASME B30.5-2004 should be adopted. For example, the meaning of
the reference in the ASME standard to ``metal and couplings'' as one of
the points of concern on a hose for leakage was questioned. The
Committee sought to be clearer by referencing ``fittings'' instead in
proposed Sec. 1926.1412(f)(2)(x)(A).
Also, members questioned the appropriateness of the ASME language
on inspecting for hose leakage that specifies leakage from threaded or
clamped joints that is not eliminated by ``recommended procedures.''
Since the use of such procedures to correct a leak is in the nature of
a repair, the concept of limiting the inspection item in this manner
was rejected.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(xi)-(xiii) list a series of items that,
like (f)(2)(x), focus on specific parts of hydraulic and pneumatic
power systems. They would be included for the same reason--to better
ensure that those parts of the equipment driven by hydraulic and
pneumatic power do not fail. These provisions address: ``(xi)
[h]ydraulic and pneumatic pumps and motors, as follows: (A) Performance
indicators:
[[Page 59773]]
unusual noises or vibration, low operating speed, excessive heating of
the fluid, low pressure. (B) Loose bolts or fasteners. (C) Shaft seals
and joints between pump sections for leaks''; (xii) ``[h]ydraulic and
pneumatic valves, as follows: (A) Spools: sticking, improper return to
neutral, and leaks. (B) Leaks. (C) Valve housing cracks. (D) Relief
valves: failure to reach correct pressure (if there is a manufacturer
procedure for checking pressure, it must be followed)''; and (xiii)
``[h]ydraulic and pneumatic cylinders, as follows: (A) Drifting caused
by fluid leaking across the piston. (B) Rod seals and welded joints for
leaks. (C) Cylinder rods for scores, nicks or dents. (D) Case (barrel)
for significant dents. (E) Rod eyes and connecting joints: loose or
deformed.''
As with proposed paragraph (f)(2)(x), these items are not
explicitly mentioned in Subpart N. Neither the Subpart itself nor the
incorporated ``Periodic'' inspection in ANSI B30.5-1968 specifically
references these items. However, ASME B30.5-2004, COE-EM 385-1-1 (3 Nov
03) and DOE STD 1090-2004 each require inspection of these items by
language with varying degrees of specificity.
While discussing these items, C-DAC members decided not to include
the inspection of hydraulic filters that are included in ASME B30.5-
2004 because, as a Committee member who works for a manufacturer noted,
the condition of these filters is a maintenance rather than a safety
issue. Other discussion related to several of the items in this list.
In proposed Sec. 1926.1412(f)(2)(xi)(C), ``pump'' was inserted to
clarify which joints must be inspected for leaks. Further,
``significant'' was added to describe the dents subject to inspection
under proposed Sec. 1926.1412(f)(2)(xiii)(D) because some dents on
cases do not affect operation.
The Committee believed that these items, as their presence in these
government and consensus standards reflects, play a significant role in
the safe operation of equipment.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xiv) lists ``[o]utrigger pads/floats''
for excessive wear or cracks.'' The purpose of the inspection of
outrigger pads/floats is to make certain that these pads (which are
attached to the outrigger and used to distribute the weight of the load
to the ground) will not fail and leave the outrigger without proper
support.
This item is not included in the annual inspection of Subpart N for
cranes and derricks, the periodic inspections of ANSI B30.5-1968 or
ASME B30.5-2004. However, the Periodic (yearly) inspection in COE-EM
385-1-1 (3 Nov 03) may cover ``outrigger pads/floats'' with its general
provision regarding ``foundation or supports.'' The Committee similarly
included this item because it believed that it plays a significant role
in the safe operation of equipment.
Paragraph (f)(2)(xv) lists ``slider pads for excessive wear or
cracks.'' Slider pads (which are used to guide sections of equipment
such as the boom extension on a hydraulic crane) are included because
excessive wear may cause the equipment to fail. The Committee was aware
that some disassembly may be required to inspect slider pads.
This item is not included in the annual inspection of Subpart N for
cranes and derricks or the periodic inspections of ANSI B30.5-1968 or
ASME B30.5-2004. However, the Committee included this item because of
its role in the safe operation of the equipment.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xvi) lists ``[e]lectrical components and
wiring for cracked or split insulation and loose or corroded
terminations.'' Wires are not listed in the annual/Periodic inspection
in Subpart N, ANSI B30.5-1968, ASME B30.5--2004 or COE-EM 385-1-1 (3
Nov 03). The purpose of this proposed provision is to prevent hazards
related to deficiencies in electrical components and wiring. Since such
deficiencies may cause a fire or the malfunction of safety related
systems, the Agency believes that the inclusion of electrical
components as well as wiring in the inspection list is necessary.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xvii) lists ``[w]arning labels and decals
originally supplied with the equipment by the manufacturer or otherwise
required under this standard: missing or unreadable.'' The annual/
Periodic inspection in COE-EM 385-1-1 (3-NovJan 03) contains a similar
requirement relative to ``safety and function labels for legibility and
replacement.'' However, this item is not included in the annual/
Periodic inspections included in Subpart N, ANSI B30.5-1968 or ASME
B30.5-2004.
The Committee believed that warning decals that would be required
under this proposed standard (either by virtue of a specific provision
in this proposed standard, e.g., paragraph 1407(g), or because they
were originally supplied by the manufacturer with the equipment, see
Sec. 1926.1433(e)(5), Posted warnings) provide important safety
reminders and information. As such, it was of the view that they need
to be maintained in order for them to continue to alert users to those
safety concerns. The Agency modified the C-DAC language for proposed
paragraph (f)(2)(xvii) so that it would cover warning labels and decals
originally supplied by the manufacturer and thus better reflect the
Committee's intent as indicated by proposed Sec. 1926.1433(e)(5).
Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(xviii-xxi) list: ``Originally equipped
operator seat: missing;'' ``Operator seat: unusable;'' \35\
``Originally equipped steps, ladders, handrails, guards: missing;'' and
``Steps, ladders, handrails, guards: in unusable/unsafe condition.''
These are not included in the annual/periodic inspections of ANSI
B30.5-1968, ASME B30.5-2004, or COE-EM 385-1-1 (3 Nov 03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The original C-DAC language provided: ``Operator seat:
missing or unusable.'' OSHA modified this language to avoid the
implication that equipment that did not include an operator seat as
original equipment would, contrary to C-DAC's intent, nevertheless
need to have a seat installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believed that these are safety related items that
need to be inspected. For example, if the operator seat is unusable,
the likelihood of the operator manipulating a control in an inadvertent
manner or being unable to reach a control is increased. The other items
relate to preventing falls and contact with exposed parts that are
moving or otherwise dangerous. It should be noted that, among others,
proposed Sec. 1926.1433, Design, construction and testing, and Sec.
1926.1426, Fall protection, would include requirements related to
several of these items.
Proposed paragraph (f)(3) would require functional testing as part
of the annual/comprehensive inspection. A general functional testing
requirement is not included in the annual/periodic inspection in COE-EM
385-1-1 (3 Nov 03), although it does require functional testing for
certain items, such as ``crane function operating mechanisms,'' and
``operator aids (safety devices) and indicating devices.'' Similarly,
the annual/periodic inspection provisions of ANSI B30.5-1968
(incorporated by reference into Subpart N) and ASME B30.5-2004, imply a
functional testing requirement with regard to several specific items
(e.g., in B30.5-1968 and in B30.5-2004), ``[t]ravel steering, braking,
and locking devices, for malfunction'').
The purpose of this testing is to ensure that the equipment as
configured in the inspection is functioning properly. It was the
Committee's belief that, without functional testing, the inspection may
not reveal some safety problems.
The proposed provision reflects the Committee's belief that
functional testing should be limited to the equipment ``as configured
in the
[[Page 59774]]
inspection.'' In its view, functional testing in all possible
configurations, with all possible attachments, is unnecessary and would
be unduly burdensome. In light of the comprehensive nature of the
inspection that would result from compliance with the proposed annual/
comprehensive inspection provision, the Agency believes that this
limitation would not adversely affect safety.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(4) through (6) delineate the follow-up
procedures that would apply when a deficiency is identified during the
annual/comprehensive inspection. The purpose of these provisions is to
ensure that a deficiency that is not yet a safety hazard but may
develop into one is monitored on a monthly basis, and that a deficiency
that is a safety hazard is corrected before the equipment is returned
to service.
Specifically, proposed paragraph (f)(4) provides that immediately
following the identification of a deficiency, the qualified person must
determine ``whether the deficiency constitutes a safety hazard, or
though not yet a safety hazard, needs to be monitored in the monthly
inspections.'' Proposed paragraph (f)(5) would require that equipment
with a deficiency identified as a safety hazard by the qualified person
be removed from service until the deficiency is corrected. Proposed
paragraph (f)(6) would require the employer to check in the monthly
inspections the deficiencies that the qualified person had identified
as needing monitoring.
The corrective procedures in proposed paragraphs (f)(4) through
(f)(6) are similar to those in ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004 in
that the ANSI/ASME provisions also call for equipment operation to
cease upon discovery of a safety hazard. They differ in that the ANSI/
ASME provisions have no procedures for monitoring deficiencies that are
not yet safety hazards.
The Committee believed that this would be an effective means of
ensuring that employers respond appropriately to deficiencies
identified in the annual/comprehensive inspection. In addition, the
Committee's addition of a mechanism for monthly monitoring, where
needed, of deficiencies that have not yet developed into safety hazards
would ensure that developing hazards are caught before they endanger
employees.
Upon reviewing these proposed provisions, OSHA believes that C-DAC
inadvertently omitted a reference in the proposed provisions for
annual/comprehensive inspections to special corrective action
procedures for operational aids. This issue is explained below.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1416, Operational aids, sets out requirements
that would apply where an operational aid is not working properly.
Specifically, it would allow equipment with an operational aid that is
not working to continue to be operated for a limited time as long as
certain temporary protective measures are used.
In a shift or monthly inspection, as reflected in proposed Sec.
1926.1412(d)(3), if a deficiency in an operational aid is identified,
the corrective action described in proposed Sec. 1926.1416 would
apply. In contrast, in the proposed paragraph on annual/comprehensive
inspections (Sec. 1926.1412(f)), C-DAC did not include a similar
reference.
If the corrective actions described in proposed Sec. 1926.1416 did
not apply and an operational aid were found to be not working properly
in an annual/comprehensive inspection, the qualified person would have
to determine if that constituted a safety hazard. If he or she
concluded that it was a safety hazard, the equipment would have to be
removed from service immediately until the aid was repaired. OSHA
believes that such a result would be contrary to C-DAC's intent, since
the issue of the extent to which an operational aid needed to be
repaired was comprehensively dealt with in proposed Sec. 1926.1416.
In sum, the Agency believes that proposed Sec. 1926.1412(f) should
be modified to specifically make the corrective actions in proposed
Sec. 1926.1416 applicable. OSHA requests public comment on this issue.
The Committee considered whether the monitoring aspect of this
proposed requirement would unduly add to the employer's paperwork
burden. The Committee determined that it would not, since all that
would be involved would be a notation on the employer's monthly
inspection form to pay special attention to the item and then note its
condition.
Proposed paragraph (f)(7), Documentation of annual/comprehensive
inspection, would require the employer that conducts the inspection to
complete and maintain, for a minimum of twelve months, documentation
that contains ``[t]he items checked and the results of the
inspection,'' and ``[t]he name and signature of the person who
conducted the inspection and the date.'' Note that proposed Sec.
1926.1413(c)(4), which pertains to the annual/comprehensive wire rope
inspection, contains a similar documentation requirement.
This proposed documentation requirement differs in several respects
from Subpart N and other current consensus standards. For example,
Subpart N at 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(6), has an open-ended retention period
and does not include a signature requirement or a requirement that the
inspector be named. It also differs from the periodic inspection in
ASME B30.5-2004 that only calls for ``dated records'' for specific,
critical items, does not specify that the inspector's name be listed,
and does not specify a retention period.
The Committee believed that the proposed provision would promote
safety by ensuring that the items checked and the inspection results
are documented and maintained for at least 12 months. This would ensure
that past deficiencies and potential hazards associated with the
equipment can be tracked. In the Committee's view this information
would help the qualified person assess the equipment in the subsequent
annual/ comprehensive inspection.
The Committee believed that the documentation of this inspection,
signed by the person who conducted the inspection and retained for 12
months, would have several effects. First, it would increase the
likelihood that more employers would implement systems for conducting
and responding to inspections. The failure to do so would be more
readily apparent if a record was not made, and the signature of the
person who conducted the inspection would be an inducement to that
person to ensure that the inspection was done correctly.
The Committee determined that it would not be necessary for this
documentation to be available on site. The information in the document
is not routinely needed at the site to ensure safe operation. Rather,
it would be sufficient to maintain it in a centralized location (such
as a corporate office) and made available as necessary.
During the SBREFA process, several Small Entity Representatives
objected to the requirement for documentation of monthly and annual
inspections, stating that such documentation would be unduly burdensome
and would not, in their opinions, add to worker safety. The Panel
recommended that OSHA solicit public comment on the extent of
inspection documentation the rule should require. OSHA requests comment
on this issue.
[[Page 59775]]
Paragraph 1412(g) Severe Service
Proposed paragraph (g) would require the employer to inspect the
equipment when the severity of use/conditions--``such as loading that
may have exceeded rated capacity, shock loading that may have exceeded
rated capacity, [or] prolonged exposure to a corrosive atmosphere''--
creates a ``reasonable probability of damage or excessive wear.'' In
such instances, the employer would be required to stop using the
equipment and have a qualified person ``inspect the equipment for
structural damage''; determine whether, in light of the use/conditions
of the severe service, any items listed in the Annual/comprehensive
inspection need to be inspected and if so, inspect them; and if a
deficiency is found, follow the correction/monitoring procedures set
forth in proposed Sec. 1926.1412(f)(4)-(f)(6).
Neither ANSI B30.5-1968 nor ASME B30.5-2004 has a specific
inspection provision for severe service. Rather, those standards
reference ``severity of service'' as a factor to be considered when
determining how frequently to conduct a Periodic Inspection. COE-EM
385-1-1 (1 Jan 03) references severe service under its periodic
inspection as a basis for requiring that inspection to be performed
quarterly as opposed to ``Yearly.''
The Committee believed that there are certain events and
circumstances that, because they may cause damage (i.e., structural
damage or significant wear), should trigger a close inspection to check
for such damage, rather than waiting for the next annual inspection.
The Committee considered using ``heavy service'' as a trigger for
such an inspection. In the course of that discussion, the Committee
considered triggering the inspection based on specific rated load
capacities (such as 85 to 100% of the rated load capacity) or on a
particular number of cycles (such as in excess of 10 lift cycles per
hour). These were rejected because members believed that, as long as
the use is within the equipment's rated capacity, such use would not be
expected to necessitate a special inspection.
Instead, the Committee agreed that a trigger based on use or
conditions in which there is a reasonable probability of damage or
excessive wear would be an effective means of ensuring that equipment
was not operated with such damage/wear. Examples were provided in the
proposed provision to add clarity to the concept.
Paragraph 1412(h) Equipment Not in Regular Use
Proposed paragraph (h) would require that equipment that sits idle
for three months or more be inspected by a qualified person in
accordance with the monthly inspection provisions of proposed Sec.
1926.1412(e) before being used.
This would ensure that deficiencies that may arise as a result of
the equipment standing idle are checked before its subsequent use. The
Committee believed that this inspection would need to be done by a
qualified person because some of the deficiencies that may arise from
sitting idle require the qualified person's higher level of ability to
detect and assess. For example, equipment that is idle for a period of
time is often subject to variations in weather (e.g., temperature and
humidity) that cause contraction and expansion of parts and fluids,
which can cause damage. In addition, idle equipment is also more likely
to have corroded pins and corrosion on the boom. Such conditions need
to be assessed by a qualified person to determine if there is a
deficiency that constitutes a hazard.
This proposed requirement differs from the ANSI/ASME standards in
several respects, most significantly in terms of the time frame that
triggers the inspection and the type of inspection required. Both ANSI
B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004 subject cranes that are idle for one or
more months, but less than six months, to a frequent inspection, and
cranes that are idle for six or more months to a periodic inspection.
It should be noted that under the proposed provision and the ANSI/ASME
standards, an inspection of wire rope is included. A qualified person
would conduct this inspection of wire rope (as well as the rest of the
items included in this inspection of equipment not in regular use).
The Committee considered the ANSI/ASME approach to inspecting idle
equipment. It determined that a one month trigger was too short,
because problems that may arise from the equipment sitting idle, such
as drying/hardening seals, take longer than that to occur. It believed
that a three month trigger was more appropriate to use for this
purpose.
Paragraph 1412(i). [Reserved.] This paragraph is reserved because
it is inconvenient for readers to determine whether ``(i)'' is being
used as a letter or a roman numeral.
Paragraph 1412(j)
Proposed paragraph (j) would require that any part of a
manufacturer's inspection procedures relating to safe operation that is
more comprehensive or has a more frequent schedule than that required
by this proposed section must be followed. However, the proposed
paragraph notes that additional manufacturer documentation requirements
need not be followed. Examples are provided in the proposed provision
of the types of items that would be considered to relate to safe
operation (``a safety device or operator aid, critical part of a
control system, power plant, braking system, load-sustaining structural
components, load hook, or in-use operating mechanism'').
Neither the general provisions of 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart N nor
ANSI B30.5-1968 contains a similar provision. However, Sec.
1926.550(c)(5) of Subpart N relative to hammerhead tower cranes and
Sec. 1926.550(f)(2)(iii) relative to floating cranes and floating
derricks require that inspections meet the manufacturer's requirements.
COE-EM 385-1-1-1 (3 Nov 03) states that ``[c]ranes and derricks shall
be * * * inspected * * * in accordance with the manufacturer's
operating manual for the crane and the applicable ANSI/ASME codes or
OSHA requirements, whichever is more stringent.''
The Committee believed that, to the extent a more comprehensive or
frequent inspection is specified by the manufacturer, it is necessary
for that to be done to ensure the safe operation of the equipment. In
the Committee's view, the expertise of the manufacturer with respect to
the equipment in this regard needs to be recognized and acted upon.
Summary of Significant Differences From the Current 29 CFR Part 1926
Subpart N
This proposed section differs in several respects from Subpart N.
Unlike Subpart N, the proposed standard does not include an initial
inspection for new equipment or inspections for standby cranes, nor
does it include a requirement for preventive maintenance.
The Committee concluded that manufacturers' quality control and
inspection practices are generally effective in ensuring that new
equipment does not have deficiencies that constitute safety hazards.
The Committee believed that, to the extent those practices do not
identify and correct all such hazards, the shift inspection would be
adequate to identify and address them.
The Committee concluded that a special inspection for ``standby''
cranes is not needed since the proposed section includes proposed
requirements for equipment ``not in regular use'' (see the
[[Page 59776]]
discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.1412(h), above).
The Committee also concluded that a general requirement for
preventive maintenance is not needed because the proposed inspection
requirements are designed to ensure that deficiencies constituting
safety hazards will be identified quickly and equipment with such a
safety hazard would be prohibited from being returned to service until
the hazard is corrected.
As discussed above, the proposed section would add requirements for
a post-assembly inspection and a severe service inspection, and varies
from Subpart N to some extent with respect to some of the items to be
inspected. In addition, the specific proposed requirements for
inspecting operational aids and for a qualified person to perform the
modified equipment and annual inspections would be new requirements.
Finally, rather than providing for ``daily to monthly'' inspections,
the proposed standard would require shift inspections and monthly
inspections.
Section 1413 Wire Rope--Inspection
Cranes/derricks use wire rope to lift and support their loads and
parts of the equipment. If the rope is worn or damaged, it can break,
causing a failure of the equipment and/or a falling load, which can
kill or injure workers below. Approximately 3% of crane fatalities in
construction work result from wire ropes snapping. J.E. Beavers et al.,
``Crane-Related Fatalities in the Construction Industry,'' 132 Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 901, 903 (Sept. 2006).
(OSHA-2007-0066-0011).
Subpart N, in Sec. 1926.550(a), contains several inspection
requirements applicable to wire ropes. Other requirements are found in
ANSI B30.5-1968, which is incorporated by reference in Subpart N
through Sec. 1926.550(b)(2). In addition, the employer currently must
look to both Sec. 1926.550 and to the ANSI standard to learn the
content of the required inspections, the qualifications of the
inspector, and the requirements for addressing deficiencies found in
ropes. The Committee believed that placing all of the required
inspections and remedies in this subpart without reference to outside
resources would make it easier for employers to find and become
familiar with the steps they are required to take and so facilitate
compliance. This is particularly true for small businesses, which bear
a disproportionate cost when they must access outside resources.
The proposal would require wire rope inspections at the same
frequency--shift, monthly, and annually--that would apply for other
crane components. Also, like inspections of other components, the shift
and monthly inspections must be conducted by a ``competent person,''
and the annual inspection by a ``qualified person.''
Paragraph 1413(a) Shift Inspection
Proposed paragraph (a) would require a shift inspection, the first
of the three types of wire rope inspections that would be required
under this subpart. The timing, degree of scrutiny, and the level of
expertise required of the person conducting this inspection and the
other two inspections (monthly and annual) essentially mirror those in
proposed Sec. 1926.1412, Inspections, for general equipment
inspections.
Paragraph 1413(a)(1)
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) describes who conducts the shift
inspection, the timing of the inspection, and the degree of scrutiny
required.
The shift inspection would be conducted by a ``competent person,''
a defined term in this subpart.\36\ C-DAC believed that a ``competent
person'' would be the appropriate person to perform the shift
inspection. OSHA standards typically assign comparable inspection
duties to ``competent persons.'' See, for example, Sec. 1926.753(c)
(competent person must conduct pre-shift visual inspection of cranes
used in steel erection) and Sec. 1926.451(d)(3)(i) (competent person
must inspect suspension scaffold before use to ensure it is able to
support intended load). Moreover, a ``competent person'' would conduct
other aspects of the shift inspections under this proposed standard.
Some C-DAC members questioned using a ``competent person'' for shift
and monthly inspections on the basis that the individual most likely to
perform such an inspection, the operator, may not have the authority to
take corrective action, as is required of a ``competent person'' by
definition. In response, OSHA notes that the employer would be required
to ensure that the person assigned to perform the shift inspections has
the requisite authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ As discussed below under paragraph 1926.1413(a)(4), Removal
from service, in certain instances tasks relative to alternative
measures for certain (Category II) deficiencies would be done by a
``qualified person,'' also a defined term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed paragraph also would require that this inspection be
started before each shift and be completed before or during that shift.
As with the general shift inspection, the Committee concluded that it
was appropriate to allow the wire rope inspection to be completed
during the shift instead of requiring it to be completed before the
shift begins (see the discussion above of proposed Sec.
1926.1412(d)(1), which explains the Committee's reasons for allowing
the general shift inspection to be completed during the shift).
Accordingly, the competent person would be required to inspect all
wire rope that is reasonably likely to be used during the shift. In
cases where some of the rope that is likely to be used is not readily
visible before the shift begins, as discussed above, that portion may
be inspected during the shift.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(1) would require the competent person
to conduct a ``visual inspection * * * for apparent deficiencies.'' As
discussed below, the purpose of this inspection is to ensure that
deficiencies are identified and that, depending on the competent
person's evaluation of those deficiencies, appropriate action is taken.
The Committee wanted to make clear, however, that the inspection was
not to be so comprehensive and time-consuming that it would be
unrealistic to conduct it for each shift. To clarify that the
inspection was one that was reasonable for a shift inspection, the
provision states that neither ``untwisting (opening of wire rope)'' nor
``booming down'' would be required during this inspection. It believed
that keeping the level of inspection realistic will encourage
compliance that ultimately will serve to reduce accidents.
Paragraph 1413(a)(2) Apparent Deficiencies
Proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(1) (discussed above) would require the
competent person to look for ``apparent deficiencies, including those
listed in paragraph (a)(2).'' Proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(2) would
establish three categories (I, II, and III) of apparent wire rope
deficiencies. The likelihood that a deficiency is hazardous increases
as the number of the category increases from I to III. As discussed
further below, the category determines the options or ``next steps''
available to or required of the employer under Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4),
Removal from service.
C-DAC's goal in this paragraph is to establish clear and
appropriate requirements setting out the steps employers must take when
inspections reveal deficiencies.
Category I: Proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(2)(i) lists ``Category I''
apparent deficiencies. These are similar to the types of wire rope
deterioration noted in the inspection provisions of
[[Page 59777]]
section 5-2.4.1 of ANSI B30.5-1968 and section 5-2.4.2 of ASME B30.5-
2004. As further indicated below in the discussion of Sec.
1926.1413(a)(4)(i) under Removal from service, these items are grouped
together because they reflect damage that may or may not be severe
enough to constitute a hazard. Proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(i) sets
forth the steps the employer would be required to take once a Category
I apparent deficiency has been identified.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(2)(i)(A) begins the list with the
``significant distortion'' of wire rope, such as ``kinking, crushing,
unstranding, birdcaging, signs of core failure or steel core protrusion
between the strands.'' These apparent deficiencies were selected
because, as indicated by their inclusion in consensus standards, such
as section 5-2.4.2 of ASME B30.5-2004, they may constitute or indicate
the presence of a hazard. The Committee considered whether the
reference in this paragraph to core failure should be limited to
rotation resistant rope. However, the Committee decided not to limit
``signs of core failure'' to rotation resistant rope.
The word ``significant'' was included in this and other provisions
in Sec. 1926.1413(a)(2)(i) to make clear that minimal defects of these
types do not rise to the level of Category I deficiencies. Only those
that may pose genuine safety concerns are included.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1413 (a)(2)(i)(B) lists ``significant
corrosion'' as a Category I apparent deficiency. This type of damage
was included because severe corrosion can weaken wire rope and cause it
to break. The Committee used the descriptive term ``significant'' to
limit further action to situations in which the degree of corrosion
could realistically suggest a hazard.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C) lists ``electric arc (from a source
other than power lines) or heat damage'' as a Category I apparent
deficiency. These deficiencies were derived from SAE (Society of
Automotive Engineers) and COE (Army Corps of Engineers) standards and
are included because such damage can weaken the wire rope. In
discussing these types of damage, some Committee members expressed
concern that ``heat damage'' would include instances where the rope had
been cut to size by flame cutting. However, flame cutting would occur
at the end of the newly cut rope, not at a load-bearing part of the
rope. Heat damage is only a concern if it weakens a load-bearing part
of the rope. Flame cutting done at the end of the rope, not in a load-
bearing part, would not cause a hazard.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(D) lists ``improperly applied end
connections'' as another apparent deficiency. In the Committee's
experience, one type of error that occurs is when somebody between
shifts cuts the cable and puts the end connection back the wrong
way.\37\ An improper connection is weaker than a proper one and can
result in the connection failing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ An example would be when the person installs a U-bolt clip
with the ``U'' on the live end of the wire rope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(E) lists ``[s]ignificantly corroded,
cracked, bent, or worn end connections (such as from severe service)''
as the last type of Category I apparent deficiency. Each of these may
constitute a hazard.
Category II: Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) contains two types of
Category II apparent deficiencies--visible broken wires (Sec.
1926.1413(a)(2)(ii)(A)) and wire rope diameter reduction (Sec.
1926.1413(a)(2)(ii)(B)). In the experience of the Committee, these more
typically signal the presence of a safety hazard than Category I
apparent deficiencies. Proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii), under
Removal from service, sets forth the steps the employer would be
required to take once a Category II apparent deficiency has been
identified.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) lists separate criteria for
visible broken wires for running wire ropes (six randomly distributed
broken wires in one rope lay or three broken wires in one strand in one
rope lay), rotation resistant ropes (two randomly distributed broken
wires in six rope diameters or four randomly distributed broken wires
in 30 rope diameters), and pendant or standing wire ropes (more than
two broken wires in one rope lay located in rope beyond end connections
and/or more than one broken wire in a rope lay located at an end
connection).
A ``running wire rope'' is a wire rope that moves over sheaves or
drums. This definition is included in Sec. 1926.1401 of this proposed
standard to make clear the nature of the wire rope that is subject to
this inspection provision. These criteria are the same as those
contained in section 5-2.4.3 of ASME B30.5-2004, and those for running
wire ropes and pendant or standing wire ropes are also contained in
section 5-2.4.2 of ANSI B30.5-1968, which is incorporated by reference
in 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart N. One issue that was left unanswered
during the Committee discussions is whether these broken wire criteria
are equally applicable when using plastic sheaves. The Agency requests
public comment on this issue.
The reference in proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) to ``a diameter
reduction of more than 5% from nominal diameter'' reflects a change in
the manner of expressing essentially the same criteria currently set
forth in fractions in Subpart N (Sec. 1926.550(a)(7)(iv)) and section
5-2.4.3(b)(6) of ASME B30.5-2004. OSHA notes that the ``reduction in
diameter'' fractions set forth currently in Sec. 1926.550(a)(7)(iv)
are in each case equal to or greater than 5%, so the proposed across
the board 5% criterion is equally or more protective than the current
standard for each rope diameter. C-DAC used the percentage reduction
criterion because it is consistent with the criterion now being set by
rope manufacturers and used in the industry. The industry uses the
percentage reduction criterion because it is easier to remember than
the fractional reductions in Subpart N.
Category III: Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii) lists apparent
Category III deficiencies. The Committee believed that these are of
such significance that they require the rope's immediate removal from
service. For some Category III deficiencies, the undamaged part of the
rope may be returned to service if the damaged part is severed (the
actions required in response to identifying these deficiencies are
discussed below with respect to proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(iv)).
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(A), ``core protrusion or other
distortion indicating core failure'' in rotation resistant rope would
be a Category III apparent deficiency. As described by a C-DAC member,
this visible indicator is present when there is core protrusion between
the outer strands or, in other words, ``the metal core is coming out.''
Core protrusion is a late-stage indicator that the rope has already
suffered significant damage and, in the Committee's judgment,
necessitates the rope's immediate removal from service.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B), ``[e]lectrical contact
with a power line'' would be a Category III apparent deficiency.
Contact with a power line could cause the rope to carry a high
electrical current that could result in internal damage that
significantly reduces the rope's strength. The Committee believed that,
in view of the difficulty in confirming such internal damage and the
likelihood that significant damage has occurred in such instances, it
is imperative that the entire rope be replaced.
The rope would have to be removed from service under this provision
if the load, rigging, or the rope itself makes electrical contact with
a power line. In
[[Page 59778]]
addition, electrical contact under this provision would occur if the
boom or other part of the crane contacts a power line and the wire rope
is in contact with the ground through the hook or some other means.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C) also lists ``a broken strand'' as
a Category III apparent deficiency. A strand is a ``group'' of wires.
In the Committee's view, that degree of damage clearly compromises the
rope's capacity and continued use would be dangerous.
Paragraph 1413(a)(3) Critical Review Items
Under proposed paragraph (a)(3), the competent person must give
particular attention to certain ``Critical Review Items'' during the
shift inspection (as well as, as discussed below, in the monthly and
annual inspections).
Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i), rotation resistant wire rope
that is in use would be a critical review item. As indicated earlier,
the construction of rotation resistant rope makes it more susceptible
to damage and more difficult to detect damage to the inner wires and/or
strands.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii), ``wire rope being used for
boom hoists and luffing hoists, particularly at reverse bends'' would
be included in the list because of the critical nature of these ropes
and, with respect to reverse bends, because these areas are subjected
to more stress and are more prone to damage.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) lists ``wire rope at flange points,
crossover points and repetitive pickup points on drums'' because these
points of the rope are subject to additional wear. These terms are
defined in Sec. 1926.1401, Definitions, as follows:
Flange point: A point of contact between rope and drum flange
where the rope changes layers.
Crossover points: Locations on a wire rope which is spooled on a
drum where one layer of rope climbs up and crosses over the previous
layer. This takes place at each flange of the drum as the rope is
spooled onto the drum, reaches the flange, and begins to wrap back
in the opposite direction.
Repetitive pickup points: When operating on a short cycle
operation, the rope being used on a single layer and being spooled
repetitively over a short portion of the drum.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iv) lists ``wire rope adjacent to end
connections'' because such rope is prone to corrosion and/or breakage
due to the localized stresses placed on these areas.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(v) lists ``wire rope at and on equalizer
sheaves'' because the limited travel of such rope and added stress make
it more prone to wear.
Paragraph 1413(a)(4) Removal From Service
Remedial steps upon identification of apparent deficiency: Proposed
paragraph (a)(4) would set out the required next steps to be taken once
the competent person performing the inspection has identified an
apparent deficiency. Those steps depend upon whether, under Sec.
1926.1413(a)(2), the apparent deficiency falls under Category I, II or
III. Under this approach, immediate removal from service would be
required for certain deficiencies, while continued use under prescribed
circumstances would be allowed for others. This approach was adopted by
C-DAC because, in the Committee's collective experience, different
types of deficiencies warrant different responses.
As described below, this approach differs somewhat from Subpart N,
with its incorporation by reference of ANSI B30.5-1968, as well as ASME
B30.5-2004. In addition, certain apparent deficiencies addressed in
this proposed rule are not addressed by those consensus standards.
Category I remedial steps: Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(i) sets forth
the follow-up to the discovery of a Category I apparent deficiency that
would be required. Immediately upon the discovery of such a deficiency,
the competent person must determine whether the deficiency is a safety
hazard. If it is determined to be a hazard, operations involving the
use of the wire rope would be prohibited until one of two responses is
taken--the rope is replaced or the deficiency, if localized (and not
due to power line contact), is removed by severing the rope in two so
that the undamaged portion can be used. The provision also would
prohibit joining lengths of rope by splicing.
The Committee found that the likelihood of significant damage from
power line contact is so great that, after such contact, it is
imperative that the rope be removed from service. Also, it determined
that splicing is not a safe practice and should therefore be
prohibited.
The Category I deficiencies, except for damage from significant
corrosion or an electric arc, are currently addressed by Subpart N
through incorporation by reference of section 5-2.4 of ASME B30.5-1968.
That ANSI standard requires the deficiencies to be evaluated (by an
``appointed or authorized person'') and a determination made as to
whether continued use of the rope would constitute a safety hazard. A
similar provision is contained in ASME B30.5-2004. These provisions
imply, but do not explicitly state, that a rope constituting a safety
hazard must not be used. The proposed standard would explicitly state
this prohibition.
Category II remedial steps: Proposed paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and
(iii) establish the procedures to be followed once Category II apparent
deficiencies have been identified. This category of deficiencies
includes wire rope that has diameter reduction and/or visible broken
wires as described in proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(2)(ii). Proposed
Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii) sets forth two alternative options for the
employer--Option A or B--when such a deficiency is identified.
Under Option A, an employer must consider the wire rope to be a
safety hazard where the deficiency meets the wire rope manufacturer's
established criterion for removal or ``meets a different criterion that
the wire rope manufacturer has approved in writing for that specific
wire rope.'' In such instances, operations involving the use of the
wire rope in question are prohibited until it is replaced or severed as
provided in Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B).
Option B would allow limited continued use of the wire rope with an
identified Category II apparent deficiency provided the employer
ensures the procedures specified in Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii) are met.
Under 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii), a qualified person first assesses the
deficiencies in light of the load and other conditions of use and
determines that continued use is safe as long as the conditions
established in this paragraph are met.
These conditions include (as established by the qualified person)
the parameters for use of the rope, including a reduced maximum rated
load, the number of broken wires and/or the diameter reduction that
will require the rope to be taken out of service (or repaired in
accordance with proposed 1926.1413(4)(i)(A) or (B)), and a specific
time limit, not to exceed 30 days from the date the deficiency was
first identified, to replace the rope or sever the damaged portion in
accordance with 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B).
The C-DAC draft, at paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(C), would also have
allowed the qualified person to specify the number of broken strands
that would require the equipment to be taken out of service. However,
as discussed above, under 1926.1413(a)(2)(iii)(C), a single broken
strand is a Category III apparent deficiency that requires the
equipment to be immediately removed from service until the rope is
replaced or the deficiency severed, in which case the undamaged part of
the rope may continue to be used. Because the proposed rule prohibits
any use of a
[[Page 59779]]
wire rope with a broken strand, OSHA has deleted the words ``broken
strands'' from 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(C).
Once the qualified person has established the conditions for
continued use of the rope, the workers who are to conduct the shift
inspections must be notified of the qualified person's determinations.
In addition, the qualified person's procedures and findings must be
documented. The Committee included this documentation provision because
the person conducting the shift inspections would need to be able to
refer to the parameters set by the qualified person.
29 CFR Part 1926 subpart N, in Sec. 1926.550(a)(7), currently
requires that ropes with the same deficiencies that would fall under
the proposed rule's Category II (as well as heat damage, which would be
a Category I deficiency) be removed from service. Section 2.4.3(a) of
ASME B30.5-2004 allows the rope to be used to the end of the work shift
based on the judgment of a qualified person.
The Committee determined that the alternative measures specified in
Option B are sufficiently comprehensive and specific to ensure that the
rope's continued use for up to 30 days would be safe.
OSHA notes that the remedial steps for Category II apparent
deficiencies do not, unlike those for Category I and III apparent
deficiencies, state explicitly that splicing of wire rope is
prohibited. Instead, Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A) states that, if a
Category II apparent deficiency is a safety hazard, continued use of
the rope is prohibited unless ``the damage is removed in accordance
with Sec. 1926.1413(4)(i)(B),'' which applies to Category I
deficiencies. Proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B) includes a
prohibition against splicing that C-DAC intended to apply to Category
II deficiencies, but the language ``damage is removed'' in proposed
Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A) could, in the absence of an explicit
prohibition against splicing in that paragraph, arguably be read to
mean that the rope could be severed and the undamaged portions spliced.
To make clear C-DAC's intent that the anti-splicing provision of Sec.
1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B) applies to Category II, OSHA has modified the C-
DAC language for proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(B) as follows:
(ii) If a deficiency in Category II is identified, the employer
shall comply with Option A of this section or Option B of this
section, as follows:
(A) Option A. Consider the deficiency to constitute a safety
hazard where it meets the wire rope manufacturer's established
criterion for removal from service or meets a different criterion
that the wire rope manufacturer has approved in writing for that
specific wire rope. If the deficiency is considered a safety hazard,
operations involving use of the wire rope in question shall be
prohibited until the wire rope is replaced, or the damage is removed
in accordance with all of the requirements and restrictions in
paragraph (4)(i)(B) of this section.
OSHA has made similar changes to proposed Sec.
1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(C) & (D).
Category III remedial steps: Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(iv) would
establish the procedure for dealing with identified apparent
deficiencies that fall within Category III. These deficiencies include
a broken strand, electrical contact with a power line, and core
protrusion or other distortion in rotation resistant rope indicating
core failure. This proposed paragraph would prohibit operations
involving the use of the wire rope until either the wire rope is
replaced or (except where there has been power line contact) severed in
two, so that the undamaged portion can be used. Joining lengths of wire
rope by splicing would be prohibited (see discussion above of proposed
Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B)).
Neither Subpart N nor ANSI B30.5-1968 addresses these apparent
deficiencies. However, the Committee noted that section 5-2.4.2(a) of
ASME B30.5-2000 lists ``broken or cut strands'' and ``core failure in
rotation resistant ropes'' as deficiencies that may be an immediate
hazard. (ASME B30.5-2004 contains the same characterization of these
deficiencies as the 2000 version). The Committee believed that ropes
with Category III deficiencies must not be used because of the high
potential for rope failure.
Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(v) would require that where a wire rope
is required to be removed from service under this proposed section, the
equipment (as a whole) or the hoist with that wire rope shall be
tagged-out as provided in proposed Sec. 1926.1417(f)(1) until the wire
rope is replaced or repaired. Neither Subpart N, with its incorporated
reference to ASME B30.5-1968, nor ASME B30.5-2004 contains a similar
tag-out provision specific to wire rope. The Committee believed that
this would be an efficient and effective way of preventing employees
from activating equipment (or the affected hoist) that has a wire rope
with an identified hazard.
Paragraph 1413(b) Monthly Inspection
Proposed paragraph (b) would require a monthly inspection of wire
rope. The monthly inspection would be, as explained below, a documented
shift inspection. C-DAC decided to keep the timing of this inspection
(as well as the level of scrutiny required and the expertise required
of the inspector) parallel with the general inspection requirements in
Sec. 1926.1412 to provide for an efficient inspection process and thus
enhance compliance. A monthly wire rope inspection is currently
required by Subpart N's incorporation by reference of ASME B30.5-1968.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) would require the monthly
inspection to be conducted in the same manner as the shift inspection
under Sec. 1926.1413(a). Thus, the monthly inspection would be a
visual inspection conducted by a competent person for the same types of
apparent deficiencies noted in the wire rope shift inspection.
It should be noted that the reference in proposed Sec.
1926.1413(b)(2) of the C-DAC Consensus Document to ``paragraph
1413(a)(3)'' has been corrected in the proposed rule to refer to Sec.
1926.1413(a)(4), which contains the relevant provisions governing
corrective actions.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require the monthly inspection to
be documented in the same manner as required by paragraph Sec.
1926.1412(e)(3) for the monthly general inspection. C-DAC wanted to
keep this requirement parallel with the monthly general inspection
provision in order to reduce paperwork and confusion, and facilitate
compliance.
Specifically, for the general monthly inspection, Sec.
1926.1412(e)(3) provides that the ``employer that conducts the
inspection'' must provide documentation that reflects the items checked
with results, the name and signature of the inspector, and the date.
Similar requirements are set forth in ASME B30.5-1968.
Proposed paragraph 1412(e)(3) also specifies that the documentation
be retained for not less than three-months. The Committee believed that
the proposed three-month retention period would provide sufficient
overlap to avoid gaps in information and thus provide a tracking
mechanism for developing problem areas.
Paragraph 1413(c) Annual/Comprehensive
Proposed paragraph 1413(c) would require an annual inspection (at
least every 12 months) for wire rope, conducted by a qualified person.
The annual inspection would be considerably more thorough and
comprehensive than the shift and monthly inspections required by
proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a) and (b). In
[[Page 59780]]
addition, it would be conducted by a ``qualified person,'' who would
have greater expertise than the ``competent person'' who must conduct
the shift and monthly inspections.
The timing and inspector qualifications for the annual wire rope
inspection coincide with those for the general equipment annual/
comprehensive inspection. C-DAC believed that the use of corresponding
timeframes and personnel will allow inspections to be conducted
efficiently and thereby promote effectiveness and compliance.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(1), all apparent deficiencies and
critical review items required to be checked in a shift inspection
would have to be checked in the annual/comprehensive inspection (see
Sec. 1926.1413(a)(2) and (a)(3)). In addition, under proposed Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2), a complete and thorough inspection, covering the
surface of the entire length of the wire ropes, would be required. In
addition to inspecting in this manner for the types of deficiencies
listed in Sec. 1926.1413(a)(2), under proposed Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A), the qualified person would be required to give
particular attention to the critical review items listed in Sec.
1926.1413(a)(3). Note that the C-DAC document's Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A) referred to the ``critical review items listed
in paragraph (a)(2)'' instead of Sec. 1926.1413(a)(3). That reference
to Sec. 1926.1413(a)(2) was a typographical error, which has been
corrected in the proposed rule.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B), particular attention must
be given to those sections of wire rope that are normally hidden during
shift and monthly inspections. For example, such sections would include
parts of the rope that form the lower wraps on the boom hoist drum and
which would not be visible unless the drum is in a very low angle
position. The parts of the rope that are normally inside a cowling or
covered area would be another example of such sections.
Similarly, proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(C) through (F) require
particular attention to wire rope in contact with saddles, equalizer
sheaves or other sheaves where rope travel is limited, wire rope
subject to reverse bends, wire rope passing over sheaves and wire rope
at or near terminal ends, since these areas are more prone to wear.
Unlike the shift and monthly inspections, in which booming down
would not be required, booming down would be necessary in order for the
inspection to be ``complete and thorough, covering the surface of the
entire length of the wire rope.''
OSHA notes that the items listed in Sec. 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C)
and (F) (``Wire rope in contact with saddles, equalizer sheaves or
other sheaves where rope travel is limited'' and ``Wire rope at or near
terminal ends'') are similar to the critical review items listed for
shift inspections in proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and
(a)(3)(v)(``Wire rope adjacent to end connections'' and ``Wire rope at
and on equalizer sheaves''). Consequently, the Agency is planning to
revise the language in proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v)
to match the language in Sec. 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and
(c)(2)(ii)(F). OSHA then could delete proposed Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F) because proposed Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A) incorporates by reference the critical review
items listed in Sec. 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v), thereby making
the items listed in proposed paragraphs Sec. 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C)
and (c)(2)(ii)(F) redundant and unnecessary. The Agency asks the public
for comments on this proposed action.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would establish an exception to the
timing of the annual/ comprehensive inspection where that inspection is
infeasible due to ``existing set-up and configuration of the equipment
(such as where an assist crane is needed) or due to site conditions
(such as a dense urban setting).'' The provision sets a timetable for
annual/comprehensive inspections in such cases that requires the
inspection to be performed ``as soon as it becomes feasible, but no
longer than an additional 6 months for running ropes and, for standing
ropes, at the time of disassembly.''
This provision reflects the Committee's concern that, particularly
in densely developed urban settings, the inability to boom down would
prevent the employer from completing a comprehensive wire rope
inspection. The Committee considered requiring employers anticipating
such situations to provide rope that is new or ``like new'' when the
crane is set-up at the site. Also considered was requiring that an
annual inspection be required in such instances before the start of the
job. The Committee found these proposals to be impractical because it
is difficult for employers to forecast completion timeframes with
sufficient accuracy.
The proposed provision is intended to ensure that, under the
circumstances where the exception would apply, the required inspection
would occur within an appropriate period. The Committee considered a
maximum of an additional 6 months appropriate for running ropes in
these circumstances. A longer period, up to the time of disassembly,
was considered appropriate for standing ropes because these ropes, in
the Committee's experience, are less subject to deterioration and wear.
These provisions of the annual/comprehensive inspection differ in
various ways from Subpart N annual inspection provisions at Sec.
1926.550(a)(6). The current annual inspection in Subpart N is a
``thorough'' inspection conducted by a ``competent person or by a
government or private agency recognized by the U.S. Department of
Labor.'' Under this proposal, the annual/comprehensive inspection would
be conducted by a qualified person and includes a number of specific
items the inspection must encompass. The Committee believed that these
changes are needed to reduce the likelihood of injuries and fatalities
from wire rope failure.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) identifies the next steps that would have
to be taken once the qualified person performing the annual/
comprehensive inspection discovers a deficiency. The qualified person
must immediately determine whether the deficiency constitutes a safety
hazard. If it does, under proposed Sec. 1926.1413(c)(3)(i), the rope
would either have to be replaced or, if the deficiency is localized,
the damaged part may be severed and the undamaged portion may continue
to be used. As discussed with respect to proposed Sec.
1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B), joining lengths of wire rope by splicing would
be prohibited.
The proposed standard does not include a prohibition in Sec.
1926.1413(c)(3)(i)(B) against repair of wire rope that contacted an
energized power line, although such a prohibition is included in the
context of a shift inspection in proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B).
The Agency's understanding is that the Committee decided to not include
that prohibition in the annual/comprehensive inspection provision
because, if an energized power line contact had occurred, the rope
would have been removed from service immediately in accordance with
proposed Sec. 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B).
If the qualified person determines that the deficiency is not
currently a safety hazard but needs to be monitored, under proposed
Sec. 1926.1413(c)(3)(ii) the employer would be required to ensure that
the deficiency is checked in the monthly inspections. This would ensure
that, as the deficiency continues to develop, the competent person
would pay particular attention to it in the monthly inspections. Once
it became a
[[Page 59781]]
safety hazard, it would be identified promptly and the appropriate
corrective action would be taken.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(4), the annual/comprehensive
inspection would be required to be documented according to proposed
Sec. 1926.1412(f)(7), which is the documentation provision for the
annual general inspection. As with other parallel requirements in this
section, the C-DAC intended to ensure consistency with other
recordkeeping requirements and thus facilitate compliance.
Proposed paragraph 1412(f)(7), which is incorporated by reference
here, would require the employer that is conducting the inspection to
document and retain for 12 months, ``the items checked and the results
of that inspection'' and ``the name and signature of the person who
conducted the inspection and the date.'' This documentation requirement
differs from 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart N's annual inspection in that
Subpart N does not specify the period of time the documentation must be
kept and has neither a signature requirement nor a requirement that the
inspector be named. The Committee believed that a 12 month retention
period would ensure that the employer would be able to refer to the
last annual/comprehensive inspection to help track the rate of
progression of a deficiency that has not yet developed into a safety
hazard. The Committee also believed that it would increase the
likelihood of compliance with the annual/comprehensive inspection
requirements.
Finally, proposed paragraph 1413(d) would prohibit the use of the
type of rope lubricants that hinder inspection. For example, rope
lubricants that are opaque or so dark that they mask the wire rope
inside them would be of this type. This prohibition is necessary to
ensure that the rope lubricant does not hide potential deficiencies.
Section 1414 Wire Rope--Selection and Installation Criteria
This proposed section sets forth requirements for selecting and
installing wire rope. It addresses safety concerns related to wire rope
selection and installation. In addition, it would provide greater
flexibility in the selection process than current requirements under
Subpart N. This flexibility reflects and takes advantage of new
developments in wire rope technology.
Currently, paragraph 1926.550(a)(7)(vi) of Subpart N prescribes
that wire rope safety factors accord with ANSI B30.5-1968 or SAE J959-
1966. By contrast, this proposed section would not refer to external
standards for wire rope safety factors or other requirements (with a
single exception discussed below) and would give greater flexibility in
selecting wire rope, particularly rotation resistant wire rope.
Specific differences between this proposal and Subpart N are examined
in the discussion of the paragraph where the difference arises.
The Agency notes that, in developing the C-DAC consensus document,
the Committee appears to have made an inadvertent omission. The wire
rope safety factors in section 5-1.7.1 of ANSI B30.5-1968 (which, as
noted above, are incorporated by reference in Subpart N) apply
irrespective of whether the rope is of the standard type (i.e., rope
that is not rotation-resistant) or rotation resistant. However, the C-
DAC document contains safety factor (now ``design'' factor)
requirements only for rotation resistant rope \38\; it has no
provisions on design factors for standard rope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ As discussed below under proposed paragraph (c), C-DAC drew
from the current 2004 ASME document in proposing design factors for
rotation resistant rope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, under Subpart N's incorporation of section 5-1.7.1 of
ANSI B30.5-1968, the factors for standard rope vary from a minimum of
2.5 to 3.5 depending on how the rope is used. The 2004 version of
section 5-1.7.1 of ASME B30.5 contains similar provisions and the same
range of design factors.\39\ Given the importance of design factors in
the selection of wire rope, OSHA believes that the omission of design
factors for standard rope from the C-DAC document was an oversight.
OSHA is unaware of any reason to omit design factors for standard rope
and plans to include factors for standard rope similar to those in
section 5-1.7.1 of ASME B30.5-2004. OSHA requests public comment on
this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The provisions for standard rope in section 5-1.7.1 of
B30.5-2004 read as follows:
5-1.7.1 Rope Design Factors
(a) For supporting rated loads and for supporting the boom and
working attachments at recommended travel or transit positions and
boom lengths,
(1) the design factor for live or running ropes that wind on
drums or travel over sheaves shall not be less than 3.5.
(2) the design factor for boom pendants or standing ropes shall
not be less than 3.0.
(b) For supporting the boom under recommended boom erection
conditions,
(1) the design factor for live or running ropes shall not be
less than 3.0.
(2) the design factor for boom pendants or standing ropes shall
not be less than 2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 1414(a)
Proposed paragraph (a) would require the selection of replacement
wire rope to be in accordance with the requirements of this section and
the recommendations of the wire rope manufacturer, the equipment
manufacturer, or a qualified person. Currently, Subpart N (through
section 5-1.7.2e of ANSI B30.5-1968) limits the employer to using
replacement rope of the same size, grade and construction as the rope
originally furnished by the crane manufacturer unless otherwise
approved by the rope manufacturer. The 2004 version of ASME B30.5, in
section 5-2.4.3(d), specifies that replacement rope shall have a
strength rating at least as great as the original rope unless a
deviation is approved by the equipment manufacturer, the rope
manufacturer, or a qualified person.
A number of concerns about the current 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N
provision were raised during the C-DAC negotiations. Some members were
concerned about delays in obtaining approval from the equipment
manufacturer. With respect to older equipment, the manufacturer may no
longer be in business. In such cases the employer is unable to get
original equipment wire rope information or obtain approval for use of
a different specification of rope. Even where the original manufacturer
was purchased by another company, the current company may no longer
have the original equipment information. Another concern was that the
wire rope manufacturer may be unduly conservative in recommending a
replacement rope.
The Committee concluded that it would be appropriate to allow a
qualified person to determine the replacement rope specifications. The
Committee believed that the criteria for being a qualified person are
sufficiently rigorous to ensure that such a person's recommendation in
this regard would be authoritative with respect to safety.
OSHA notes that proposed paragraph (a)'s mention of only
``replacement rope'' could mislead some readers to conclude that all of
Sec. 1926.1414 applies only to replacement rope. The Committee clearly
intended that the remainder of Sec. 1926.1414 apply to both original
equipment rope and replacement rope. Rewording Sec. 1926.1414(a) to
read as follows would, OSHA believes, make clear the Committee's
intent: ``Original equipment wire rope and replacement wire rope shall
be selected and installed in accordance with the requirements of this
section. Selection of replacement wire rope shall be in accordance with
the recommendations of the wire rope manufacturer, the equipment
manufacturer, or a qualified person.'' OSHA requests public comment on
such a revision.
[[Page 59782]]
Paragraph 1414(b) Boom Hoist Reeving
Proposed paragraph (b) sets forth two provisions regarding the use
of wire rope for boom hoist reeving.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would prohibit using fiber core ropes for
boom hoist reeving, except for derricks. In the Committee's view, the
composition of such ropes makes them prone to degradation that is not
completely detectable by normal inspection techniques. The Committee
believed that fiber core ropes can be used safely for boom hoist
reeving on derricks because the sheaves on derricks are smaller than on
cranes, and because they are more pliable, fiber core ropes can
accommodate reverse bending. In addition, but less significant, derrick
booms are typically shorter in length and have less capacity.
Currently, Subpart N does not contain an express prohibition
against the use of fiber core wire ropes for boom hoist reeving. ANSI
B30.5-1968, incorporated by reference into Subpart N, only references
the effect of temperature on fiber core wire rope.
The 2004 version of ASME B30.5, in section 5.1.7.2(b), prohibits
the use of fiber core wire ropes for boom hoist reeving for mobile and
locomotive cranes. By contrast, the standard in the ASME B30 series
that applies to derricks, ASME