[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]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Part 1926
Cranes and Derricks in Construction; Proposed Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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.
--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.
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:
(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 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:
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 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).
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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
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 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 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 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)
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)
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, 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 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
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 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 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 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 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
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.
.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 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, 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.
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:
(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-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. 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 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 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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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."
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 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 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.
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 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: 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
Paragraph 1414(b) Boom Hoist Reeving
Proposed paragraph (b) sets forth two provisions regarding the use
of wire rope for boom hoist reeving.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would prohibit using fiber core ropes for
boom hoist reeving, except for derricks. In the Committee's view, the
composition of such ropes makes them prone to degradation that is not
completely detectable by normal inspection techniques. The Committee
believed that fiber core ropes can be used safely for boom hoist
reeving on derricks because the sheaves on derricks are smaller than on
cranes, and because they are more pliable, fiber core ropes can
accommodate reverse bending. In addition, but less significant, derrick
booms are typically shorter in length and have less capacity.
Currently, Subpart N does not contain an express prohibition
against the use of fiber core wire ropes for boom hoist reeving. ANSI
B30.5-1968, incorporated by reference into Subpart N, only references
the effect of temperature on fiber core wire rope.
The 2004 version of ASME B30.5, in section 5.1.7.2(b), prohibits
the use of fiber core wire ropes for boom hoist reeving for mobile and
locomotive cranes. By contrast, the standard in the ASME B30 series
that applies to derricks, ASME B30.6-2003, does not prohibit the use of
fiber core wire rope for boom hoist reeving. Thus, the distinction in
proposed Sec. 1926.1414(b) between cranes and derricks in this regard
is consistent with current national consensus standards.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would prohibit rotation resistant rope
from being used for boom hoist reeving except where the requirements of
Sec. 1926.1414(c) are met. The Committee believed that only where
these provisions are met would the use of rotation resistant rope for
this purpose be safe. The particulars of paragraph (c) are discussed
next.
Paragraph 1414(c) Rotation Resistant Ropes
Paragraph (c)(1)
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would classify rotation resistant ropes
into three "Types" ("Type I," "Type II," and "Type III").\40\
Proposed Sec. 1926.1414(c)(2) specifies use limitations and
requirements for each "Type" of wire rope. This approach differs from
Subpart N, ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004, which do not
distinguish between types of rotation resistant rope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ASTM A 1023/A 1023M-02 has a similar classification system,
although it divides rotation resistant ropes into "categories."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological advances have resulted in different types of what in
the past had been referred to as "rotation resistant rope." The
different kinds, which are distinguished in this proposed section as
Types I, II and III, have different capabilities, which are described
in the definitions in proposed Sec. 1926.1414(c)(1). This proposed
section tailors the requirements and limitations to each Type. The
Committee believed that this approach would enable the industry to take
advantage of technological advances and improve safety.
Paragraph (c)(2) Requirements
Proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) set forth use
requirements of the three "Types" of rotation resistant rope in terms
of operating design factors (and in some instances activity). The
purpose of these provisions is to ensure that the selection of the Type
of rotation resistant rope is suitable, in terms of safety, to its use.
The specifics of each paragraph are discussed below. This approach
generally differs from Subpart N. The safety factors in ANSI B30.5-1968
and SAE J959-1966 that are incorporated by reference in 29 CFR part
1926 subpart N are applicable to wire rope generally; those industry
consensus standards do not separately address rotation resistant rope
with respect to design factors.
However, sections 5-5-1.7.1(c) and 5-3.2.1.1(d) of ASME B30.5-2004
generally designate a design factor of 5 for the use of rotation
resistant rope, reflecting the advances in technology that led the
Committee to adopt a similar approach. Further, the 2004 ASME standard
allows for deviation from the design factor of 5, but in no case lower
than 3.5, when certain specified procedures that are similar to
procedures in proposed Sec. 1926.1414(c)(2)(iv) and further described
in Sec. 1926.1414(c)(3) are followed.
Proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(i)-(iv) use the phrase "operating
design factor." "Operating" has been included in this phrase to show
that the factors specified in these proposed paragraphs are to reflect
how the rope is installed on the specific piece of equipment in which
it is used. In other words, the operating design factor is calculated
based on numerous considerations associated with both the rope's design
and how it is installed on the equipment in which it will be used.
The Committee recognized that limiting the use of a particular Type
of rotation resistant rope by operating design factors (and, in some
instances, by activity) is a new approach. However, the technological
developments that have occurred since Subpart N was promulgated have
led to a need to tailor use requirements and parameters to the
different Types of rotation resistant rope.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) would prohibit Types II and III
rotation resistant rope with an operating design factor of less than 5
from being used for duty cycle or repetitive lifts. The Committee
believed that such ropes are inappropriate for this type of use, which
subjects the rope to high levels of stress generally and/or
concentrates wear in particular sections of the rope.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ In contrast, where the operating design factor is 5 or
greater, the Committee believed that core damage (which is difficult
to detect) would not occur prior to the development of outer core
damage. Consequently, its use for duty cycle or repetitive lifts
would be safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not addressed in the current Subpart N, a similar limitation
applies to rotation resistant rope (though not limited by Type) in
section 5-3.2.1.1(d)(3) of ASME B30.5-2004.
This prohibition would not apply to Type I rotation resistant rope
because the Committee believed that it is significantly more resistant
to rotation or torque compared with Types II and III. This reduces Type
I's potential for internal wear during use and moves degradation from
the inner wires to the outer wires, where damage is more easily
detected during wire rope inspections. Accordingly, the Committee
concluded that Type I rope can safely be used for duty cycle and
repetitive lifts at an operating design factor below 5 (but no less
than 3.5), as specified in proposed 1926.1414(c)(2)(ii).
The Committee's understanding of "duty cycle" in this context is
a continuous operation in which approximately the same type and weight
of load is handled. For example, dredging with a clamshell is duty
cycle work. "Repetitive lifts" refers to a continuous operation with
loads that may vary in size and weight. For example, steel erection
work typically involves repetitive lifts of various size and
configurations of structural steel members. It is the Agency's
understanding that these definitions are widely understood in the
industry. However, OSHA believes it is appropriate to include them in
Sec. 1926.1401, Definitions, to avoid any misunderstanding as to their
meaning in this standard. OSHA requests public comment on this issue.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would require that all rotation
resistant ropes have an operating design factor of no less than 3.5. As
discussed above, some rotation resistant ropes--Types II and III--would
have to have an operating design factor of no less than 5 when used for
duty cycle or repetitive lifts. Apart from those uses, under proposed Sec.
1926.1414(c)(2)(ii), the lowest operating design factor that would be
allowed for both Types II and III, as well as Type I, would be 3.5.
This provision recognizes that the use of rotation resistant rope
at operating design factors below 5 (but in no case below 3.5) is
permissible, although proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(i) (discussed above),
(iii) and (iv) would set limitations and conditions. The Committee was
cognizant of the fact that section 5-3.2.1.1(d) of ASME B30.5-2004 also
allows rotation resistant rope to be used at a design factor as low as
3.5 under similarly restricted circumstances.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would require the operating design
factor for Type I rotation resistant rope to be no less than 5 except
where the wire rope manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer approve
a different design factor in writing. (Note that, under proposed
paragraph (c)(2)(ii), the operating design factor would be prohibited
from being less than 3.5.) The Committee believed that, in light of the
design of Type I rope, where there is approval for the operating design
factor by both the wire rope manufacturer and equipment manufacturer,
the use of the rope would be safe.
The Committee considered concerns about the fact that, in the
future, there may be many new Type I ropes on the market, and the
manufacturer may not have tested them; this could lead to difficulty in
obtaining manufacturer approval for an operating design factor less
than 5. However, in the Committee's judgment, the manufacturer's
expertise regarding the particular equipment is essential in this
instance to ensure that use of such rope would be safe.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iv), Types II and III rotation
resistant rope would be required to have an operating design factor of
no less than 5 except when used for non-duty cycle and non-repetitive
lifts, and where the requirements of Sec. 1926.1414(c)(3)(i)--(iii)
are met. When these exceptions apply, proposed Sec.
1926.1414(c)(2)(ii) would prohibit the operating design factor from
being less than 3.5.
This proposed paragraph reflects the Committee's belief that there
is a greater likelihood of internal damage in Type II and Type III
rotation resistant rope when used with an operating design factor lower
than 5. However, the Committee's view is that where the additional
precautions in proposed Sec. 1926.1414(c)(3) are met, its use would be
safe.
As stated above, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N is dissimilar from this
paragraph in that it does not contain a specific operating design
factor for rotation resistant rope and does not otherwise differentiate
between rotation resistant wire ropes. This provision is, however,
similar to section 5-3.2.1.1(d) in ASME B30.5-2004 which, while not
differentiating by "Type," does allow the use of rotation resistant
rope with an operating design factor of less than 5 where conditions
similar to those included in proposed Sec. 1926.1414(c)(3) are
instituted.
Paragraph (c)(3)
This proposed paragraph specifies additional requirements that must
be met when Types II and III are used with an operating design factor
of between 3.5 and 5 (for non-duty cycle, non-repetitive lifts). The
Committee believed that these additional requirements are needed to
ensure that use of such ropes would be safe.
Specifically, under proposed Sec. 1926.1414(c)(3)(i), an
inspection of the rope by a qualified person in accordance with Sec.
1926.1413(a) would be required, with its use allowed only if that
person determines there are no deficiencies constituting a hazard (with
the presence of more than one broken wire in any one rope lay
considered a hazard). Because of the lower operating design factor of
these ropes, the Committee believed that the expertise of a qualified
person is needed to ensure that there are no deficiencies that
constitute a hazard. Similarly, even one broken wire in any one rope
lay would be considered a hazard.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii), operations would have to be
conducted in a manner and at speeds that minimize dynamic effects.
Dynamic effects are the additional forces exerted on the rope due to
dynamics like acceleration and deceleration. Such effects need to be
minimized because they increase the stress on the rope.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii), each lift would have to be
documented in the monthly and annual inspection records, with such use
to be considered by the qualified person in allowing subsequent use of
the rope. The Committee considered this an important step because the
more times the rope is used, the greater the likelihood that
degradation would have occurred. Requiring each such lift to be
documented in the monthly and annual inspection records would ensure
that this information is available to the qualified person when that
person makes his or her inspections and assessments under proposed
Sec. 1926.1414(c)(3)(i) and (ii).
Paragraph (c)(4) Additional Requirements for Rotation Resistant Rope
for Boom Hoist Reeving
Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(i) would prohibit rotation resistant rope
from being used for boom hoist reeving except where the requirements of
proposed Sec. 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) are met. Currently, Subpart N,
through its incorporation by reference of section 5-1.7.2 of ANSI
B30.5-1968, prohibits the use of rotation resistant rope for boom hoist
reeving under all circumstances. This prohibition reflects the fact
that rotation resistant rope used for boom hoist reeving tends to twist
and thereby suffer internal damage when it passes over sheaves that are
close together.
In reviewing this prohibition, the Committee noted that this
problem is reduced when load hoists using rotation resistant rope are
used as boom hoists for attachments such as luffing attachments or boom
and mast attachment systems because the sheaves are not as close
together in these applications and the twisting forces are therefore
lower.
The Committee concluded that safety would not be compromised in
such circumstances as long as the conditions in proposed Sec.
1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) were met. The Committee also believed that the
exception would serve a practical purpose, especially when using
attachments such as luffing jibs. The auxiliary hoist is typically used
as a boom hoist for such attachments, and is normally rigged with
rotation resistant rope. The exception enables the employer to avoid
the need to change the rope when using such attachments when safety
could be assured by meeting the specified conditions for its use. Note
that section 5-1.7.2 of ASME B30.5-2004 also allows rotation resistant
rope to be used for boom hoist reeving when conditions similar to those
in proposed Sec. 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) are met.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A), the drum must have a first
layer rope pitch diameter of not less than 18 times the nominal
diameter of the rope used. A first layer rope pitch diameter less than
that could damage the rope.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B), the requirements of Sec.
1926.1426(a) and (b) would have to be met.\42\ Section 1926.1426(a)
prohibits boom free fall for equipment manufactured prior to October 31,
1984 and restricts the circumstances under which a free falling boom may
be used for equipment manufactured before that date. By saying that paragraph
1426(a) applies "irrespective of the date of manufacture," proposed Sec.
1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(B) makes clear that, when rotation resistant rope
is used for boom hoist reeving, boom free fall is prohibited for all
equipment under all circumstances. The reference to Sec. 1926.1426(b)
requires the boom hoist to have a secondary mechanism to prevent free
fall in the event the primary system fails. These provisions would
prevent the rope from being subjected to the shock load forces that
would occur in a boom free fall when the rope arrests the fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The C-DAC Document referred to Sec. 1926.1426(b) and (c).
C-DAC's intent clearly was to refer to Sec. 1926.1426(a) and (b),
and OSHA has corrected the text accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The C-DAC draft of proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(C) incorporated by
reference the provisions in ASME B30.5-2004 at sections 5-1.3.2(a),
(a)(2) through (a)(4), and (b) through (d).\43\ (Note that, at the time
the C-DAC document was completed, the most current version of ANSI/ASME
B30.5 was the 2000 version. Since that time the 2004 version has been
issued. The referenced provisions are identical in both versions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The Committee determined that the incorporated provisions
were sufficiently clear and enforceable for use as OSHA
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These provisions of section 5-1.3.2 (load hoist mechanisms) of the
ASME standard provide:
* * * * *
(a) Load Hoist Drums. The load hoist drum assemblies shall have
power and operational characteristics sufficient to perform all load
lifting and lowering functions required in crane service when
operated under recommended conditions.
* * * * *
(2) Load hoist drums shall have rope capacity with the
recommended rope size and reeving to perform crane service within
the range of boom lengths, operating radii, and vertical lifts
specified by the manufacturer.
(a) No less than two full wraps of rope shall remain on the drum
when the hook is in the extreme low position.
(b) The drum end of the rope shall be anchored to the drum by an
arrangement specified by the crane or rope manufacturer.
(c) The drum flange shall extend a minimum of 1/2 inch (13 mm)
over the top layer of rope at all times.
(3) The load hoist drums shall provide a first layer rope pitch
diameter of not less than 18 times the nominal diameter of the rope
used.
(4) A means controllable from the operator's station shall be
provided to hold the drum from rotating in the lowering direction
and be capable of holding the rated load without further action by
the operator. Foot-operated brakes having a continuous mechanical
linkage between the actuating and braking means, capable of
transmitting full braking force and equipped with a positive
mechanical means to hold the linkage in the applied position, meet
this requirement.
* * * * *
(b) Load Hoist Brakes.
(1) When power-operated brakes having no continuous mechanical
linkage between the actuating and braking means are used for
controlling loads, an automatic means shall be provided to set the
brake, to prevent the load from falling in the event of loss of
brake control power.
(2) Foot-operated brake pedals shall be constructed so that the
operator's feet, when in proper position, will not slip off, and a
means shall be provided for holding the brakes in the applied
position without further action by the operator.
(c) Power Controlled Lowering. When provided, a power-controlled
lowering system shall be capable of handling rated loads and speeds
as specified by the manufacturer. Such a system is recommended to
assist in precision lowering and to reduce demand on the load brake.
(d) Cylinders with Rope Reeving. Cranes using a load hoist
mechanism with hydraulic cylinder(s) and rope reeving shall have
power and operational characteristics sufficient to perform all load
lifting and lowering functions required in crane service when
operated under recommended conditions. Sheaves used in multiple rope
reeving shall have a pitch diameter not less than 16 times the
nominal diameter of the rope and shall comply with para. 5-1.7.4.
Upon reviewing these provisions, OSHA believes that two changes
need to be made to the incorporation recommended by C-DAC. First, the
second sentence of section 5-1.3.2(c) is stated as a recommendation
rather than a mandatory requirement. OSHA believes it would be
confusing to incorporate a non-mandatory recommendation into this
standard. Therefore, rather than incorporating that provision by
reference, OSHA is adding a new paragraph (G) to Sec.
1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) that incorporates only the mandatory first sentence
of section 5-1.3.2(c) of ASME B30.5: "When provided, a power-
controlled lowering system shall be capable of handling rated loads and
speeds as specified by the manufacturer."
The second change pertains to the final sentence of section 5-
1.3.2(d) of ASME B30.5. That sentence's requirement of a minimum pitch
diameter of 16 times the nominal diameter of the rope varies from the
requirement of proposed Sec. 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(D), discussed next,
that the minimum pitch diameter be 18 times the rope's nominal
diameter. The variation is due to the fact that section 1.3.2(d) of
ASME B30.5 does not apply solely to rotation resistant rope, as does
this paragraph. Although it is possible to comply with a minimum pitch
diameter of both 16 and 18 times the nominal diameter of the rope by
adhering to the value of 18, OSHA believes it would be confusing to
include requirements giving both values. Accordingly, OSHA is modifying
the incorporation by reference recommended by C-DAC so that, in this
proposed rule, Sec. 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(C) reads as follows:
The requirements in ASME B30.5-2004 Section 5-1.3.2 (a), (a)(2)-
(a)(4), (b), and (d), except that the minimum pitch diameter for
sheaves used in multiple rope reeving is 18 times the nominal
diameter of the rope used instead of the value of 16 specified in
section 5-1.3.2(d).
Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(D) provides that all sheaves used in
the boom hoist reeving system shall have a rope pitch diameter of not
less than 18 times the nominal diameter of the rope used.
Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(E) provides that the operating design
factor of the boom hoist reeving system shall be not less than five. In
this paragraph and the next one as well, OSHA has changed the C-DAC
term "design factor" to "operating design factor." OSHA made this
change so that the terminology in these two paragraphs would be
consistent with that in proposed paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this
section. OSHA requests public comment on whether there is any reason
for using different terminology in proposed Sec.
1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(E) and (F) than in proposed Sec. 1926.1414(c)(2)
and (3).
Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(F) provides that the operating design
factor for these ropes shall be the total minimum breaking force of all
parts of rope in the system divided by the load imposed on the rope
system when supporting the static weights of the structure and the
crane rated load. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the
methodology for computing the operating design factors is clear and the
operating design factor requirements specified in the proposed standard
achieve their intended effect.
Paragraph 1414(d)
Proposed paragraph (d) would require that wire rope clips used with
wedge sockets be attached to the unloaded dead end of the rope;
however, the provision also permits the use of devices specifically designed
for dead-ending rope in a wedge socket. The Committee believed that this
provision is necessary to ensure attachment strength, reliability and prevention
of cable damage.
Paragraph 1414(e)
Proposed paragraph (e) states that socketing shall be done in the
manner specified by the manufacturer of the wire rope or fitting. This
is a clearer version of the provision in section 5-1.7.2b of ANSI
B30.5-1968, which refers to the manner specified by the manufacturer of
the assembly.
Paragraph 1414(f)
Proposed paragraph (f) specifies that prior to cutting wire rope,
seizings must be placed on each side of the point to be cut, with the
length and number of seizings determined in accordance with the wire
rope manufacturer's instructions. Seizings are needed to hold the wire
in the strands and the strands in place during handling while cutting.
This keeps the rope beyond the area of the cut intact. This provision
differs from both section 5.2.4.3(c) of ANSI B30.5-1968 (incorporated
by reference into 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart N) and from section 5-
2.4.4(c) of ASME B30.5-2004, which set forth specific seizing
requirements based upon whether the rope is preformed and the rope's
diameter.
In Committee's experience, the instructions and procedures for
seizing differ among various wire rope manufacturers. It concluded that
the most appropriate approach would be to require that, beyond
specifying that seizings be placed on each side of the point to be cut,
which is always necessary, the length and number of seizings be in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The Committee decided
to require employers to follow the manufacturer's instructions because
it believed that wire rope manufacturers have the knowledge and
expertise to best determine the length and number of seizings that are
needed to maintain the integrity of their wire ropes during cutting.
Section 1415 Safety Devices
This section sets forth the proposed requirements for equipping
cranes and derricks with certain safety devices.
The safety devices addressed by this section are devices that C-DAC
believed are essential for the safe operation of cranes and derricks
and therefore, required to be present and in proper working order
during all equipment operations with no alternative measures permitted.
Those devices considered less critical to equipment safety are
designated as operational aids and are governed by proposed Sec.
1926.1416. That section allows for equipment to continue operating if
the operational aid fails or malfunctions but requires certain
temporary alternative protective measures in such cases. Those devices
designated as safety devices in this section are so essential and
integral to safe equipment operation that C-DAC determined that there
is no acceptable alternative to having them in proper working order.
Paragraph 1415(a) Safety Devices
Proposed paragraph (a) lists the safety devices that would be
required on all equipment covered by this Subpart and any
specifications and conditions applicable to those devices (including
the exemption of certain equipment from the requirements of the listed
devices).
Crane Level Indicator: Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would require that
a crane level indicator be on all equipment covered under this subpart.
The Agency is proposing this requirement based upon the Committee's
belief that level equipment is a key factor in ensuring crane and
derrick safety. Using a crane level indicator is necessary because it
has the requisite accuracy for leveling the equipment. C-DAC members
stressed the need to use a crane level indicator because, if the
equipment is not properly leveled, it will not have all the capacities
indicated in the load charts. Reliance on the charts in such situations
could cause the equipment to overturn or otherwise fail.
C-DAC discussions also raised two significant issues in applying
the (a)(1) requirement. First, as stated in Sec. 1926.1415(a)(1)(i),
the proposal specifies that a crane level indicator must either be
built into the equipment or available on it. The Committee believed
that either option accomplishes the purpose of enabling the employer to
determine if the equipment is level. Second, as covered in Sec.
1926.1415(a)(1)(ii), the Committee believed that tagging out or
removing deficient built-in crane level indicators is necessary. This
provision addresses the hazard posed by false readings.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would exempt portal cranes,\44\
derricks, floating cranes/derricks and land cranes/derricks on barges,
pontoons, vessels, or other means of flotation from the requirements of
Sec. 1926.1415(a)(1). C-DAC members indicated that these types of
equipment are leveled upon installation and then fixed in place,
precluding the need for a crane level indicator.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Proposed Sec. 1926.1401 defines "portal cranes" as a
type of crane consisting of a rotating upperstructure, hoist
machinery, and boom mounted on top of a structural gantry which may
be fixed in one location or have travel capability. The gantry legs
or columns usually have portal openings in between to allow passage
of traffic beneath the gantry.
\45\ Note that, under proposed Sec. 1926.1437(e), a pontoon or
barge/vessel list and trim device would be required for floating
cranes/derricks and land cranes/derricks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boom Stops: Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires boom stops on all
equipment except for derricks and hydraulic booms. "Boom stop" is
defined in proposed Sec. 1926.1401 as a device that restricts the boom
from moving above a certain maximum angle and toppling over backwards.
This definition is derived from the SC&RF Handbook. The term includes
all devices that meet the definition, including boom stops, (belly
straps with struts/standoff), telescoping boom stops, attachment boom
stops, and backstops. As the definition indicates, a boom stop is
needed to prevent a boom from tipping backwards past its designed range
during equipment operations. Several Committee members suggested
exempting certain older equipment from being retrofitted with boom
stops. However, C-DAC concluded that the significant safety issue at
stake and the fact that installing boom stops is not technically
difficult justify requiring them on older equipment.
As noted above, the Agency proposes to exempt derricks and
hydraulic cranes from the requirements of 1926.1415(a)(2). The derrick
boom overturn issue is covered in proposed 1926.1436(f)(2). Hydraulic
cranes are exempted because these cranes contain the equivalent
function of boom stops in that the hydraulic cylinder physically
prevents the boom from moving backward past its designed range.
Jib Stops: "Jib stop" is defined in Sec. 1926.1401 as the same
type of device as a boom stop but used for a fixed or luffing jib. The
definition notes that the device is also referred to as a "jib
backstop." Proposed Sec. 1926.1415(a)(3) would require jib stops on
all equipment where a jib is attached, except for derricks. Jib stops
perform the same function for jibs as boom stops perform for booms, and
are similarly necessary. The proposal exempts derricks from this
requirement because jibs are not installed on derricks.
Foot Pedal Brake Locks: Proposed paragraph (a)(4) would require
that equipment with foot pedal brakes have locks, except for portal cranes
and floating cranes. Such locks are needed to prevent the unintentional
disengagement of a foot pedal brake, which could lead to unintended equipment
movement and consequent injuries and fatalities. Due to the physical effort
needed to keep the pedal engaged, this is particularly important where the
brake is applied for long periods of time.
The rationale for exempting portal cranes and floating cranes from
this requirement discussed by the Committee was that there are
instances in which, due to the pitching of a floating crane and the
pitching of the vessel or object in the water with which a portal crane
works, the operator may have to immediately release the brake. The
concern is that, if the foot pedal brake lock had been activated, the
operator may not be able to release the brake quickly enough in such a
situation to prevent the equipment from being overloaded or to prevent
unintended movement of the load.
Upon review of the exemption in the provision, the Agency has
realized that C-DAC assumed that the locking device would in all cases
be of the type that is located on the brake pedal. That type of device
can be difficult to disengage, thereby delaying the operator's ability
to release the brake. However, it is OSHA's understanding that there
are other types of brake locking mechanisms that do not present this
problem (for example, a brake lock that is hand-actuated). It therefore
appears that the exemption may not be needed.\46\ The Agency requests
public comment on changing proposed paragraph Sec. 1926.1415(a)(4) by
deleting the exemption and requiring a hoist brake locking mechanism
for all cranes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ OSHA notes that ASME B30.8-2004, "Floating Cranes and
Floating Derricks," section 8-1.6.2(l), applies to load hoists and
reads as follows: "Foot-operated brake pedals * * * shall be
equipped with a means for latching in the applied position."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integral Holding Device/Check Valve: Proposed paragraph (a)(5)
would require that hydraulic outrigger jacks have an integral holding
device/check valve. Such a device is necessary to prevent the outrigger
jack from collapsing in the event of a hydraulic failure.
Rail Clamps and Rail Stops: Proposed paragraph (a)(6) specifies
that equipment on rails have rail clamps and rail stops, except for
portal cranes. A rail clamp restricts the equipment from lifting off
the rails. The rail stop prevents the equipment from moving further
than a specific point on the rails. Portal cranes are exempt from the
requirements of Sec. 1926.1415(a)(6) because these cranes typically
are equipped with a parking brake that provides the equivalent function
of preventing the crane from unintentionally moving along the rails.
Paragraph 1415(b) Proper Operation Required
Proposed paragraph (b) would prohibit the operation of the
equipment if any of the safety devices listed in this section are not
in proper working order. This paragraph reflects the Committee's
belief, discussed above, that proper operation of these devices is
critical to safe use of the equipment.
Section 1416 Operational Aids
This section sets forth the proposed requirements for equipping
cranes and derricks with certain operational aids. "Operational aids"
are defined in Sec. 1926.1401 as "devices that assist the operator in
the safe operation of the crane by providing information or
automatically taking control of a crane function. These include, but
are not limited to, the devices listed in Sec. 1926.1416 ('listed
operational aids')." This definition is similar to that in section 5-
0.2.2 of ASME B30.5-2004.
As discussed above in regard to proposed Sec. 1926.1415, the
Committee believed that the devices addressed in Sec. 1926.1416
enhance safety. However, they are less essential to the safe operation
of equipment than the safety devices addressed by Sec. 1926.1415
because of the availability of alternatives that are sufficient on a
temporary basis. The temporary alternative measures are precautions
that were historically used prior to the widespread availability and
use of these operational aids.
Paragraphs 1416(a) and (b)
Under proposed paragraphs (a) and (b), operational aids would be
required on all equipment unless otherwise specified, and would have to
be in proper working order unless the employer uses specified temporary
alternative protection. Section 1926.1416(b) provides that if the
crane/derrick manufacturer specifies more protective alternative
measures than those listed in the standard, the employer would be
required to follow them.
Committee discussions of these provisions primarily focused on the
use of manufacturer procedures as temporary alternative measures. The
Committee considered recommending that the Agency require employers to
follow any temporary alternative measures specified by the equipment
manufacturer in addition to those required by this proposal. However,
instead of requiring additional measures, the Committee decided that
employers should be required to rely solely on measures specified by
the manufacturer but only if those measures are more protective than
those specified in the standard.
Paragraph 1416(c)
Proposed paragraph (c) states that if a listed operational aid
stops working properly during operations, the operator shall safely
stop operations until the temporary alternative measures are
implemented or the device is again working properly. It further
provides that, if a replacement part is no longer available, a
substitute device that performs the same type of function may be used,
and the use of such a device is not considered a modification under
proposed Sec. 1926.1434, Equipment modifications. Section 1926.1434
applies to modifications or additions which affect the capacity or safe
operation of the equipment unless certain steps are taken to have the
modifications or additions approved.
The Committee believed that it is unnecessary to apply Sec.
1926.1434 to the use of a substitute operational aid because, as long
as the substitute device works properly, its use will not affect the
capacity or safe operation of the equipment.
Paragraph 1416(d) Category I Operational Aids and Alternative Measures
The proposal splits operational aids into two categories, with
different amounts of time permitted for temporary alternative measures
to be used in place of the listed operational aids. Category I
operational aids, which are addressed by proposed paragraph (d), would
set a 7-day time limit for repairing the deficient aid, and Category
II, addressed below under proposed paragraph (e), has a 30-day time
limit. The allowance of a 30-day time period for Category II
operational aids reflects the Committee's belief that these aids are
less critical to equipment safety than those in Category I.
Both Category I and II would have an exception to the repair time
limits. For Category I, if the employer documents that it has ordered
the necessary part within 7 days of the occurrence of the deficiency,
the repair would have to be completed within 7 days of receipt of the
part. For Category II, if the employer documents that it has ordered
the necessary part within 7 days of the occurrence of the deficiency
and the part is not received in time to complete the repair in 30 days,
the repair shall be completed within 7 days of receipt of the part.
The Committee believed that these time frames set limitations
that are both feasible and reflective of the amount of time that it is
appropriate to rely on the alternative measures in each category.
During the SBREFA Panel process, one Small Entity Representative
stated that an extended period of time might be required to determine
the appropriate part number for older equipment and that it might
therefore not be possible to order a replacement within 7 days. OSHA
solicits public comment on the extent to which this is a problem. OSHA
further seeks comment on how to accommodate a situation in which
ordering a replacement part is hindered because the part number is not
readily available. For example, would a parts supplier be able to
furnish the correct part if the type of device (e.g., boom hoist
limiting device) and the model of the crane are provided?
The SBREFA Panel also questioned whether the number of "days" for
ordering parts and completing repairs for operational aids refers to
calendar days or business days. Absent a different definition in the
standard, OSHA interprets the word "days" to mean "working days"
which, as discussed above in relation to proposed Sec. 1926.1407(e),
would mean Mondays through Fridays, excluding federal holidays. OSHA
solicits public comment on whether a different definition of "days"
should apply under this section.
Proposed paragraph (d) lists the required Category I operational
aids and the acceptable temporary alternative measures for these aids.
Boom Hoist Limiting Device: Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would require
that all equipment manufactured after December 16, 1969 have a boom
hoist limiting device. As defined in Sec. 1926.1401, a boom hoist
limiting device disengages boom hoist power when the boom reaches a
predetermined operating angle and also sets brakes or closes valves to
prevent the boom from lowering after power is disengaged. This
definition is taken from the SC&RF Handbook. Section 1926.1401 also
explains that the term "boom hoist limiting device" includes boom
hoist disengaging device, boom hoist shutoff, boom hoist disconnect,
boom hoist hydraulic relief, boom hoist kick-outs, automatic boom stop
device, or derricking limiter. A boom hoist limiting device
automatically prevents the boom hoist from pulling the boom past the
minimum allowable radius (maximum boom angle). If the boom were to be
pulled past that point, a failure is likely (for example, the boom
could buckle from being forced against the boom stop).
The December 16, 1969 date reflects the effective date of ANSI
B30.5-1968. This was the first national consensus standard to require a
boom hoist limiting device, and the Committee regarded that date as a
reasonable indicator of when the industry began widely manufacturing or
equipping cranes and derricks with such devices. Although the ANSI
standard was only applicable to crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes,
the Committee recommended extending this provision to all equipment
based on prevailing industry practice.
The Agency is also proposing three temporary alternative measures
[Sec. 1926.1416(d)(1)(A)-(C)], of which the employer must use at least
one upon malfunction of the boom hoist limiting device. These are: Use
of a boom angle indicator; clearly marking the boom hoist cable at a
point that will give the operator sufficient time to stop the hoist to
keep the boom within the minimum allowable radius; and, if a spotter is
used, clearly marking the boom hoist cable at a point that will give
the spotter sufficient time to signal the operator and have the
operator stop the hoist to keep the boom within the minimum allowable
radius. C-DAC recommended these measures because historically they were
used by employers prior to the development of the boom hoist limiting
device. This paragraph further proposes requiring these measures on a
permanent basis for those employers operating equipment manufactured on
or before December 16, 1969 and not originally equipped with a boom
hoist limiting device.
Luffing Jib Limiting Device: Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would
require that equipment with a luffing jib have a luffing jib limiting
device. As defined in Sec. 1926.1401, a luffing jib limiting device is
similar to a boom hoist limiting device, except that it limits the
movement of the luffing jib. C-DAC indicated that these two devices
function similarly and are distinguished only as to the type of crane
extension each is automatically designed to limit: The jib versus the
boom. The temporary alternative measures for a luffing jib limiting
device are the same as those proposed for a boom hoist limiting device
in Sec. 1926.1416(d)(1)(i)(A)-(C).
Anti Two-Blocking Device: Proposed paragraph (d)(3) sets forth the
requirements for anti two-blocking devices. "Two blocking" is defined
in Sec. 1926.1401 as "a condition in which a component that is
uppermost on the hoist line such as the load block, hook block,
overhaul ball, or similar component, comes in contact with the boom
tip, fixed upper block or similar component. This binds the system and
continued application of power can cause failure of the hoist rope or
other component." This definition is derived from the SC&RF Handbook.
As the definition indicates, two-blocking can result in the crane
dropping the load, the headache ball, or another component, creating an
extreme hazard to employees below. An anti two-blocking device has been
required by Sec. 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(C) when hoisting personnel since
October 3, 1988 but is not otherwise required under 29 CFR part 1926
subpart N. The Committee believed that expanding the use of anti two-
blocking devices beyond hoisting personnel is needed to help reduce the
number of crane-related injuries and fatalities.
Anti two-block devices are manufactured in two forms: As an
automatic prevention device or as a warning device. The automatic
prevention device automatically stops two blocking from occurring. The
warning device warns the operator when two blocking is about to occur.
C-DAC members agreed that the automatic prevention anti two-block
device provides better protection for employees, since it automatically
stops two-blocking. As discussed below, the proposed standard would
ultimately require automatic prevention devices on all equipment under
a phase-in schedule. In drafting the schedule, C-DAC took account of
the date the national consensus standard, ANSI B30.5, began to require
such devices for telescopic boom cranes and the fact that B30.5 has
continued to allow lattice boom cranes to be equipped with either
prevention devices or warning devices.
Effective February 28, 1992, ASME B30.5 required automatic
prevention devices on telescopic boom cranes. At the same time, for
lattice boom cranes, ASME B30.5 required two-block protection but
allowed greater flexibility, requiring them to be equipped with either
automatic prevention devices or warning devices. The additional
protection required for telescopic boom cranes in the ASME standard
reflects the fact that such cranes are more likely to two-block because
telescoping the boom out (an action that does not occur with lattice
boom cranes) moves the boom's block closer to the load end of the hoist
cable, which can cause two-blocking.
Because February 28, 1992, is the date that ASME B30.5 first
required anti two-block devices on telescopic boom cranes and the
industry first began widely manufacturing or equipping such cranes
with such devices, proposed Sec. 1926.1416(d)(3)(i) would require
automatic prevention devices on all telescopic boom cranes manufactured
after February 28, 1992. However, because ASME B30.5 has allowed
lattice boom cranes to have either a warning device or an automatic
prevention device since February 28, 1992, proposed Sec.
1926.1416(d)(3)(ii)(A) similarly would give employers the option of
using either device on lattice boom cranes manufactured between
February 28, 1992 and one year after the effective date of this
standard.
As noted above, C-DAC believed that the automatic prevention device
offers better protection than the warning device. Therefore, to ensure
that future cranes are equipped with the preferable automatic
prevention device, the proposal would require lattice boom cranes
manufactured more than one year after the effective date of this
standard to be equipped with an automatic prevention device.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(C) excludes lattice boom equipment
used during certain activities from the anti two-block requirements of
Sec. 1926.1416(d)(3)(A) and (B). The provision would exempt lattice
boom equipment when used for dragline, clamshell (grapple), magnet,
drop ball, concrete bucket, and pile driving work because these
operations involve heavy repetitive motion, and currently manufactured
anti-two block devices used during these activities consistently
malfunction (that is, the device "trips" even though a two-block has
not occurred) and are frequently damaged.
Lattice boom equipment used during marine operations generally
would be exempt because the constant movement of the barge tends to
damage the device. Similarly, lattice boom equipment used during
container handling work in construction would be exempted because this
activity typically involves hoisting containers to and from ships.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ In most situations hoisting containers would be regulated
under 29 CFR part 1918; the proposed standard would apply to
hoisting containers only where that activity is considered
construction work. For example, hoisting a container of construction
material from a ship onto a concrete pier that is part of a bridge
construction project would be a construction activity and covered by
this proposed standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, note that proposed paragraph 1437(f)(1) would require anti
two-block devices on floating cranes/derricks and land cranes/derricks
on barges when hoisting personnel or hoisting over an occupied coffer
dam or shaft. In those situations the exemption would not apply. The
Agency believes that the need for anti two-block devices in such
situations to prevent employees from being dropped, and to prevent a
load from striking employees in the confined work environment of a
coffer dam or shaft, outweighs any propensity for damage to the device
or unnecessary "tripping" during marine operations.
For lattice boom cranes and derricks, the temporary alternative
measure required when an anti two-block device malfunctions is to
clearly mark the cable so that it can easily be seen by the operator at
a point that will give the operator sufficient time to stop the hoist
to prevent two-blocking, or use a spotter to warn the operator to stop
the hoist.
For telescopic boom cranes, the temporary alternative measure
required would be to clearly mark the cable so that it can easily be
seen by the operator at a point that will give the operator sufficient
time to stop the hoist to prevent two-blocking and use a spotter when
extending the boom. The Committee believed that the alternative measure
for telescopic boom cranes needs to have the additional precaution of a
spotter when extending the boom because in those cranes two-blocking
can occur even when the cable hoist is not being operated. As noted
above, telescoping the boom out moves the boom's block closer to the
load end of the hoist cable, which can cause two-blocking. A mark on
the hoist cable in such instances would not warn the operator that two-
blocking is about to occur. Therefore, when extending the boom, a
spotter would also have to be used.
Paragraph 1416(e) Category II Operational Aids and Alternative Measures
Proposed paragraph (e) lists the required Category II operational
aids and the acceptable temporary alternative measures for these aids.
If these aids were to malfunction there would be a 30-day time limit
for repair. If the employer documents it has ordered the necessary
parts within 7 days of the occurrence of the deficiency and the part is
not received in time to complete the repair within 30 days, the repair
would be required to be completed within 7 days of receipt of the part.
Boom Angle or Radius Indicator: Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would
require a boom angle or radius indicator readable from the operator's
station on all equipment. "Boom angle indicator" is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 as "a device which measures the angle of the boom relative
to the horizontal." This definition is taken from the SC&RF Handbook.
Knowing the boom angle is necessary to accurately determine the crane's
capacity from its load chart. The temporary alternative would be to
measure the radii or boom angle with a measuring device.
Jib Angle Indicator: Proposed paragraph (e)(2) would require a jib
angle indicator on all equipment with a luffing jib. The temporary
alternative would be to measure the radii or jib angle with a measuring
device.
Boom Length Indicator: Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would require a
boom length indicator on all equipment equipped with a telescopic boom.
As defined in Sec. 1926.1401, a boom length indicator "indicates the
length of the permanent part of the boom (such as ruled markings on the
boom) or, as in some computerized systems, the length of the boom with
extensions/attachments." The length of the boom must be known because
it affects the crane's capacity as shown on the load chart. The
temporary alternative would be one of the following: mark the boom with
measured marks to calculate boom length; calculate boom length from
boom angle and radius measurements; or measure the boom with a
measuring device.
Load Weighing and Similar Devices: Proposed paragraph (e)(4) would
require load weighing and similar devices on all equipment with a rated
capacity over 6,000 pounds and manufactured after March 29, 2003,
except derricks. (A comparable provision for derricks is in proposed
Sec. 1926.1436(f)(3), discussed below.) The framework of this proposed
paragraph is similar to the approach taken in section 5-1.9.9.2 of ASME
B30.5-2004 with respect to these aids. The framework permits employers
to choose to outfit its equipment with either a load weighing device;
load moment or rated capacity indicator; or a load moment or rated
capacity limiter.
Load moment (or rated capacity) indicator is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 as "a system which aids the equipment operator by sensing
the overturning moment on the equipment, i.e., load multiplied by
radius. It compares this lifting condition to the equipment's rated
capacity, and indicates to the operator the percentage of capacity at
which the equipment is working. Lights, bells, or buzzers may be
incorporated as a warning of an approaching overload condition." This
definition is derived from the SC&RF Handbook.
Load moment (or rated capacity) limiter is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 as "a system which aids the equipment operator by sensing
the overturning moment on the equipment, i.e., load multiplied by
radius. It compares this lifting condition to the equipment's rated
capacity, and when the rated which can increase the severity of loading
on the equipment, e.g., hoisting, telescoping out, or luffing out.
Typically, those functions which decrease the severity of loading on
the equipment remain operational, e.g., lowering, telescoping in, or
luffing in." The proposal permits employers flexibility in choosing which
device to employ because the Committee believed that all three devices will
help ensure that the equipment does not exceed its capacity and tip over.
This provision would be limited to equipment (other than derricks)
manufactured after March 29, 2003. That was the date when ASME B30.5
first called for all mobile cranes with a rated capacity over 6,000
pounds to be equipped with load weighing devices. It therefore reflects
when the industry first began widely manufacturing or equipping cranes
with load weighing or load moment devices.
Each of these indicators makes it easier for the operator to ensure
that the equipment is operated within its capacity. The proposed
provision would therefore reduce the likelihood of injuries and
fatalities from tip-over and other incidents resulting from operating
equipment beyond its capacity.
Proposed paragraph (e)(5) would require two future operational
aids--an outrigger position sensor/monitor and a hoist drum rotation
indicator--on all equipment manufactured after January 1, 2008. "Drum
rotation indicator" is defined in Sec. 1926.1401 as "a device on a
crane or hoist which indicates in which direction and at what relative
speed a particular hoist drum is turning." This definition is taken
from the SC&RF Handbook. C-DAC believed that these aids will help
ensure the safe operation of cranes but found that additional time is
needed for the industry to develop them.
The Committee also considered whether a third future operational
aid--counterweight sensors--should be required on all equipment
manufactured after January 1, 2008. Several Committee members
representing crane manufacturers expressed concern as to the difficulty
in developing a reliable counterweight sensor presently or in the near
future. In light of these technological problems, the Committee did not
include these.
Section 1417 Operation
Proposed Sec. 1926.1417 addresses hazards associated with general
operation of equipment covered by this standard. Currently, 29 CFR part
1926 subpart N primarily addresses safe operation by incorporating
national consensus standards and manufacturer recommendations. For
example, Sec. 1926.550(b)(2) requires crawler, truck, and locomotive
cranes to comply with the operation requirements of ANSI B30.5-1968.
The provisions in this proposed section are designed to update such
requirements, make them more comprehensive, and state them in a way
that is clear and enforceable.
Paragraph 1417(a)
Currently, Subpart N requires employers to comply with
manufacturers' operational requirements for hammerhead tower cranes
(Sec. 1926.550(c)(5)) and for floating cranes/derricks (Sec.
1926.550(f)(2)(iii)) but not for other types of equipment. Proposed
Sec. 1926.1417(a) would require employers to comply with the
manufacturer procedures applicable to the operational functions of all
equipment covered by this proposed standard, including the use of
equipment with attachments.
The Committee believed that the manufacturer has a high degree of
expertise with respect to the capabilities and limitations of the
equipment it has designed and built. Accidents can therefore be
prevented by ensuring that the equipment is operated in a manner that
is consistent with the manufacturer's procedures. As noted in the
discussion of the proposed definition of "procedures" in Sec.
1926.1401, the phrase "manufacturer procedures" is to be interpreted
broadly to include all recommendations by the manufacturer regardless
of the format of those recommendations.
Paragraph 1417(b) Unavailable Operation Procedures
Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3). Currently, Subpart N has no
provision for developing operational procedures where manufacturer
procedures are not available. C-DAC believed that setting requirements
to address these situations would help improve safety with respect to
the operation of such equipment.
"Unavailable procedures" is defined in proposed Sec. 1926.1401
as meaning procedures that are no longer available from the
manufacturer, or have never been available from the manufacturer. C-DAC
provided this definition so that employers would understand what
constitutes unavailable procedures. For instance, procedures that are
in the employer's possession but are not on the job site, would not be
considered unavailable under proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1417(b) and
1926.1441(c)(2), where the term is used.
Under proposed paragraph (b)(1), in the event that the manufacturer
procedures for operation are not available, the employer would be
required to develop procedures necessary for the safe operation of the
equipment and its attachments. The employer would also be required to
ensure compliance with such procedures.
For example, the manufacturers of some old equipment are no longer
in business; procedures for that equipment are typically unavailable.
Even where the original manufacturer became a part of another company
that is still in business, in some cases the successor company no
longer has the original manufacturers' procedures for that equipment.
In such instances the employer would be required to develop and follow
substitute procedures.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) would specify qualifications
criteria for those who develop two aspects of the substitute
procedures. Specifically, under proposed Sec. 1926.1417(b)(2),
procedures for the operational controls would have to be developed by a
qualified person. As defined in Sec. 1926.1401 of this proposed
standard, "operational controls" are levers, switches, pedals and
other devices for controlling equipment operation. The Committee
believed that a high level of expertise is needed to develop such
procedures in light of both the complexity of the factors that must be
considered in developing such procedures and the critical nature of the
operational controls.
Under proposed paragraph (b)(3), operational procedures related to
equipment capacity would have to be developed and signed by a
registered professional engineer familiar with the equipment. The
Committee believed that the type and complexity of engineering analysis
that is needed to develop safe procedures related to capacity
necessitates that this work be done by a registered professional
engineer (RPE). In addition, because capacity is so critical to safe
operation, the Committee believed that a signature by the RPE is needed
to ensure that this work is done with the requisite care.
Paragraph 1417(c) Accessibility of Procedures
Paragraph (c)(1). This proposed paragraph would require employers
to provide the operator with ready access in the cab to the procedures
applicable to the operation of the equipment, including the following:
Rated capacities (load charts), recommended operating speeds, special
hazard warnings, and the instructions and operator's manual.
For the purposes of this proposed standard, "special hazard
warnings" are warnings of site-specific hazards (for example,
proximity of power lines). C-DAC defines this term in proposed Sec.
1926.1401 to differentiate these site-specific warnings from all other
general hazard warnings which are common to typical construction
worksites.
Currently, Sec. 1926.550(a)(2) of Subpart N requires rated
capacities, recommended operating speeds, and special hazard warnings
to be posted on the equipment, and instructions and warnings to be
visible at the operator's station. Unlike Sec. 1926.1417(c)(1) of this
proposed standard, it does not require the operator's manual to be
accessible to the operator.
The Committee believed that the information in these materials,
including the operator's manual, is essential for safe crane operation.
It is needed to help the operator avoid performing operations beyond a
crane's capacity and recommended operating speed, and by increasing
operator awareness of special hazards related to a specific piece of
equipment.
In addition, the Committee believed that this information needs to
be available to the equipment operator in the cab so that the operator
can obtain the information as the need arises. If the information were
not available in the cab, operations would have to be delayed in order
for the operator to leave the cab and obtain the information elsewhere
(or for someone else to obtain them and bring them to the operator).
The prospect of such a delay would serve as a disincentive to obtaining
the information and increase the chance that operations would proceed
without it, which could result in injuries or fatalities.
Paragraph (c)(2). Subpart N does not address the issue of load
capacities that are available only in electronic form. With the
advancement of technology since 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N was
promulgated, it has become increasingly common for equipment to be
supplied by manufacturers with load capacities in electronic form.
Because of the potential for an electronic or other failure to occur
that would make that information inaccessible, C-DAC determined that it
is necessary to establish requirements to address that problem.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1417(c)(2) establishes requirements to address a
situation in which electronic or other failure makes such information
unavailable.
The Committee agreed that having the load capacities accessible to
the operator in the cab is so important, due to this information's
direct relationship to preventing overloading, that operations need to
shut down without them. Therefore, where load capacities are available
in the cab only in electronic form and a failure makes the load
capacities inaccessible, this proposed paragraph would require that the
operator immediately cease operations or follow safe shut-down
procedures until the load capacities become available again (in
electronic or other form).
Paragraph 1417(d)
This proposed paragraph would require that operators refrain from
engaging in any practice that would divert his or her attention while
operating the crane. This would include the use of cell phones except
when cell phones are used for signal communications. Operating a crane
is a complex task that requires an operator's full attention to be
performed safely. This proposed paragraph addresses the risk that an
accident can occur if the operator's full attention is not directed
toward that task. A similar provision is found in section 5-3.1.2 of
ANSI B30.5-1968, which is incorporated by reference in Subpart N,
although it does not specifically reference the use of cell phones.
Paragraph 1417(e) Leaving Equipment Unattended
Paragraph (e)(1). Currently, under 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N, the
operator of a crawler, locomotive, or truck crane is prohibited from
leaving the controls while a load is suspended.\48\ It is important for
the operator to be at the controls for a variety of safety-related
reasons. These include making necessary adjustments to keep the load in
a safe position, moving the load where necessary for reasons of safety
(such as for the safety of employees working with or near the load),
and responding to emergencies that may arise during lifting operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Section 5-3.2.4a. of ANSI B 30.5-1968, incorporated by
reference in 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart N at Sec. 1926.550(b)(2),
states, "The operator shall not leave his position at the controls
while the load is suspended."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Committee's experience, this requirement is routinely
breached when the load is "held suspended," that is, without need for
adjustment of the load's or the equipment's position--for an extended
period. In such circumstances, the operator does not manipulate the
controls.
In this type of circumstance, the Committee believed that greater
safety could be achieved by developing criteria that allow the operator
to leave the controls when it is safe to do so rather than to simply
continue the existing rule unchanged. (Note that the suspension of
working gear, such as slings, spreader bars, ladders, and welding
machines, is addressed separately in proposed Sec. 1926.1417(e)(2)).
This proposed paragraph would require that the operator not leave
the controls while the load is suspended except when four conditions,
outlined in proposed Sec. 1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv), are
met. The conditions are as follows:
Paragraph (e)(1)(i). The operator would be required to remain
adjacent to the equipment and not engage in any other duties. This
paragraph will not only prevent unauthorized use of the crane by
persons who are not competent crane operators but also allow the
operator to quickly access the controls in case the equipment or load
inadvertently moves.
Paragraph (e)(1)(ii). The load is to be held suspended for a period
of time exceeding normal lifting operations. As explained above, these
are instances when the load is "held suspended," that is, without
need for adjustment of the load's or the equipment's position--for an
extended period. These are circumstances in which the operator will not
need to manipulate the controls. Such circumstances must be for a
period of time in excess of the periods that occur during normal
lifting operations.
For example, during the construction of a structure, a large
subassembly is being attached to another part of the structure. After
the subassembly has been initially connected, it is held suspended
(that is, without need for adjustment of position) for support for a
protracted period while the final connections are made. This period
exceeds normal lifting operations. In this example, the criterion of
proposed Sec. 1926.1417(e)(1)(ii) would be met.
Another, contrasting example is the following: A steel structure is
being erected. When installing the steel beams, the operator holds the
beam suspended (typically for several minutes) while it is initially
connected. Holding the beam suspended in such instances is a normal
part of the steel erection process. In this example the criterion in
proposed Sec. 1926.1417(e)(1)(ii) would not be met and the operator
can not leave the controls.
Paragraph (e)(1)(iii). The competent person would have to determine
that it is safe for the operator to leave the controls and implement
measures necessary to restrain the boom hoist and telescoping, load,
swing, and outrigger functions. This proposed provision addresses the
hazard of inadvertent movement while the controls are unattended.
Paragraph (e)(1)(iv). Barricades or caution lines, and notices
would have to be erected to prevent all employees from entering the
fall zone. Furthermore, under this proposed paragraph no employees
would be permitted in the fall zone, including those listed in proposed
Sec. 1926.1425(b)(1) through (3), (d), or (e). The Committee concluded
that this is necessary because the added margin of safety that results
from the operator being at the controls would not be present in these
circumstances.
Paragraph (e)(2). As drafted, proposed Sec. 1926.1417(e)(2) reads:
The provisions in paragraph (e) of this section do not apply to
working gear (such as slings, spreader bars, ladders, and welding
machines) where the load is not suspended over an entrance or exit.
The Agency notes that the reference to "Sec. 1926.1417(e)" is a
drafting error and that the appropriate reference is to paragraph
"Sec. 1926.1417(e)(1)." In addition, the provision currently
contains two incidences of the word "not" which could lead to
confusion. Therefore, the Agency is considering changing the language
to read as follows and requests comment on such a change:
The provisions in Sec. 1926.1417(e)(1) do not apply to working
gear (such as slings, spreader bars, ladders, and welding machines)
where the working gear is suspended over an area other than an
entrance or exit.
The Committee agreed on this paragraph with the understanding that
employers frequently leave lightweight items such as slings, ladders,
spreader bars, and welding machines suspended in the air overnight in
order to prevent theft. These are items whose weight is negligible
relative to the capacity of the equipment and whose size is small (the
small size means that there will not be a significant sail effect and
the rigging needed to attach the item to the hook is not complex).
The Committee recognized that this practice is a safe practice as
long as the working gear items are not suspended over an entrance or
exit where employees could be exposed to falling object hazards. Thus,
this paragraph would allow such items to be held suspended, without the
operator at the controls, and without establishing the four conditions
set forth in Sec. 1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through (iv), so long as the gear
is not suspended over an entrance or exit.
Paragraph 1417(f) Tag-Out
Paragraph 1417(f)(1). Tagging out of service equipment/functions.
Where the employer has taken the equipment out of service, this
proposed paragraph would require that the employer place a tag in the
cab stating that the equipment is out of service and not to be used.
Where the equipment remains in service but the employer has taken a
function out of service, this proposed paragraph would require that the
employer place a tag in a conspicuous position stating that that
function is out of service and not to be used. This proposed paragraph
is designed to prevent hazards associated with workers inadvertently
attempting to use out-of-service equipment or a function that is out of
service.
Currently, section 5-2.3.2 of ANSI B30.5-1968, which is
incorporated by reference in Subpart N, requires "out of order" signs
on crawler, locomotive and truck cranes undergoing maintenance. Unlike
proposed 1926.1417(f)(1), 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N does not address
the situation where the equipment itself is in service but a function
is out of service.
Paragraph 1417(f)(2) Response to "Do Not Operate"/Tag-Out Signs
Paragraph 1417(f)(2)(i). If there is a warning sign on the
equipment or starting control, proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) would
prohibit the operator from activating the switch or starting the
equipment until the sign is removed by someone authorized to remove it
or until the operator can verify that (A) no one is servicing, working
on, or otherwise in a dangerous position on the machine, and (B) the
equipment has been repaired and is working properly. Similarly, under
proposed Sec. 1926.1417(f)(2)(ii), when there is a warning sign on any
other switch or control, the operator would be prohibited from
activating that switch or control until the sign has been removed by an
individual authorized to remove it, or until the operator meets the two
requirements of paragraph Sec. 1926.1417(f)(2)(i), described above.
These provisions would prevent two types of hazards. First, since
the machine is out of service, there is a risk that an employee
servicing, working on, or otherwise in a dangerous position on it is
not expecting it to be activated and would be injured if it were
activated. Second, if an employee does not know that the equipment is
malfunctioning or has a function that is not working properly, an
employee could inadvertently try to operate it with the result that the
equipment will not work as intended, causing unintended movement or a
collapse.
Subpart N addresses this issue through section 5-3.1.3g of ANSI
B30.5-1968, which states: "If there is a warning sign on the switch or
engine starting controls, the operator shall not close the switch or
start the engine until the warning sign has been removed by the person
placing it there." Instead of requiring that the sign be removed by
the person who placed it, proposed Sec. 1926.1417(f)(2) would permit
it to be removed by an authorized person and, as an alternative, permit
the operator to start the equipment after verifying that no worker is
in a dangerous area and that the equipment has been repaired and is
working properly. C-DAC believed that either alternative would achieve
the safety purpose of the tag-out because it would ensure that a
knowledgeable and responsible person, either the operator or another
authorized person, verifies that repairs are complete and all workers
are in a safe position before the equipment can be started.
As discussed above, the operator would be permitted to start
equipment that is tagged out or activate a tagged-out switch if the
procedures specified in proposed Sec. 1926.1417(f)(2)(i) are met. In
reviewing this provision, the Agency noted that these procedures are
not as comprehensive as those in the general industry standard for the
control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout), which are listed in Sec.
1910.147(e)(3)(i) through (iii).\49\ The Agency requests public comment
on whether procedures similar to those in paragraphs 1910.147(e)(3)(i)
through (iii) \50\ would be feasible and appropriate for cranes/
derricks used in construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Section 1910.147 is not applicable to construction (see
Sec. 1910.147(a)(ii)(A)).
\50\ These general industry provisions state:
(i) Verification by the employer that the authorized employee
who applied the device is not at the factory;
(ii) Making all reasonable efforts to contact the authorized
employee to inform him/her that his/her lockout or tagout device has
been removed; and
(iii) Ensuring that the authorized employee has this knowledge
before he/she resumes work at that facility.
Section 1910.147(e)(3)(i) through (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 1417(g). Before starting the engine, this proposed
paragraph would require the operator to verify that all controls are in
the proper starting position and that all personnel are in the clear.
The Committee agreed that requiring operators to check that all
controls are in their proper starting positions would prevent
unintended movement of the equipment when the engine is initially started.
Similarly, requiring operators to ensure that all personnel are in the clear
is designed to prevent personnel from being injured in the event that some
aspect of the equipment moves upon start-up. Currently, section 5-3.1.3h of
ANSI B30.5-1968, incorporated by reference in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N,
contains a comparable requirement.
Paragraph 1417(h). Storm warning. When a local storm warning has
been issued, this proposed paragraph would require the competent person
to determine whether it is necessary to implement manufacturer
recommendations for securing the equipment. This provision was designed
to prevent hazards that could arise from severe weather including
inadvertent movement and crane collapse. High-speed winds in particular
can affect both the crane and the load, reducing the rated capacity of
the crane and affecting boom strength. Subpart N does not contain a
corresponding requirement.
Paragraph 1417(i). [Reserved.] This proposed paragraph is reserved
because it is inconvenient for readers to determine whether "(i)" is
being used as a letter or a roman numeral.
Paragraph 1417(j)
This proposed paragraph would require that operators be familiar
with the equipment and its proper operation. Furthermore, if
adjustments/repairs are necessary, then the operator would have to
promptly inform the individual designated by the employer to receive
such information as well as inform the next operator in cases where
there are successive shifts.
This paragraph addresses the need to identify problems that may
develop with the equipment during operations. Early recognition of such
problems by the operator would help prevent accidents that could result
from continued operation of equipment that needs adjustment and/or
repair. Operators who are familiar with the equipment and its proper
operation can recognize such equipment anomalies and problems. By
requiring that information about needed adjustments and/or repairs be
provided to the individual designated by the employer to receive it,
this proposed paragraph will facilitate the correction of those
problems.
C-DAC did not specify any particular job title for the person to
whom the operator would be required to provide this information because
different employers may assign the responsibility of receiving such
information to different job classifications.
Providing this information to the next operator in cases where
there are successive shifts (that is, shifts that have no break between
them) would ensure that the next operator is aware of this information
and will be able to take appropriate action.
This provision is comparable to section 5-3.1.3j of ANSI B30.5-
1968, incorporated by reference in Subpart N, which requires operators
of crawler, locomotive and truck cranes to familiarize themselves with
the equipment and its proper care, to report any needed adjustments/
repairs or defects to a responsible person, and to notify the next
operator of any such problems when changing shifts.
Paragraph 1417(k)
This proposed paragraph would prohibit safety devices and
operational aids from being used as a substitute for the exercise of
professional judgment by the operator. The Committee agreed that such
devices and aids do not displace the need for operators to apply their
professional judgment because the devices and aids can malfunction and
lead to the types of safety hazards they are designed to prevent.
Subpart N contains no corresponding provision.
Paragraph (l). [Reserved.] This proposed paragraph is reserved
because it is inconvenient for readers to distinguish the letter "l"
from the number "1."
Paragraph 1417(m)
If the competent person determines that there is a slack rope
condition requiring re-spooling of the rope, this proposed paragraph
would require that before starting the lift, it shall be verified that
the rope is seated on the drum and in the sheaves as the slack is
removed. This would prevent a loose coil of rope from becoming cross-
coiled on the drum, a portion of the rope coming off the drum
altogether, or the rope being pulled alongside (instead of seating in)
a sheave. Each of these conditions can lead to sudden failure of the
rope.
Section 5-3.2.3a.4 of ANSI B30.5-1968, incorporated by reference in
Subpart N, has a provision stating: "If there is a slack rope
condition, it should be determined that the rope is properly seated on
the drum and in the sheaves." The term "should" has been interpreted
by the courts of appeals as meaning that the provision is non-
mandatory. The provision in paragraph (m) of this section uses language
making clear that the provision is mandatory.
Paragraph 1417(n)
This proposed paragraph addresses the hazards posed by wind, ice
and snow on equipment capacity and stability. Wind can reduce capacity
by imposing loads on the equipment, which can also reduce stability.
Ice and snow can also reduce capacity and stability when it accumulates
on the equipment. There are numerous variables involved in determining
the effects of wind, ice and snow in any particular circumstance, (for
example, the extent to which the crane is operating below its rated
capacity, the sail effect presented by the load, the rate at which ice
or snow is accumulating, and whether the snow is wet or light). C-DAC
concluded that the most effective approach would be to require the
competent person to consider their effect on equipment stability and
rated capacity. 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N currently has no similar
provision.
Paragraph 1417(o) Compliance With Rated Capacity
Paragraph 1417(o)(1). This proposed paragraph would require
employers to ensure that equipment is not operated beyond its rated
capacity. Overloading a crane or derrick can cause it to collapse, with
potentially catastrophic consequences. This basic safeguard has long
been recognized in the industry as crucial and is designed to prevent
such accidents. A comparable requirement is contained in 29 CFR part
1926 subpart N through incorporation by reference of section 5-3.2.1a
of ANSI B30.5-1968.
Paragraph 1417(o)(2). This proposed paragraph would require
employers to ensure that operators are not required to operate the
equipment in a manner that would exceed its rated capacity, in
violation of proposed Sec. 1926.1417(o)(1) above. This proposed
provision reinforces the general prohibition of proposed Sec.
1926.1417(o)(1) by making it a separate violation for an employer to
expressly require an operator to exceed the equipment's rated capacity.
29 CFR part 1926 subpart N currently has no provision comparable to
proposed paragraph (o)(2) of this section.
In the Committee's experience, a significant problem in the
construction industry is that some employers pressure operators to
conduct lifts that exceed the equipment's rated capacity. Such
employers seek to avoid the time and expense associated with bringing
in larger capacity equipment.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ In some instances the overcapacity problem can be avoided
by repositioning the crane (for example, by moving the crane so that
the lift can be performed at a higher boom angle). However, even in
those instances some time (and associated expense) is involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believed that in many of these instances the employer
knows that the load exceeds the crane's rated capacity but acts on the
belief that the rated capacity is sufficiently conservative to perform
the lift. In some such cases the exact weight of the load is unknown,
and the employer pressures the crane operator in the belief that even
if the operator is right about the weight exceeding the capacity
rating, the safety factor that the employer assumes is built into the
capacity rating will enable the crane to perform the lift anyway.
In the C-DAC discussions of this issue, members explained that
while equipment capacity ratings are developed with consideration of a
safety factor, that safety factor is not intended by the manufacturer
to be treated as excess capacity. There are numerous, complex
considerations used by manufacturers in setting the capacity rating.
Employers cannot safely assume that, in any particular situation, they
will not need the benefits conferred by the safety factor.
There continue to be a significant number of injuries and
fatalities resulting from equipment overturning. Although it has long
been a requirement not to exceed the equipment's rated capacity, in the
Committee's experience, a significant number of overturning incidents
are caused by exceeding rated capacity. A study of fatal accidents
involving cranes in the U.S. construction industry for 1984-1994, based
on investigations of reported accidents conducted by OSHA and states
with OSHA-approved safety and health programs, showed that 22 deaths
resulted from overloaded cranes. A. Suruda, M. Egger, & D. Liu,
"Crane-Related Deaths in the U.S. Construction Industry, 1984-94," p.
12, Table 9, The Center to Protect Workers' Rights (Oct. 1997). (OSHA-
2007-0066-0013).
The Committee believed that there are several root causes of this
problem, including lack of operator qualification/certification
requirements, insufficient ground conditions, reliance on unreliable
information regarding load weight, and operators being pressured into
exceeding rated capacity. The Committee concluded that this additional
measure is needed to help counteract the persistent problem of
operators being pressured into exceeding rated capacity.
Paragraph 1417(o)(3). Load weight. As discussed above, another
cause of injuries and fatalities from overturning equipment is the use
of unreliable information on load weight. The Committee concluded that
one of the ways these incidents can be reduced is to require that load
weight be verified by a reliable means.
Under this proposed paragraph, the operator would be required to
verify that the load is within the rated capacity of the equipment by
using the procedures in either proposed Sec. 1926.1417(o)(3)(i) or
(ii). Under Sec. 1926.1417(o)(3)(i), the weight of the load would have
to be determined in one of three ways: From a reliable source, from a
reliable calculation method, or by other equally reliable means. An
example of verifying the load weight from a reliable source would be
where the load is mechanical equipment and the weight is obtained from
its manufacturer.
An example of a reliable calculation method would be the following:
The load is a steel I-beam. After measuring the thickness of the steel
and the I-beam's other dimensions, the operator uses an industry table
that shows weight per linear foot for a beam of these dimensions. The
operator then calculates the beam's weight using that information. If
the weight of the load is determined under proposed Sec.
1926.1417(o)(3)(i), the information about how the load weight was
determined must be provided to the operator, prior to the lift, upon
the operator's request. This provision is included to help ensure that
the operator has the information necessary to verify that the load is
within the rated capacity of the equipment.
Under proposed paragraph (o)(3)(ii), the operator would have to
begin hoisting the load to determine if it exceeds 75 percent of the
maximum rated capacity at the longest radius that will be used during
the lift operation, using a load weighing device, load moment
indicator, rated capacity indicator, or rated capacity limiter. If the
load does exceed 75 percent of the maximum rated capacity, then the
operator would be prohibited from proceeding with the lift until he/she
verifies the weight of the load in accordance with proposed Sec.
1926.1417(o)(3)(i).
The Committee concluded that as long as one of these devices shows
that the load does not exceed 75% of the rated capacity (at the longest
radius that will be used), it is not necessary to determine the actual
weight of the load. Its conclusion is based on the belief that this
verification procedure \52\ incorporates a sufficient margin of error
and would be adequate to ensure that the crane's rated capacity would
not be exceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The operator would still be required to use his or her
professional judgment in determining whether the load exceeds the
capacity of the equipment. As discussed above, proposed Sec.
1926.1417(k) would prohibit sole reliance by the operator on an
operational aid, such as a load weight device, for ensuring that the
equipment's capacity will not be exceeded. The procedure in proposed
Sec. 1926.1417(o)(3)(ii) is a verification procedure--it would
verify that the operator's estimate is at least correct in terms of
not exceeding 75% of the equipment's rated capacity (at the longest
radius that will be used). If, for example, the load weight device
yields a figure that is significantly below what the operator
estimates to be the true weight, the operator would need to reliably
determine the weight of the load before proceeding with the lift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, the Committee believed that if the device shows that
the load exceeds 75%, there is an insufficient margin of error to
proceed without a more accurate determination. In such instances a
verified determination of the actual weight, in accordance with
proposed Sec. 1926.1417(o)(3)(i), is needed to ensure safety.
Currently, the only Subpart N requirement for determining or
verifying the weight of the load is found in section 5-3.2.1b of ANSI
B30.5-1968, which states: "When loads which are limited by structural
competence rather than by stability are to be handled, the person
responsible for the job shall ascertain that the weight of the load has
been determined within plus or minus 10 percent before it is lifted."
The Committee believed that the more detailed procedures in proposed
Sec. 1926.1417(o)(3) and the greater margin of safety provided by the
75% limit are needed to prevent the crane's capacity from being
exceeded.
Paragraph 1417(p)
This proposed paragraph would require that the boom or other parts
of the equipment not contact any obstruction. The Committee agreed on
this provision because of its understanding that boom contact with an
obstruction can deform, misalign or otherwise damage the equipment.
Such damage can cause unintended movement, prevent intended movement,
or a collapse. 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N currently has no similar
provision.
Paragraph 1417(q)
This proposed paragraph would require that the equipment not be
used to drag or pull loads sideways. The Committee intended this
provision to prevent the sideloading that occurs when a load is dragged
or pulled sideways. Sideloading can buckle the boom, damage the swing
mechanism, or overturn the crane (such as when the boom is at a high
angle). Currently, section 5-3.2.3c.2 of ANSI B30.5-1968 contains a
similar requirement, providing: "Side loading of booms shall
be limited to freely suspended loads. Cranes shall not be used for
dragging loads sideways." (As discussed below, proposed paragraph (v)
addresses sideloading of freely suspended loads by restricting the
speed of rotation).
Paragraph 1417(r)
On wheel-mounted equipment, this proposed provision would require
that no loads be lifted over the front area, except as permitted by the
manufacturer. The Committee agreed on this provision because wheel-
mounted equipment typically is not designed to lift loads over the
front area without tipping over unless it is specifically designed to
do so (such as where equipped with a front outrigger for support and
stabilization for this purpose). Equipment that is not so designed will
likely tip over or otherwise fail when lifting loads over the front
area. This proposed paragraph continues the requirement of section 5-
3.2.3g of ANSI B30.5-1968, which is incorporated by reference in
Subpart N.
Paragraph 1417(s)
In many circumstances an operator may use equipment that has not
recently been used to handle a load that is 90% or more of the maximum
line pull. The condition and adjustment of the brakes may be sufficient
to handle lesser loads, but insufficient to handle loads closer to
their design capacity. Consequently, the operator may not know that the
brakes are insufficient until after the load is hoisted. In such a case
the load could be dropped, posing a struck-by hazard.
This proposed paragraph would address that hazard by requiring that
the operator test the brakes each time a load that is 90% or more of
the maximum line pull is handled by lifting the load a few inches and
applying the brakes. In duty cycle and repetitive lifts where each lift
is 90% or more of the maximum line pull, this requirement would apply
to the first but not to successive lifts, since the operator would have
already determined from the initial test that the brakes are
sufficient.
Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N contains a similar
requirement through section 5-3.2.3h of ANSI B30.5-1968, which states:
"The operator shall test the brakes each time a load approaching the
rated load is handled by raising it a few inches and applying the
brakes." C-DAC believed that additional clarity than that found in the
ANSI provision is needed to give employers notice of when a brake test
was required and therefore proposed in Sec. 1926.1417(s) to require
testing when the load is 90% or more of the maximum line pull.
Paragraph 1417(t)
This proposed paragraph would require that neither the load nor the
boom be lowered below the point where less than two full wraps of rope
remain on their respective drums. This provision is designed to ensure
that the rope is not unspooled to the point where the rope would become
disconnected from the drum. It continues the current Subpart N
requirement found in section 5-3.2.3j of ANSI B30.5-1968.
Paragraph 1417(u) Traveling With a Load
Paragraph 1417(u)(1). This proposed paragraph would prohibit
traveling with a load if the practice is prohibited by the
manufacturer. If the manufacturer does not prohibit this practice, the
equipment may travel with a load, but only if the requirements of
proposed Sec. 1926.1417(u)(2) are met. 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N does
not prohibit traveling with a load if the practice is prohibited by the
manufacturer but, through incorporation of section 5-3.2.3n of ANSI
B30.5-1968, permits traveling with a load whenever conditions similar
to those in proposed Sec. 1926.1417(u)(2)(i) are satisfied.
The dynamic effects of traveling with a load impose additional and/
or increased forces on crane components. Unless the crane has been
designed to handle these types of forces and force levels, they can
cause component failure, collapse, instability or overturning. The
Committee believed that the manufacturer has the expertise to ascertain
its equipment's capabilities. Therefore, the Committee believed that
where the manufacturer has prohibited traveling with the load, such a
determination needs to be complied with to ensure safety.
Paragraph 1417(u)(2). If the manufacturer does not prohibit
traveling with a load, the equipment may travel with a load if the
requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.1417(u)(2) are met. This proposed
paragraph sets forth three procedures that employers would have to
follow when traveling with a load.
Paragraph 1417(u)(2)(i). Pursuant to this proposed paragraph, a
competent person would have to supervise the operation, determine if it
is necessary to reduce crane ratings, and make determinations regarding
load position, boom location, ground support, travel route, overhead
obstructions, and speed of movement necessary to ensure safety. Under
proposed Sec. 1926.1417(u)(2)(ii), the determinations of the competent
person must be implemented. These provisions are similar to section 5-
3.2.3n of ANSI B30.5-1968, which is incorporated in 29 CFR part 1926
subpart N.
As discussed above, traveling with a load imposes types and levels
of forces on the equipment that are not present when the equipment is
stationary, and conditions such as load position and boom location can
affect the magnitude of those forces. Some of the criteria in proposed
Sec. 1926.1417(u)(2)(i) address this type of effect. Other criteria in
this paragraph are intended to ensure that other hazards--those posed
by the crane being in changing locations (such as ground support,
travel route and overhead obstructions)--are addressed by the competent
person. When traveling with a load, a crane may encounter hazards such
as power lines, insufficient ground support, uneven or slippery ground
conditions, and obstructions that the equipment could strike.
A competent person must address these issues before the equipment
begins to travel with a load. The competent person must also supervise
the operation as it proceeds so that problems that arise that were not
foreseen at the outset can be properly addressed. In sum, the Committee
designed these provisions to ensure that the employer plans and
implements a travel operation so that the various effects and
changeable conditions associated with travel are properly identified,
assessed and addressed.
Paragraph 1417(u)(2)(iii). For equipment with pressurized tires,
this proposed paragraph would require that tire pressure specified by
the manufacturer be maintained. Subpart N currently has no
corresponding provision.
The Committee agreed on this provision to address the hazards posed
by improper tire pressure when traveling with a load. Where pressure
varies among the tires, the equipment may be out of level, reducing
capacity and causing instability. Uniform but improper pressure can
reduce capacity or lead to tire failure. Each of these circumstances
can lead to unintended movement, loss of the load, overturning and/or
collapse.
Paragraph 1417(v)
This proposed paragraph would require that rotational speed of the
equipment be such that the load does not swing out beyond the radius at
which it can be controlled. As noted above in relation to proposed
Sec. 1926.1417(q), 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N currently permits
sideloading of freely suspended loads with no restriction comparable to
that in proposed Sec. 1926.1417(v).
The Committee intended this provision to prevent the hazard of
sideloading, which occurs when the load swings to either side of the
boom tip, rather than its appropriate position directly beneath the
boom tip. When the load is not directly under the boom tip, sideloading
occurs and decreases capacity. This hazard can lead to tip-over or boom
failure.
Paragraph 1417(w)
This proposed paragraph would require that a tag or restraint line
be used if necessary to prevent rotation of the load that would be
hazardous. The Committee agreed on this provision in order to prevent
the hazard of an unstable or uncontrolled load which could in turn
destabilize other parts of the crane or the crane itself. This
condition can also result in the load posing a struck-by hazard.
Section 5-3.2.3p of ANSI B30.5-1968 contains a comparable requirement.
Paragraph 1417(x)
This proposed paragraph would require that the brakes be adjusted
in accordance with manufacturer procedures to prevent unintended
movement. This requirement would apply to all brakes on equipment
covered by this standard, including brakes used to control the lowering
of the load and those used to stop the equipment while it is traveling.
Improper adjustment can cause a delay in the onset of braking after the
operator attempts to activate the brake and can also diminish the
brake's capacity. Brakes are critical to the safe operation of the
equipment and must be properly adjusted to serve their safety function.
Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N does not specifically address
brake adjustment. However, section 5-2.3.1a of ANSI B30.5-1968 requires
a preventive maintenance program based on the manufacturer's
recommendations, and section 5-2.3.3b requires that all components and
operating mechanisms be adjusted to ensure their correct functioning.
In light of the critical role that brakes play in ensuring equipment
safety, these provisions of ANSI B30.5-1968 can be read to include
brake adjustments. The Committee concluded that the more explicit
approach to this issue taken in proposed Sec. 1926.1417(x) requirement
would help enhance employee safety.
Paragraph 1417(y)
This proposed paragraph would require that the operator obey a stop
or emergency stop signal, regardless of who gives the signal. Any
person on a worksite may observe a hazardous condition that is not
visible to or recognized by the crane operator and that can only be
avoided if the equipment stops immediately. Therefore, the operator
must obey a stop signal given by anybody on the worksite. Section 5-
3.1.3c of ANSI B30.5-1968 contains a comparable requirement.
Paragraph 1417(z) Swinging Locomotive Cranes
Pursuant to this proposed paragraph, a locomotive crane shall not
be swung into a position where it is reasonably foreseeable that
railway cars on an adjacent track could strike it, until it is
determined that cars are not being moved on the adjacent track and that
proper flag protection has been established. A comparable requirement
is contained in section 5-3.4.4 of ANSI B30.5-1968.
Paragraph 1417(aa) Counterweight/Ballast
Paragraph 1417(aa)(1). This proposed paragraph contains
counterweight/ballast requirements that would apply to equipment other
than tower cranes. Pursuant to proposed Sec. 1926.1417(aa)(2),
requirements regarding counterweight/ballast for tower cranes are found
in proposed Sec. 1926.1435(b)(7).
Paragraph 1417(aa)(1)(i). This proposed paragraph would require
that equipment not be operated without the counterweight or ballast in
place as specified by the manufacturer. Failure to follow the
manufacturer's specifications for use of counterweights and ballast
could result in a tipover or collapse.
Paragraph 1417(aa)(1)(ii). Under this proposed provision, the
employer would be prohibited from exceeding the maximum counterweight
or ballast specified by the manufacturer for the equipment. Exceeding
that maximum could result in component failure, which could cause
unintended movement, tipover or collapse.
Requirements similar to those in Sec. 1926.1417(aa)(1)(i) and (ii)
are currently contained in Subpart N through incorporation by reference
of section 5-3.4.2 of ANSI B30.5-1968.
The C-DAC draft of this provision stated that the maximum
counterweight or ballast "approved" by the manufacturer shall not be
exceeded. Upon reviewing the draft, OSHA determined that a term that
more accurately reflects the Committee's intent in this regard is
"specified." Therefore, the Agency has modified the C-DAC language so
that proposed Sec. 1926.1417(aa)(1)(ii) reads:
The maximum counterweight or ballast specified by the
manufacturer for the equipment shall not be exceeded.
Paragraph 1417(aa)(2). This proposed paragraph complements proposed
Sec. 1926.1417(aa)(1) by noting that the counterweight and ballast
requirements for tower cranes are found in proposed Sec.
1926.1435(b)(8).
Section 1418 Authority To Stop Operation
This proposed section provides: "Whenever there is a concern as to
safety, the operator shall have the authority to stop and refuse to
handle loads until a qualified person has determined that safety has
been assured." Subpart N incorporates pre-1971 industry consensus
standards that require operators to have comparable authority, and
current industry consensus standards contain similar provisions. An
appropriately capable equipment operator is highly knowledgeable in
matters affecting equipment safety and is well qualified to determine
whether an operation presents a safety concern. C-DAC believed that it
continues to be necessary for the employer to provide this authority to
the operator.
Current consensus standards specify that an operator with a safety
concern must raise that concern with a supervisor before proceeding
with a lift. For example, section 5-3.1.3(d) of ANSI B30.5-2004,
"Mobile and Locomotive Cranes," provides: "Whenever there is any
doubt as to safety, the operator shall consult with the supervisor
before handling the loads." Similar provisions are included in section
2-3.1.7 of ASME B30.2-2001, "Overhead and Gantry Cranes," section 3-
3.1.3(d) of ASME B30.3-1996, "Construction Tower Cranes," section 6-
3.2.3 of ASME B30.6-2003, "Derricks," and other standards in the ASME
B30 series.
The proposed section reflects C-DAC's belief that it is necessary
to clearly delineate the circumstances under which it would be
permissible to resume operations after the operator has exercised this
authority. Under the proposed provision, operations would be prohibited
from resuming "until a qualified person had determined that safety has
been assured."
In accordance with the proposed definition of a qualified person
(see the discussion above of this term in proposed Sec. 1926.1401),
that person would, "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." For example,
operations could resume only after the qualified person either: (1)
Assesses the factors that led the operator to stop and refuse to handle
the load and determines that there is not, in fact, a safety hazard, or
(2) after corrective action has been taken, determines that there is no
longer a safety hazard.
An illustrative example of this is the following: A large steel
cylinder, which is lying lengthwise on the ground, is to be lifted into
the vertical position and then up to the top of a structure. As the
crane operator prepares to lift the cylinder into the vertical
position, the operator sees that the rigging is attached at a point
that is more than halfway down from the top of the cylinder. This
indicates to the operator that the rigging has been attached below the
cylinder's center of gravity. Rigging such a load below the center of
gravity could cause it to flip over when it is lifted. As a result of
this concern, the operator exercises his/her authority to stop and
refuse to handle the load.
After the operator explains his/her concern to the employer, the
employer consults with an individual who is a qualified person with
respect to the rigging of the load. The qualified person finds that the
wall of the steel cylinder is much thicker near its base than at the
top. After calculating the cylinder's center of gravity, the qualified
person determines that it is well below the midpoint of the cylinder.
The qualified person then determines that the rigging is, in fact,
attached above the cylinder's center of gravity, and that safety is
assured. The lifting operation is then resumed.
In this example the operator appropriately exercised his/her
authority to stop and refuse to handle the load, since there were
indications of an unsafe condition. A qualified person then
appropriately found that safety was assured after examining those
indications, assessing the relevant factors, and determining that the
load was in fact rigged in a safe manner.
Signals
Proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1419 through 1926.1422 address the
circumstances under which a signal person must be provided, the type of
signals that may be used, criteria for how signals are transmitted, and
other criteria associated with the use of signals.
Section 1419 Signals--General Requirements
This proposed section would set requirements regarding signals when
using equipment covered by this proposed standard.
Currently, Sec. 1926.550(a)(4) provides: "Hand signals to crane
and derrick operators shall be those prescribed by the applicable ANSI
standard for the type of crane in use. An illustration of the signals
shall be posted at the job site." C-DAC believed that the current rule
is insufficient in several respects. First, the current rule does not
establish the circumstances in which there is a need to have a signal
person. Second, the current standard refers only to hand signals. C-DAC
believed that other means of signaling need to be addressed as well to
provide necessary flexibility and reduce the potential for
miscommunication (requirements regarding other signaling methods are
addressed in proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1420 and 1926.1421).
Finally, C-DAC found that hazardous situations arise as a result of
signal persons not understanding safety-related aspects of crane
operations and dynamics and not knowing how to give appropriate
signals. Consequently, it determined that there is a need to establish
requirements regarding the qualifications of the signal person; these
are addressed in proposed Sec. 1926.1428. In short, C-DAC believed
that addressing these issues is one of the means by which the number of
injuries and fatalities caused by "struck-by" incidents, in which the
equipment or load strikes an employee, can be reduced.
Paragraph 1419(a)
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) address the circumstances
that would require the provision of a signal person: When the point of
operation, meaning the load travel or the area near or at load
placement, is not in full view of the operator (Sec. 1926.1419(a)(1));
when the equipment is traveling and the operator's view in the
direction of travel is obstructed (Sec. 1926.1419(a)(2)); and when,
due to site specific safety concerns, either the operator or the person
handling the load determines it is necessary (Sec. 1926.1419(a)(3)).
The first two of these circumstances involve an obvious hazard--limited
operator visibility.
With respect to the third circumstance, C-DAC believed that other
situations arise that, from a safety standpoint, necessitate the use of
a signal person. For example, the operator may recognize that the load
at one point will move alongside and very close to a structure. Even
though the load in this example will remain in view of the operator as
it travels, because of the tight tolerances involved, the operator
determines that a signal person is needed to help ensure that the load
does not come in contact with the structure (which could cause the load
to fall).
Another example is where a heavy load, such as a large HVAC unit,
has to be placed very precisely on a concrete pad. In this example, as
in the previous one, the load remains within the view of the operator
at all times. However, the employee handling the load determines that
signals need to be given to the operator so that the load handler's
work and the operator's movement of the load are properly coordinated.
Because of the weight of the load, the employee handling it will have
to use both hands to help position it as it is placed on the pad and
will not be able to give signals. In such an instance the person
handling the load could determine that a signal person is necessary.
Paragraph 1419(b) Types of Signals
Under proposed paragraph (b), signals to crane operators would have
to be by hand, voice, audible, or "new" signals. As used in this
proposed standard, these terms refer to the type of signal, not the
means by which the signal is transmitted. For example, signaling by
voice refers to oral communication, not whether the oral communication
is done with or without amplification or with or without electronic
transmission. The manner of transmission of the signal is addressed
separately.
"Audible signal" is defined in Sec. 1926.1401 as "a signal made
by a distinct sound or series of sounds. Examples include, but are not
limited to, sounds made by a bell, horn, or whistle." Under some
circumstances, audible signals are effective means of communicating
with an operator, and C-DAC defined the term to make clear the types of
sounds that would be permissible.
The criteria for the use of these signal types are set out in
proposed Sec. 1926.1419(c)-(m) (additional voice signal requirements
are in proposed Sec. 1926.1421, Signals--voice signals--additional
requirements). The Committee's intent was to reduce the potential for
miscommunication, which can lead to injuries and fatalities,
particularly from "struck-by" and "crushed-by" incidents. In
setting parameters for the use of the various types of existing signal
methods, and for signal methods that may be developed in the future,
the Committee sought to promote a degree of standardization while still
allowing appropriate flexibility. In addition, the proposed provisions
are designed to ensure that the selection of signal type and means of
sending the signals are appropriate under the circumstances and reliable.
Paragraph 1419(c) Hand Signals
Proposed paragraph (c) addresses the use of hand signals. The
industry has long recognized the need for consistent, universal hand
signals to minimize the potential for miscommunication between signal
persons and operators. ANSI B30.5-1968, "Crawler, Locomotive and Truck
Cranes," contains illustrations of hand signals that are the same as
the current 2004 edition of ASME B30.5 and that are consistent with
hand signals for other types of cranes in ASME B30 standards. Subpart N
currently requires that hand signals to crane and derrick operators
"be those prescribed by the applicable ANSI standard for the type of
crane in use" and that "an illustration of the signals shall be
posted at the job site" (Sec. 1926.550(a)(4)).
Because of the industry's long familiarity with these standard hand
signals, C-DAC determined that, when using hand signals, the
standardized version of the signals should continue to be required.
These signals are referred to as the "Standard Method," which is
defined in proposed Sec. 1926.1401 as "the protocol in Appendix A for
hand signals." The "Standard Method" signals are located in Appendix
A. However, the Committee recognized that there are instances when use
of the Standard Method is either infeasible or where there is no
Standard Method signal applicable to the work being done.
For example, the Standard Method signal for raising the boom is:
arm extended, thumb pointing upward and other fingers closed. The
signal for lowering the boom is the same except the thumb points down.
There are circumstances where back-lighting conditions make it
difficult for the operator to see the signal person's thumb and
therefore cannot discern whether it is pointing up or down. In such
circumstances use of the standard signal would be infeasible.
In such instances, under this proposed paragraph, non-standard
signals (examples of which are provided in Appendix B of this proposed
rule) may be used. To avoid confusion when non-standard signals are
used, proposed Sec. 1926.1419(c)(2) would require that the signal
person, crane operator, and lift supervisor (where there is one) meet
prior to the operation to agree upon the signals that will be used.
Paragraph 1419(d) New Signals
Proposed paragraph (d) would allow signals other than hand, voice,
or audible signals to be used if certain criteria are met. As discussed
above under proposed Sec. 1926.1419(b), C-DAC include Sec.
1926.1419(d) to allow for the development of new signals in the future.
To ensure that any new signals are as effective as hand, voice, or
audible signals, proposed 1926.1419(d)(1) and (d)(2) would require the
employer to demonstrate either that the new signals are as effective as
existing signals for communicating, or that there is a national
consensus standard for the new signals.\53\ C-DAC believed it was
appropriate to allow reliance on signals in a national consensus
standard because their inclusion in such a standard shows a high degree
of standardization and widespread acceptance by persons who are
affected by the signals, thereby ensuring that the signals can be used
safely to control equipment operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ The C-DAC draft refers to an "industry consensus
standard." OSHA hasd changed this to "national consensus
standard" to conform to the terminology used in the OSH Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 1419(e) Suitability
Under proposed paragraph (e), the type of signal (hand, voice,
audible, or new) and the transmission method used would have to be
suitable for the site conditions. For example, hand signals would not
be suitable if site conditions do not allow for the signal person to be
within the operator's line of sight. Radio signals would not be
suitable if electronic interference on the site prohibits the signals
from being readily understood.
Paragraph 1419(f)
Proposed paragraph (f) would require the ability to transmit
signals between the operator and signal person to be maintained. If
that ability is interrupted, the operator would be required to safely
stop operations until signal transmission is reestablished and a proper
signal is given and understood.
Paragraph 1419(g)
Proposed paragraph (g) would require the operator to stop
operations if the operator becomes aware of a safety problem and needs
to communicate with the signal person. Operations may only be resumed
after the operator and signal person agree that the problem has been
resolved.
Most signal systems permit only one-way communication, from the
signal person to the operator. In addition, most two-way systems, such
as a typical two-way radio system, only permit one person to speak at a
time. When using such systems, circumstances may arise in which the
operator, while receiving signals, becomes aware of a safety problem
that is of a nature that necessitates that the operator communicate
with the signal person. For example, the signal person signals to the
operator to lower the load. However, the operator sees that an employee
has moved under the load in an area that is out of the view of the
signal person. Under this proposed provision the operator would have to
safely stop lowering the load and communicate the problem to the signal
person.
Another example is where the signal person gives a hand signal but
it appears to the operator that the signal person is using the wrong
signal. The operator would be required to safely stop operations and
communicate with the signal person to resolve the problem.
Paragraph 1419(h) and (j)
Proposed paragraph (h) would require that only one person at a time
signal the operator. C-DAC believed this provision was needed to
prevent confusion with respect to which signals the operator is
supposed to follow. An exception is provided when, as provided in
proposed Sec. 1926.1419(j), somebody becomes aware of a safety problem
and gives an emergency stop signal. Under proposed Sec. 1926.1417(y),
the operator would be required to obey such a signal.
Paragraph 1419(i) [Reserved.] Paragraph (i) is reserved because it
is inconvenient for readers to determine whether "(i)" is being used
as a letter or a roman numeral.
Paragraph 1419(k)
Proposed paragraph (k) would require that all directions given to
the operator by the signal person be given from the operator's
direction perspective. In the Committee's experience, the operator will
tend to react to a directional signal, such as "forward," by acting
on the signal from the operator's perspective. This provision would
ensure that the signal that is given will be consistent with that
natural tendency.
Paragraph 1419(l) [Reserved.] Paragraph (l) is reserved because it
is inconvenient for readers to whether "l" is being used as a letter
or a number. Paragraph 1419(m) Communication With Multiple Cranes/Derricks
Proposed paragraph (m) addresses a situation where the signal
person is in communication with more than one crane or derrick. It
would require the signal person to use an effective means of
identifying the crane or derrick the signal is for before giving the
signal. Proposed Sec. 1926.1419(m)(i) and (ii) set out alternate means
of complying with this requirement. Under proposed Sec.
1926.1419(m)(i), for each signal, prior to giving the function/
direction, the signal person must identify the crane/derrick for which
the signal is intended. Alternatively, under proposed Sec.
1926.1419(m)(ii), the employer could implement a method of identifying
which crane/derrick for which the signal is intended that is as
effective as the system in proposed Sec. 1926.1419(m)(i). Because of
the potential for confusion, it is essential that an alternative system
under proposed Sec. 1926.1419(m)(ii) be equally effective as Sec.
1926.1419(m)(i) in clearly conveying, on a consistent basis, the crane/
derrick to which each signal is directed.
Section 1420 Signals--Radio, Telephone, or Other Electronic
Transmission of Signals
C-DAC concluded that certain criteria are needed to ensure the
reliability and clarity of electronically transmitted signals; these
criteria are listed in proposed paragraphs Sec. 1926.1420(a) through
(c). Proposed paragraph (a) would require the testing of the
transmission devices prior to the start of operations to ensure that
the signals are clear and that the devices are reliable. This will help
ensure that the operator receives and can understand the signals that
are given and will prevent accidents caused by miscommunication.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require that such signals be
transmitted through a dedicated channel. As defined in Sec. 1926.1401,
a "dedicated channel" is "a line of communication assigned by the
employer who controls the communication system to only one signal
person and crane/derrick or to a coordinated group of cranes/derricks/
signal person(s)." Use of a dedicated channel would ensure that the
operator and signal person are not interrupted by users performing
other tasks or confused by instructions not intended for them.
An exception to Sec. 1926.1419(b) would allow more than one signal
person and more than one crane/derrick operator to share a dedicated
channel in multiple crane/derrick situations for coordinating
operations. The Committee believed that this exception is needed
because, in those situations, it may be advantageous to share a single
dedicated channel. For example, in some situations several cranes may
be operating in an area in which their booms, loads or load lines could
come in contact with each other. In such cases it is crucial that the
movements of each crane be properly coordinated. By sharing a single
channel, each operator can hear what each crane is being asked to do,
which can facilitate that coordination.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require that the operator's reception
be by a hands-free system. In other words, the operator must not have
to depress a button, manipulate a switch, or take any action in order
for the incoming signal to be received. C-DAC believed that this
provision is needed because the operator must have both hands free to
manipulate the equipment's controls.
Paragraph 1421 Signals--Voice Signals--Additional Requirements
C-DAC considered whether the proposed rule should include a
standardized set of voice signals. Unlike hand signals, which have
become standardized to a large extent within the industry, in the
Committee members' experience there is significant variation in the
phrases used to convey the same instructions. Consequently, words or
phrases that the Committee might choose to propose to be required as
voice signals could be unfamiliar to many employees in the industry or
contrary to common usage in some parts of the country. In light of
this, the Committee determined that it would be better to use a
different approach to address the problem of miscommunication when
using voice signals. This approach, which establishes criteria for
whatever voice signals are used, is set out in proposed Sec.
1926.1421(a)-(c).
Under proposed paragraph (a), prior to beginning operations, the
personnel involved with signals--the crane operator, signal person and
lift supervisor (if there is one)--would be required to meet and agree
on the voice signals that will be used. Because of the lack of
standardization and the variety of languages that are in use in the
construction industry, the Committee concluded that it is essential
that the persons who give and/or receive voice signals agree in advance
on the signals that will be used in order to avoid miscommunication.
Once the parties have met and agreed on the voice signals, another
meeting is not required to discuss them unless another worker is
substituted, there is some confusion about the signals, or a signal
needs to be changed.
In reviewing the C-DAC draft of this provision, the Agency realized
that the adjective "voice" was inadvertently left out when referring
to signals. To avoid ambiguity, the Agency has added the term "voice"
to clarify that this proposed provision applies to the use of voice
signals.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require that each voice signal contain
the following three elements, given in the following order: function
(such as hoist, boom, etc.), direction; distance and/or speed;
Function, stop command. For example: hoist up; 10 feet; hoist stop. As
discussed above, the Committee considered it impractical to attempt to
standardize the voice signals themselves (that is, to require the use
of particular words to represent particular functions, directions or
other instructions). However, the Committee concluded that the chance
of miscommunication could nonetheless be reduced if certain parameters
were established for the type of information and order of information
that would be given.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require the crane operator, signal
person, and lift supervisor (if there is one) to be able to effectively
communicate in the language used. Voice signals will not serve their
intended purpose if they cannot be understood, or can be
misinterpreted. The inability of these workers to understand each other
could lead to accidents caused, for example, by the crane operator
moving a load in a different direction than the signal person intends.
Section 1422 Signals--Hand Signal Chart
This proposed paragraph would require that hand signal charts be
either posted on the equipment or be readily available at the site. The
purpose of this proposed provision is to serve as a reference for
operators and signal persons of the mandatory hand signals and thereby
help avoid miscommunication.
Section 1423 Fall Protection
This proposed section contains provisions designed to protect
workers on equipment covered by this Subpart from fall hazards. (See
proposed Sec. 1926.1431, Hoisting Personnel, for fall protection
provisions that would apply when equipment is used to hoist personnel).
Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N contains certain fall protection
requirements but does not address fall protection for cranes and
derricks comprehensively. Where Subpart N does not specifically address
a fall protection issue, the general fall protection provisions of 29
CFR part 1926 subpart M apply. As OSHA explained when it issued subpart
M, "while Subpart N contains requirements for fall protection when
certain cranes are used, it does not address other equipment or working
conditions otherwise covered by subpart N which may also expose
employees to a fall hazard."59 FR 40672, 40675 (Aug. 9, 1994).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ In Subpart M, Sec. 1926.500(a)(2) states: "Section
1926.501 sets forth those workplaces, conditions, operations, and
circumstances for which fall protection shall be provided except as
follows: * * * (ii) Requirements relating to fall protection for
employees working on certain cranes and derricks are provided in
Subpart N of this part."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fall protection requirements in Subpart M apply where an
employee is on a "walking/working surface." 29 CFR 1926.501. In Sec.
1926.500(b), the definition of walking/working surface excludes
"vehicles." That definition effectively excludes many cranes (for
example, mobile cranes would be considered "vehicles").
The Committee believed that safety would be enhanced by addressing
the problem of fall hazards associated with cranes and derricks
comprehensively. In addition, it believed that putting all such
requirements under the cranes and derricks standard would make it
easier for employers to readily determine the applicable fall
protection requirements. Accordingly, under this proposed standard,
Subpart M would not apply to equipment covered by this proposed subpart
except where it incorporates requirements of Subpart M by reference. In
this regard, note that the Agency is proposing to amend Subpart M at
Sec. 1926.500(a)(2)(ii) to remove the word "certain."
Definition of Fall Protection Equipment
"Fall protection equipment" is defined in proposed Sec.
1926.1401 as "guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall
arrest systems, positioning device systems, or fall restraint
systems." The first four listed systems are described, and their
specifications listed, in 29 CFR Part 1926. Subpart M of this part,
OSHA's general fall protection standard for construction work. See
Sec. 1926.502(b) (guardrail systems); Sec. 1926.502(c) (safety net
systems); Sec. 1926.502(d) (personal fall arrest systems); and Sec.
1926.502(e) (positioning device systems).
The fifth category of fall protection equipment, "fall restraint
system," is defined in Sec. 1926.1401 as "a fall protection system
that prevents the user from falling any distance. The system is
comprised of either a body belt or body harness, along with an
anchorage, connectors and other necessary equipment. The other
components typically include a lanyard, and may also include a lifeline
and other devices." This definition is found in 29 CFR part 1926.
Subpart R of this part, OSHA's steel erection standard.
By defining "fall protection equipment" to include the same types
of fall protection equipment required under other OSHA standards, C-DAC
sought to ensure that employers would be familiar with the types of
fall protection required under this standard and thereby promote
compliance.
Paragraph 1423(a) Application
Falls have traditionally been the leading cause of deaths among
construction workers. BLS data for 2004 and 2005, the latest years for
which complete figures are available, shows 445 fatalities from falls
in 2004 (OSHA-2007-0066-0023), and 394 in 2005 (OSHA-2007-0066-0024).
In 2004, 20 fatalities resulted from falls from nonmoving vehicles and
in 2005, such falls caused 18 deaths. A recent study of crane-related
fatalities in the U.S. construction industry found that 2% resulted
from falls. J.E. Beavers, J.R. Moore, R. Rinehart, and W.R. Schriver,
"Crane-Related Fatalities in the Construction Industry," 132 Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 901 (Sept. 2006) (OSHA-2007-
0066-0012). Falls from cranes, particularly when the operator is
entering or leaving the crane, also cause numerous non-fatal injuries
to construction workers. (OSHA-S030-2006-0663-0422).
Under proposed paragraph (a), certain proposed provisions in this
section (proposed Sec. 1926.1423(c)(1), (f) and (h)) would apply to
all equipment, including tower cranes; certain provisions (proposed
Sec. 1926.1423(b), (c)(2), (d) and (e)) would apply to all equipment
except tower cranes; and certain provisions (proposed paragraph (g)
would apply only to tower cranes).
Paragraph 1423(b) Boom Walkways
Proposed paragraph (b) would establish when walkways must be
incorporated into lattice booms and the criteria for such walkways.
Boom walkways are not currently required by subpart N of this part.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would require that equipment manufactured
more than one year after the effective date of this standard with a
lattice boom be equipped with walkways on the boom if the vertical
profile of the boom (from cord centerline to cord centerline) is 6 or
more feet. C-DAC believed that the installation of walkways on booms
would decrease the number of falls which occur during assembly/
disassembly, inspection, and maintenance of booms and attached devices.
Without a walkway, employees walking the boom must step from lattice to
lattice. C-DAC believed it is safer to walk the boom if the boom is
equipped with a walkway.
C-DAC considered the technical difficulty of equipping a boom with
a vertical profile of less than 6 feet. Such booms would not
accommodate the addition of a walkway into their design because the
added weight of the walkway would significantly compromise their
hoisting capacity. For that reason, C-DAC limited the requirement for
boom walkways to equipment with lattice booms where the vertical
profile of the boom is 6 feet or more.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2), Boom walkway criteria, would establish a
minimum width for boom walkways and address safety issues associated
with guardrails, railings and other attachments.\55\ Proposed Sec.
1926.1423(b)(2)(i) would require that walkways on booms be at least 12
inches wide. C-DAC considered requiring boom walkways to be at least 18
inches wide to remain consistent with Sec. 1926.451(b)(2) of the
scaffold standard (Subpart L). However, C-DAC determined that there are
engineering limitations applicable to booms that are not applicable to
scaffolds. Specifically, the Committee found that an 18 inch
requirement would present feasibility problems, especially on smaller
booms. In such cases an 18 inch walkway's added weight would unduly
impinge upon the equipment's capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ These criteria would apply to all boom walkways, not just
those on lattice booms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-DAC believed that a walkway with a 12 inch width, while not as
easy to use as an 18 inch walkway, would provide enough space for an
employee to maintain his/her balance while walking from point to point
on the boom when the boom is positioned horizontally. This would be a
significant improvement over having to step across the open space
between the boom's lattice-work and onto the lattice. In sum, the
Committee concluded that the benefits obtained by providing a walkway
on booms outweigh any drawbacks associated with a minimum width of 12
inches. Note that, in many circumstances, the safety benefits afforded
by this walkway would be supplemented by fall protection equipment (see
the discussion below of proposed paragraphs (d) and (e)).
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) would address the use of guardrails,
railings and other permanent fall protection attachments along
walkways. The general fall protection standard for construction work at
Sec. 1926.501(b)(6) requires that walkways be equipped with guardrail
systems to protect workers against falling 6 feet or more. This
proposed section would retain the general requirement for fall
protection at or above 6 feet for certain work (see discussion below of
Sec. 1926.1423(d)), but C-DAC believed that guardrails should not be a
required form of fall protection on boom walkways because of the
feasibility constraints discussed below.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) states that guardrails, railings
and other permanent fall protection attachments along boom walkways
would not be required. For some equipment, the added weight of fixed
railings, combined with the walkway's weight, would unduly impinge upon
the lift capacity of the boom. In addition, as discussed in relation to
Sec. 1926.1423(b)(2)(ii)(B) below, in some boom designs pendant ropes
and bars (where present) could become snagged on such railings.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) would prohibit guardrails,
railings and other permanent fall protection attachments along walkways
on booms supported by pendant ropes or bars if the guardrails, railings
or attachments could be snagged by the ropes or bars. Such snagging
could cause instability or a collapse. Whether the potential for
snagging is present on a boom supported by pendant ropes or bars would
depend on the design of the equipment.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C) would prohibit removable-type
guardrails, railings, and other permanent fall protection along
walkways. For purposes of this paragraph, "removable-type" means
designed to be installed and removed each time the boom is assembled/
disassembled. One of the Committee's concerns was that such devices may
be left installed by mistake, which could damage the equipment and
cause unexpected movement or a failure during its operation.
Under proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D), where guardrails or
railings are not prohibited, they would be permitted to be of any
height up to, but not more than, 45 inches. C-DAC believed that
requiring all guardrails and handrails to comply with the height
criteria in Subpart M of this part, which generally requires them to be
39 to 45 inches high, could deter manufacturers from equipping their
products with guardrails and handrails. That is because meeting Subpart
M's height criteria could make the device incompatible with the design
and operation of the boom. For boom walkway applications, C-DAC
concluded that using guardrails lower than 39 inches when higher
guardrails are infeasible was preferable to not having any guardrails
at all.
Paragraph 1423(c) Steps, Handholds, Grabrails, Guardrails and Railings
Proposed paragraph (c) would specify criteria for the use and
maintenance of steps, handholds, grabrails, guardrails and railings.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require that the employer maintain
originally-equipped steps, handholds, ladders and guardrails/railings/
grabrails in good condition. The failure to properly maintain such
devices could pose dangers to the employees who use them. For example,
a grabrail that has become weakened from rust could fail when an
employee uses it, which could cause the employee to fall. Another
example is a missing railing. A manufacturer that integrated a railing
into its design may have provided a walking surface that would
otherwise be too narrow to be safe.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require that equipment manufactured
more than one year after the effective date of this standard be
equipped to provide safe access and egress between the ground and the
operator work station(s), including the forward and rear operator
positions, by the provision of devices such as steps, handholds,
ladders, and guardrails/railings/grabrails. As discussed below,
proposed Sec. 1926.1423(c)(2)(i) would require these devices to meet
updated design criteria.
Currently, Sec. 1926.550(a)(13)(i) in Subpart N requires that
guardrails, handholds, and steps be provided on cranes for easy access
to the car and cab and specifies that these devices conform to ANSI
B30.5. The 1968 version of ANSI B30.5, which was in effect at the time
Subpart N was issued, specifies that the construction of these devices
must conform to the 1946 U.S. Safety Appliance Standard. C-DAC
recognized that many pieces of equipment now in use would have been
manufactured with handholds and steps but was concerned that the
handholds and steps may have been designed to meet outdated criteria.
The Committee believed that it would be unduly burdensome to
require all equipment to be retrofitted with new steps, handholds, and
railings simply because the existing design may vary from what would be
required under this proposal. Accordingly, the proposal would allow one
year from the date of the published final rule for equipment to be
manufactured with devices that conform to proposed 1926.1423(c)(2)(i),
discussed next. This would give equipment manufacturers adequate time
to incorporate the requirements of Sec. 1926.1423(c)(2)(i) into their
products.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require that steps, ladders and
guardrails/railings/ grabrails meet the requirements of SAE J185 (May
2003) or ISO 11660-2 (1994). OSHA's construction standards contain
specifications for stairways and ladders in 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart X,
but C-DAC believed that the Subpart X requirements do not take into
account the characteristics of the equipment covered by this proposed
standard. The specifications in SAE J185 are referenced in industry
consensus standards, such as ASME B30.5-2004, "Mobile and Locomotive
Cranes," and crane manufacturers are familiar with those requirements.
C-DAC recommended alternatively allowing compliance with ISO 11660-2
since employers also use equipment built by foreign manufacturers who
have been following that standard.
Under proposed paragraph (a) of this section, the requirements in
proposed paragraph Sec. 1926.1423(c)(2) do not apply to tower cranes.
It is the Agency's understanding that C-DAC excluded tower cranes from
these requirements because the SAE and ISO standards referenced in
Sec. 1926.1423(c)(2)(i) are designed for, and only address, mobile
cranes. The Agency also believes that the lack of a similar provision
in the C-DAC document designed for tower cranes was an oversight; tower
cranes also need to be equipped with safe stairways and ladders to
enable the operator to ascend to the cab and descend safely.\56\
Accordingly, OSHA plans to include a requirement similar to Sec.
1926.1423(c)(2) that would be applicable to, and designed for, tower
cranes, and requests public comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Note that section 3-1.17.2 of both the 1996 and 2004
versions of ASME B30.3, "Construction Tower Cranes," calls for
access ladders to the cab, machinery platform, and tower to conform
to ANSI A14.3 or to SAE J185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would require that walking/stepping
surfaces, except for crawler treads, have slip-resistant features/
properties (such as diamond plate metal, strategically placed grip
tape, expanded metal, or slip-resistant paint). Section
1926.550(a)(13)(iii) of Subpart N of this part requires platforms and
walkways to have anti-skid surfaces. C-DAC
recommended that OSHA retain this requirement as a complement to the
use of guardrails, handholds, grabrails, ladders and other engineered
safety features that would be required by this proposed section. OSHA
continues to believe that compliance with this provision would minimize
the number of slips and falls for employees who must travel point to
point to access the operator workstations on equipment covered by this
proposed section.
Paragraph 1423(d) Fall Protection Requirements for Non-Assembly/
Disassembly Work
Proposed paragraph (d) addresses fall protection requirements for
employees engaged in work other than assembly/disassembly work ("non-
A/D" work). For such work, in certain circumstances, employers would
be required to provide and ensure the use of fall protection equipment
for employees who are on a walking/working surface with an unprotected
side or edge more than 6 feet above a lower level.
C-DAC discussed different trigger heights for fall protection
requirements for particular types of cranes and derricks. Ultimately,
C-DAC concluded that the requirements for fall protection should remain
consistent with 29 CFR Part subpart M, which generally requires fall
protection at heights at and above 6 feet, as much as possible. (As
discussed below, for A/D work, the Committee recommended fall
protection beginning at 15 feet). C-DAC also believed that, in its
view, operators do not need to be tied off while moving to and from
their cabs, and the proposal would make this clear by requiring fall
protection equipment only when employees are moving point-to-point on
booms or while at a work station (with certain exceptions). The
Committee believed that the steps, handholds, and railings required
under proposed Sec. 1926.1423(c) would protect operators moving to and
from their workstations and eliminate the need for additional fall
protection equipment.
Paragraph 1423(d)(1) Non-Assembly/Disassembly: Moving Point to Point
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i) would require employers to provide and
ensure the use of fall protection equipment at 6 feet and above when an
employee is moving point to point on non-lattice booms (whether
horizontal or not horizontal). As defined in Sec. 1926.1401, "moving
point to point" means "the times during which an employee is in the
process of going to or from a work station."
C-DAC believed that non-lattice booms generally present more
hazards to workers who must walk them to reach other work areas,
devices, and equipment attached to it than lattice booms. Non-lattice
booms are typically of the extensible type. As a result, as members
noted, the walking/working surfaces on these types of booms are often
oily (from the hydraulic mechanisms). Also, since the boom sections
extend and retract, it is typically infeasible to provide boom walkways
and other safety features. Because they tend to be slippery from oil,
the Committee concluded that they are especially hazardous to move
across even when horizontal. Therefore, where an employee is required
to move point to point on a non-lattice boom, the proposal would
require fall protection above 6 feet in height.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) would require employers to provide
and ensure the use of fall protection, beginning at 6 feet, when
employees must move point to point on lattice booms that are not in a
horizontal position. In non-A/D work, an employee may, for example,
need to move point-to-point on a lattice boom to inspect a part that is
suspected to need repair, or to make a repair (such as replacing a
broken or missing cotter pin). In many of these situations, the boom
will not be horizontal, since space limitations often make it difficult
to lower the boom to do this work.
The Committee believed that it is both necessary and feasible for
fall protection to be used in such instances. Typically, the fall
protection that would be used would consist of a double-lanyard or
similar personal fall arrest system. Since the boom in these instances
would be elevated, there would usually be a point on the boom above the
level of the employee's feet to which the lanyard could be attached.
It is the Agency's understanding that, in contrast, it is uncommon
for an employee to need to move point-to-point on a horizontal lattice
boom for non-A/D work. If work does need to be done, such as making an
inspection or repair as discussed above, the employee would usually get
access to their work station with a ladder. In those instances when the
employee must traverse the boom itself, the Committee concluded that it
would be inappropriate to require fall protection for the reasons
discussed below.
The key difficulty in providing fall protection in such instances
stems from the lack of a tie-off point above the level of the
employee's feet. Most lattice booms when horizontal would be less than
15 feet above the next lower level. At heights below 15 feet, a
personal fall arrest system tied off at the level of the employee's
feet, with a lanyard long enough to afford the employee the range of
movement necessary for this work, might not prevent the employee from
falling to the next lower level. In construction work the problem of
providing personal fall protection in this height range, when there is
no higher tie-off point, is usually solved in one of three ways (apart
from the use of ladders, scaffolds, aerial lifts, and similar devices).
One way is to use a restraint system, which is anchored at a point that
prevents the employee from moving past an edge. This type of system
could not be used while on a boom because the boom is too narrow.
Another method is to set up a personal fall arrest system that
would arrest the employee's fall before hitting the next lower level by
using stanchions to support an elevated, horizontal life-line. However,
such stanchions must be securely fastened and whatever they are
fastened to must be able to withstand considerable forces in an
arrested fall. On a crane's lattice boom, the stanchions would have to
be attached either to the chords or the lacings.
The chords and lacings are engineered to be as light as possible,
and an engineering analysis would be needed in each case to determine
if the attachment point was sufficiently strong to withstand those
forces. Also, the Agency believes that manufacturers would be unlikely
to approve clamp-on type systems because of the likelihood of the
clamping forces damaging these critical structural components.
Similarly, the Agency believes that manufacturers would not approve the
repeated weld/removal/re-weld cycles that would be involved in
attaching and removing stanchions because this could adversely affect
the boom's structural components.
The third method commonly used in construction work is a temporary
guardrail system, but that also would require attaching stanchions to
the boom, which would be infeasible for these same reasons.
The Committee concluded that, in light of such factors, it would
not be appropriate to require fall protection when an employee moves
point-to-point on horizontal lattice booms. However, the Agency notes
that, although it may rarely be necessary for an employee moving point-
to-point on a horizontal lattice boom to be 15 feet or more above the
next lower level, there is the possibility of such an occurrence, such
as where a horizontal boom spans a large gap in the ground surface. At
such heights a personal fall arrest system tied off at the level of the
employee's feet would allow sufficient room for the arrest system to
operate without allowing the employee to strike the next lower level.
Therefore, the Agency requests public comment on whether proposed Sec.
1926.1423(d)(1)(ii) should be expanded to require fall protection when
an employee, engaged in non-A/D work, is moving point-to-point on a
boom that is horizontal and the fall distance is 15 feet or more.
Paragraph 1423(d)(2) Non-Assembly/Disassembly: While at a Work Station
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would require employers to provide and
ensure the use of fall protection while an employee is at a work
station on any part of the equipment (including the boom, of any type),
except when the employee is at or near draw-works (when the equipment
is running), in the cab, or on the deck. An example of being at a work
station is the following: An employee is assigned to replace a cotter
pin for a sheave at the end of a boom. The employee's "work station"
on the boom for this task will be the point where, after the employee
has traversed the boom or climbed on from a ladder, the employee
performs that task. Because the employee is using one or both hands to
perform the task, there is a heightened risk of falling.
Since the work is typically done while the employee is sitting or
lying on or inside the boom and is stationary while doing the task,
there is normally no difficulty in setting up the personal fall
protection system so that it would prevent the worker from contacting
the next lower level. Therefore, this proposed provision does not
distinguish between work stations based on boom type or whether the
boom is horizontal or elevated. For work stations on other parts of the
equipment, the Committee concluded that there is normally some suitable
point available to which a personal fall arrest system can be anchored.
Fall protection would not be required near draw-works when the
equipment is running because of the danger that moving parts could
catch a safety lanyard and pull the worker into moving machinery. This
danger is present when parts in the draw works are moving. It is also
present when the equipment is running and the draw works parts are not
moving because of the potential that someone will activate those parts.
Fall protection would not be required when the employee is in a cab
because the employee is not exposed to a fall hazard in that instance.
Fall protection would also not be required for employees on decks,
since the Committee believed that equipment is typically designed so
that employees on the deck are not exposed to a fall hazard.
As discussed earlier, C-DAC was convinced that the steps and
railings required by this proposed standard would provide adequate fall
protection to operators going to and from their workstations.
Therefore, fall protection (apart from those devices) would not be
required for operators while moving point-to-point between the ground
and the operator work station(s).
Paragraph 1423(e) Assembly/Disassembly
Proposed paragraph (e) would require the employer to provide and
ensure the use of fall protection equipment during A/D work for
employees who are on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side
or edge more than 15 feet above a lower level, except when the employee
is at or near draw-works (when the equipment is running), in the cab,
or on the deck.
The principal problem with the use of fall protection during
assembly/disassembly below 15 feet is the difficulty in setting up a
personal fall protection system that allows a significant degree of
movement on a boom in this height range (which is usually of the
lattice type) and also prevents the employee from contacting the next
lower level. Unlike employees who work at a stationary work station,
employees engaged in assembly/disassembly work typically have to move a
significant amount to accomplish the work.
Consequently, the degree of movement that the protection system
needs to provide to the employee is more similar to what is needed when
moving point-to-point on a boom than working at a work station. As
discussed above, the characteristics of lattice booms make it more
difficult to set up such systems than in other situations.
The exception to the requirement for fall protection when the
employee is at or near draw-works (when the equipment is running), in
the cab, or on the deck is based on the same considerations discussed
above with respect to proposed Sec. 1926.1423(d)(2).
Paragraph 1423(f) Anchorage Criteria
Proposed paragraph (f) would specify criteria for anchorage points
used in personal fall protection systems.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ "Personal fall arrest system" is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 of this proposed standard as "a system used to arrest an
employee in a fall from a working level. It consists of an
anchorage, connectors, a body harness and may include a lanyard,
deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combination of these."
This definition is taken from Sec. 1926.500(b) of Subpart M. As
with other definitions applicable to this section, C-DAC used
terminology that is familiar to the industry to provide clear notice
of the standard's requirements and promote compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (f)(1), Anchorages for fall arrest and
positioning device systems, contains requirements for anchorage points
used in fall arrest and positioning device systems. Proposed Sec.
1926.1423(f)(1)(i) would permit personal fall arrest systems and
positioning systems to be anchored to any apparently substantial part
of the equipment unless a competent person, from a visual inspection,
without an engineering analysis, would conclude that the applicable
criteria in Sec. 1926.502 of Subpart M of this part would not be met.
The Subpart M criteria include, for personal fall arrest systems, 5,000
pounds per employee or twice the potential impact load of an employee's
fall (in addition to other requirements) (Sec. 1926.502(d)(15)); for a
positioning device, 3,000 pounds or twice the potential impact load of
an employee's fall, whichever is greater (in addition to other
requirements) (Sec. 1926.502(e)(2)).
Most of the equipment covered by the proposed standard are designed
to lift and support weights much heavier than these. Apparently
substantial parts of the equipment are, therefore, typically capable of
meeting the Subpart M capacities. Consequently, C-DAC believed that the
proposed Sec. 1926.1423(f)(1)(i) criteria was appropriate and would
avoid burdening employers with what it considered to be the unnecessary
expense of obtaining engineering analyses for each part that would
serve as an anchor.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii) would require that attachable anchor
devices (portable anchor devices that are attached to the equipment)
meet the applicable anchorage criteria in Sec. 1926.502. These
criteria are the same as those discussed in the previous paragraph for
fall arrest and fall positioning systems.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2), Anchorages for restraint systems, would
require restraint systems to be anchored to any part of the equipment
that is capable of withstanding twice the maximum load that a worker
may impose on it during reasonably anticipated conditions of use. Since
restraint systems do not arrest a worker's fall (instead they prevent a
fall from occurring), the anchorage does not need to be able to support
the significantly greater force generated during an arrested fall. C-
DAC believed that having the anchorage support twice the maximum
anticipated load will provide an adequate margin of safety when a
restraint system is used.
Paragraph 1423(g) Tower Cranes
Proposed paragraph (g) would specify fall protection requirements
specific to tower cranes. Note that the terminology "erecting" and
"dismantling" is used with regard to tower cranes rather than
"assembly" and "disassembly"; this terminology reflects the
industry's use of these terms.
Paragraph 1423(g)(1) Non-Erecting/Dismantling
Proposed paragraph (g)(1) addresses fall protection requirements
for non-erecting/dismantling work. The employer would be required to
provide and ensure the use of fall protection equipment for employees
who are on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge
more than 6 feet above a lower level. The exceptions to this
requirement would be when the employee is at or near draw-works (when
the equipment is running), in the cab, or on the deck.
As discussed above, for equipment other than tower cranes, there
were various factors that prompted C-DAC to agree on different
requirements for moving point-to-point than when working at a work
station. Those factors, however, are not present in tower cranes.
For example, when moving point-to-point on the jib (or boom) or on
the tower, there are no feasibility constraints to being protected.
There are numerous areas on the jib to which an employee can anchor
personal fall arrest equipment as the employee walks out and back on
the jib (or boom) on a tower crane. Also, by standard industry
practice, the counter-jib \58\ is usually equipped with a walkway and
railings. If the employee needs to traverse in an area that is off the
walkway, other fall protection can be used, such as a personal fall
arrest system. Since the jib (or boom) once erected is much higher than
6 feet from the next lower level, there is plenty of room for the
arrest system to operate without allowing the employee to strike the
next lower level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ At the top of the tower, there is a long horizontal
structure that supports the load (the "jib" or, if the luffing
type, the "boom"), and a shorter horizontal structure that
supports the counterweights, which is referred to as the "counter-
jib."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving point-to-point on the tower is typically done either using
the ladder or stair system provided within the tower, or (in some
situations) moving on a tower section. When moving on a tower section,
because the sections are vertical, there is always a point above the
employee's feet to which the arrest system can be anchored. There is
therefore no need for stanchions or other equipment to set up the
system to prevent the employee from striking the next lower level.
The exception to the proposed provision for fall protection when
the employee is at or near draw-works (when the equipment is running),
in the cab, or on the deck is based on the same considerations
discussed above with respect to proposed Sec. 1926.1423(d)(2). The
Agency notes that its understanding of the location of "the deck" on
a tower crane is the walking/working area on the counter-jib.
Paragraph 1423(g)(2) Erecting/Dismantling
This proposed paragraph specifies that, for erecting/dismantling
work, employers must provide, and ensure use of, fall protection
equipment for employees who are on a walking/working surface with an
unprotected side or edge more than 15 feet above a lower level.
On tower cranes, almost all of the erecting/dismantling work that
takes place below 15 feet occurs in connection with erecting or
dismantling the sections of the jib (or boom), which is usually done on
the ground. In this respect the erecting/dismantling process is similar
to the assembly/disassembly of other types of cranes. Therefore, the
same reasons for setting a 15-foot threshold for requiring fall
protection for assembling/disassembling non-tower cranes (see
discussion of proposed paragraph (e) above) are also the basis for
proposing to require fall protection beginning at 15 feet for erecting
and dismantling tower cranes.
The Agency notes that C-DAC did not include the exceptions that
were included in proposed Sec. 1926.1423(g)(1) for when the employee
is at or near draw-works (when the equipment is running), in the cab,
or on the deck. OSHA is unaware of any reason why these exceptions
would not be equally applicable here, and asks for public comment on
whether they should be added to proposed Sec. 1926.1423(g)(2).
Paragraph 1423(h) Anchoring to the Load Line
Proposed paragraph (h) would permit an employer, under prescribed
conditions, to anchor a fall arrest system to the hook or other part of
a load line of a crane or derrick. Currently, in Subpart M of this
part, Sec. 1926.502(d)(23) prohibits personal fall arrest systems to
be attached to "hoists except as specified in other subparts of this
part." Subpart N does not contain any provisions specifically
addressing this issue. Therefore, since the hook or other part of a
load line is connected to a hoist in the crane or for the derrick,
attaching a personal fall arrest system in this manner is currently
prohibited by Subpart M.
OSHA has received a number of inquiries asking whether a crane's
hook or load line may be used as an anchorage point for fall
protection. Using a crane for such purpose would be particularly useful
in many situations, especially where establishing a suitable anchor
point would be otherwise very difficult. OSHA asked C-DAC to consider
whether there is any reason to prohibit using a crane or derrick for
such purpose. C-DAC believed that the hook or load line of a crane
could be used safely as an anchor point under the conditions proposed
in the rest of this paragraph.
Proposed paragraph (h)(1) would allow the hook or load line to be
used as an anchorage point when a qualified person has determined that
the set-up and rated capacity of the crane/derrick (including the hook,
load line and rigging) meets or exceeds the requirements in Sec.
1926.502(d)(15). C-DAC concluded that, as long as the crane or derrick
had sufficient capacity to meet those criteria, there is no reason to
prohibit its use for this purpose.
The criteria in Sec. 1926.502(d)(15) were developed to ensure that
fall protection anchorages provide adequate employee protection. A
number of factors related to the crane's capacity in the particular
configuration and set-up involved would need to be considered,
including, in some cases, the angle of the fall arrest lanyard to the
boom if a fall were to occur. In C-DAC's view, determining whether
those criteria are met when anchoring to the hook or load line requires
the expertise of a qualified person.
Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require that the equipment operator
be at the work site and informed that the equipment is being used to
anchor a fall arrest system. This would ensure that the operator is
available to make any necessary adjustments, such as moving the boom or
load lines. Further, in the event of an emergency that results in a
tied-off employee being suspended from the hook or load line, the
operator would be available to bring the worker to the ground safely.
Section 1424 Work Area Control
Proposed paragraph (a) addresses the hazard of employees being
struck, pinched-between or crushed when within the swing radius of the
equipment's rotating superstructure. Proposed 1926.1424(a)(1) states
that the precautions in Sec. 1926.1424(a)(2) must be
taken when there are accessible areas in which the equipment's rotating
superstructure (whether permanently or temporarily mounted) poses a
reasonably foreseeable risk of either: (i) Striking and injuring an
employee; or (ii) pinching/crushing an employee against another part of
the equipment or another object.
Currently, Sec. 1926.550(a)(9) provides: "Accessible areas within
the swing radius of the rear of the rotating superstructure of the
crane, either permanently or temporarily mounted, shall be barricaded
in such a manner as to prevent an employee from being struck or crushed
by the crane." In proposed Sec. 1926.1401, "superstructure" is
defined as a synonym for "upperworks" and "upperstructure." Under
this definition, all three terms mean the following: "the revolving
frame of equipment on which the engine and operating machinery are
mounted along with the operator's cab. The counterweight is typically
supported on the rear of the upperstructure and the boom or other front
end attachment is mounted on the front."
The Committee agreed that barriers around danger areas are a
viable, safe option, but they also agreed that such barriers are not
always feasible and that, in such cases, there needs to be alternative
means of protecting the employees. In addition, C-DAC was concerned
that the language "accessible areas within the swing radius . * * *"
would require that all areas accessible to an employee within the swing
radius would have to be protected, irrespective of whether an employee
could be injured while in such an area. C-DAC viewed such a requirement
as overly broad and unnecessary.
The Committee drafted the proposed requirement so that protective
measures would be required for accessible areas that pose a
"reasonably foreseeable risk" that an employee would be struck or
pinched/crushed. The principle of reasonably foreseeable risk is one
that is well established in Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission caselaw and in the courts of appeals. For example, in Pete
Miller Inc., 19 O.S.H.C. (BNA) 1257, 1258 (Rev. Comm'n 2000), the
Review Commission stated that a violation occurs when "it is
reasonably predictable either by operational necessity or otherwise
(including inadvertence), that employees have been, are, or will be in
the zone of danger." \59\ The following are two illustrative examples
of the application of this principle to the swing radius provision:
\59\ See also, Daniel Int'l Corp. v. Donovan, 705 F.2d 382, 388
(10th Cir. 1983); Mineral Indus. & Heavy Constr. Group v. OSHRC, 639
F.2d 1289, 1294 (5th Cir. 1981).
Illustrative example #1: The bottom of the rear of the rotating
superstructure of crane A is 12 feet above the ground. An employee
standing on the ground within that swing radius could not be struck
by the rotating superstructure since the rotating superstructure
would swing well above him/her. There is nothing within that area on
which the employee could stand. In this example the area does not
pose a reasonably foreseeable risk of the employee being struck or
pinched/crushed.
Illustrative example #2: Same scenario as example 1
above, except that a truck with material that is to be unloaded from
its bed is within the swing radius. If an employee were to stand on
the truck bed the employee would be within the swing radius. In this
example there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of an employee being
struck or pinched/crushed.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2), the employer would be required to
institute two types of measures to prevent employees from entering
these hazard areas. Specifically, under proposed Sec.
1926.1424(a)(2)(i), the employer would have to train employees assigned
to work on or near the equipment in how to recognize these areas. The
Committee believed that employees need to understand and appreciate the
risk posed by the rotating superstructure for the other precautions
required by Sec. 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii) to be effective.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would require the employer to erect
and maintain control lines, warning lines, railings, or similar
barriers to mark the boundaries of the hazard areas, but contains an
exception when such a precaution is infeasible. If it is neither
feasible to erect such barriers on the ground nor on the equipment, the
employer would be required to mark the danger zone with a combination
of warning signs and high visibility markings on the equipment that
identify the hazard areas. In addition, the employer would have to
train employees to understand what those markings signify.
To help prevent struck-by and crushed-by injuries and fatalities,
C-DAC concluded that it is necessary to address the protection of
employees who must sometimes enter the hazard area to perform work.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1424(a)(3) is designed to help protect such
employees by ensuring that there is adequate communication and
coordination between the operator and the employee in the danger area.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i), if an employee is going to go
to a location in a hazard area that is out of view of the operator,
before that employee goes in that area the employee (or someone
instructed by the employee) would have to ensure that the operator is
informed that the employee is going to that location. Since the
operator will typically be under the assumption that no one is in that
area, informing the operator that an employee is going to enter the
hazard area is an essential first step in preventing the operator from
moving the superstructure and causing injury to that employee.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii), once informed that an employee
is going to enter a hazard area out of the operator's view, the
operator would be prohibited from rotating the superstructure unless
and until he/she gives a warning that the employee understands is a
signal that the superstructure is about to be rotated and gives the
employee time to get clear.
Alternatively, the operator may rotate the superstructure if
informed in accordance with a pre-arranged system of communication that
the employee is in a safe position. An example of such a system would
be the use of a signal person who gives an all-clear signal to the
operator once the signal person sees that the employee has exited the
hazard area. Another example would be where the employee in the hazard
area is equipped with a portable air horn and, in accordance with a
pre-arranged horn signal system, sounds an appropriate signal to the
operator that the employee has exited the hazard area. To be effective,
the pre-arranged signal system would need to be designed so that this
all-clear signal could not be confused with a horn signal from some
other employee for another purpose.
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses situations where multiple pieces
of equipment are located in such proximity that their working radii
overlap. Such situations pose the danger of employees being pinched/
crushed between the equipment and being injured as a result of
unintended movement or collapse when pieces of equipment collide. To
prevent such accidents, the controlling entity would be required to
coordinate the operations of these pieces of equipment. In the event
that there is no controlling entity, the employer or employers
operating the equipment would be required to institute a coordination
system.
C-DAC's language for proposed paragraph (b) refers to "employers
operating the equipment" but does not address a situation in which
only one employer is operating the multiple pieces of equipment. It
appears to the Agency that a coordination system is also needed in that
situation. OSHA is considering revising the C-DAC language to make clear
that such an employer would be required to institute a coordination system.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1424(b) could be revised in this regard as follows:
(b) Multiple equipment coordination. Where any part of a crane/
derrick is within the working radius of another crane/derrick, the
controlling entity shall institute a system to coordinate
operations. If there is no controlling entity, the employer (if
there is only one employer operating the multiple pieces of
equipment), or employers, shall institute such a system.
OSHA requests public comment on whether such a revision should be
made.
Section 1425 Keeping Clear of the Load
Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N at Sec. 1926.550(a)(19)
states: "All employees shall be kept clear of loads about to be lifted
and of suspended loads." C-DAC believed that compliance with this
provision is infeasible in certain circumstances. For example, many
urban construction sites have a relatively small footprint with
numerous construction employees throughout the site. These sites are
typically bounded on all sides by roads and sidewalks with high
concentrations of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. In such
circumstances it is not always possible to route a suspended load in
such a way that all employees will be clear of the load at all times.
In addition, meeting that objective may sometimes conflict with meeting
local requirements regarding public safety.
C-DAC also believed that employers have a greater ability to avoid
having static suspended loads over employees than moving loads, since a
static suspended load usually affects a much smaller area. Furthermore,
in a static situation, it is possible to limit the number of employees
in the fall zone to only those whose jobs involve the handling of the
load and therefore require them to be in that area at that time.
Accordingly, this proposed section is designed to account for these
considerations and protect employees to the extent feasible.
Paragraph 1425(a)
Proposed paragraph (a) would require the employer to use hoisting
routes that minimize employee exposure to hoisted loads to the extent
consistent with public safety. This provision addresses the fact that
in many situations, especially urban construction sites with high
concentrations of employees throughout the site, it is not feasible to
prevent all employees from being exposed to hoisted loads that are
moving at all times (see discussion above).
Also, C-DAC recognized that there could be situations where
minimizing employee exposure to hoisted loads would be in conflict with
local requirements regarding public safety, as when an alternative
route would take the load over a street with public traffic. The
Committee wanted to make clear that choosing a route that would
endanger the public was not required.
Paragraph 1425(b)
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses those situations where the
equipment operator is not actually engaging the controls to move the
load. In such situations, the load affects a more limited area then
when it is moved up or horizontally. Consequently, C-DAC determined
that, in these static situations, it is feasible to preclude most
employee exposure to the load's fall zone. The only exceptions are
employees engaged in the types of activities specified in proposed
Sec. 1926.1425(b)(1) through (3).
"Fall zone" is defined in Sec. 1926.1401 as "the area
(including but not limited to the area directly beneath the load) in
which it is reasonably foreseeable that partially or completely
suspended materials could fall in the event of an accident." The
"fall zone" thus includes both the area directly under the load as
well as other areas into which it is "reasonably foreseeable" that
suspended materials could fall. For example, if wind is causing the
load to swing, the employer would need to consider the extent to which
the load is or may swing in determining the extent of the fall zone.
Another example is where a bundle of materials is suspended, and some
loose materials at the top of the bundle may slide off sideways. In
such a case those materials would foreseeably fall outside the area
directly beneath the load. As discussed above in relation to Sec.
1926.1424, Work area control, the concept of "reasonably foreseeable"
risk is well established in OSHA law.
Proposed paragraph 1425(b)(1) would permit employees engaged in
hooking, unhooking or guiding a load to be within the fall zone while
engaged in these activities. Hooking or unhooking a load sometimes
requires an employee to be within the fall zone of a load. For example,
where a lifting accessory is used, the employee will typically be under
the fall zone of the lifting accessory when attaching or unhooking the
load. Also, guiding a load, even with a tag line, sometimes
necessitates that the employee be positioned within the fall zone,
especially when the work area below is restricted in size.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would permit employees engaged in the
initial attachment of the load to a component or structure to be within
the fall zone. One example is the following scenario: A subassembly of
steel members is hoisted for attachment to a structure. When initially
attaching the lower portion of that subassembly, an employee is within
the fall zone of the load. In this example, the employee engaged in the
initial attachment of the subassembly to the structure would be
permitted to be within the fall zone; that work cannot be done
otherwise.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would allow workers to be present in the
fall zone when operating a concrete hopper or concrete bucket. The
employee operating the hopper or bucket is necessarily in the fall zone
since the hopper or bucket is suspended while the employee operates the
releasing mechanism.
Paragraph 1425(c)
Proposed paragraph (c) deals with the situations addressed in
paragraphs 1425(b)(1) and (b)(2). The Committee felt that additional
requirements were necessary to ensure employee safety in these
situations, given the additional risks posed while loads are being
connected to equipment or structures.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require that the load be rigged to
prevent unintentional displacement, so that workers in the fall zone
are less likely to be struck by shifting materials.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require the use of hooks with self-
closing latches or their equivalent be used, to prevent accidental
failure of the hooks. However, "J" type hooks would be permitted for
setting wooden trusses. This exception is designed to enable the truss
to be unhooked without the need for an employee to go out on the truss.
This avoids the additional exposure to fall hazards that would
otherwise occur from going out on the truss to release a latched hook.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would require the use of a qualified
rigger in the rigging of materials in the situations addressed by
proposed Sec. 1926.1425(c). By ensuring that the load is rigged in as
safe a manner as possible, this requirement serves to reduce the risk
of injury to workers who cannot perform their duties outside of the
fall zone, and reduces the potential size of the fall zone.
Section 1401 of this proposed standard defines a "qualified
rigger" as a rigger who meets the criteria for a qualified person. The
same definition is found in subpart R of 29 CFR Part 1926, Steel Erection at Sec.
1926.753(c)(2).
Paragraph 1425(d) Receiving a Load
Proposed paragraph (d) would prohibit all employees except those
needed to receive a load from being in the fall zone when it is being
landed. An employee receiving a load will typically need to be within
the fall zone when it is being landed because that is the time when the
load needs to be guided to a specific landing point.
Paragraph 1425(e)
Proposed paragraph (e) concerns tilt-up and tilt-down operations.
In these operations, one end of a component, such as a precast panel,
is either raised, tilting the component up, usually from a horizontal
position (often on the ground) to a vertical position; or lowered,
tilting the component down, usually from a vertical position to a
horizontal position on the ground or other surface.\60\ Note that the
requirements in this proposed paragraph would not apply when receiving
a load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Proposed Sec. 1926.1401 defines "tilt up or tilt down
operation" as "raising/lowering a load from the horizontal to
vertical or vertical to horizontal."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with any other suspended load, it is dangerous to be directly
beneath the load because of the possibility of a failure or error that
would cause the load to fall or be accidentally lowered onto an
employee. To minimize the risk of such accidents, proposed Sec.
1926.1425(e)(1) provides that no employee shall be directly under the
load during a tilt-up or tilt-down operation. Section 1926.1401 defines
"directly under the load" to mean "a part or all of an employee is
directly beneath the load." This provision will avoid having employees
in the area that presents the greatest danger in the event of a loss of
control of the load.
While C-DAC determined that tilt-up and tilt-down operations can be
accomplished without anyone being directly under the load, it also
found that the operation is at times infeasible unless one or more
employees "essential to the operation" needs to be elsewhere within
the fall zone. Proposed Sec. 1926.1425(e)(2) therefore provides that
employees "essential to the operation" may be in the fall zone (but
not directly under the load) during a tilt up or tilt down operation.
The C-DAC document does not contain a definition of "essential to
the operation." Consequently, the proposed provision does not specify
what job functions would be permitted to be performed from within the
fall zone. OSHA believes that examples of an employee "essential to
the operation" is an employee who must be within the fall zone because
it is infeasible to conduct the following operations from outside the
fall zone: (1) Physically guide the load; (2) closely monitor and give
instructions regarding the load's movement; and/or (3) either detach it
from or initially attach it to another component or structure. OSHA
requests public comment on whether there are other activities that are
essential to this operation and are infeasible to be done from outside
the fall zone, and whether it would be appropriate to add a definition
of "essential to the operation" to the standard.
A note to paragraph (e) refers to Sec. 1926.1426, which addresses
free fall of the boom and the load. As discussed below, it specifies
that employees may not be anywhere in the fall zone of a boom that is
designed to free fall, and that employees are never to be directly
under the load during free fall of the load line hoist.
Section 1426 Free Fall and Controlled Load Lowering
This proposed section addresses the hazards that can arise from
free fall of the boom (live boom) during lifts. Live booms are those in
which the rate of lowering can be controlled only by a brake; a failure
of the brake will result in a free fall (i.e., unrestricted lowering)
of the boom. In contrast, in equipment that has a boom that is not
"live," there is a mechanism or device other than the brake which
slows the boom's lowering speed.
The uncontrolled lowering of a boom could result in an accident
which could injure or kill workers in proximity of the load or hoisting
equipment. This proposed section would prohibit use of live booms in
most circumstances. An exception is provided for older equipment
manufactured before the ANSI B30.5 series prohibited free fall of the
boom for all hoisting operations, but only under limited conditions
that do not create hazards to employees. A limited exception is also
provided for floating cranes/derricks. This proposed section includes
many of the modern protective methods and mechanisms included in ASME
B30.5-2004.
This section also, in Sec. 1926.1426(d), would specify the
circumstances under which free fall of the load line would be
prohibited.
Paragraph 1426(a) Boom Free Fall Prohibitions
Under proposed paragraph (a)(1), the use of equipment in which the
boom is designed to free fall would be prohibited under six specified
conditions. C-DAC concluded that, in these six circumstances, free fall
of the boom needs to be prohibited regardless of what type of equipment
is used and when that equipment was manufactured.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) would prohibit the use of a live boom
when an employee is in the fall zone of the boom or load (see the
explanation of "fall zone" in the discussion above of proposed Sec.
1926.1425(b). Section 1926.1425, Keeping clear of the load, of this
proposed standard recognizes that there are some situations in which
certain employees need to be positioned in the fall zone in order to
perform their assigned duties. However, the likelihood that an employee
would sustain a serious injury or be killed in the event of a falling
boom is very high when an employee is in the fall zone of the boom or
load.
Because the likelihood of a falling boom is higher when a live boom
is in use, C-DAC believed it was necessary to prohibit employees from
being in the fall zone whenever a live boom is being used, without
exception. Therefore, the exceptions listed in proposed Sec. 1926.1425
that would permit employees to be in the fall zone in certain
circumstances apply only where a non-live boom is being used.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would prohibit use of a live boom
when an employee is being hoisted. This continues the current
prohibition in Sec. 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(F) of subpart N of this part,
which is designed to prevent hoisted employees from being seriously
injured or killed if the boom were to fall.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would prohibit the use of a live
boom where the load or boom is directly over a power line, or over any
part of the area extending the Table A ( of proposed Sec. 1926.1408)
clearance distance to each side of the power line. The diagram below
illustrates a situation in which a load on a live boom is over the area
extending the Table A clearance distance to each side of the power
line:
As discussed above in relation to proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1407
through 1926.1411, equipment making electrical contact with power lines
is one of the primary causes of equipment-related deaths on
construction sites and, to prevent such contact, those sections would
require equipment to maintain minimum distances from power lines.
C-DAC recognized that a live boom that is over a power line, or
that is suspending a load that is over any part of the area extending
the Table A clearance distance to each side of the power line, could
fall or cause the load to fall into electrical contact with a power
line.
The C-DAC draft of this provision stated: "The load or boom is
directly over a power line, or over the area extending the Table A
clearance distance to each side of the power line." Since C-DAC's
intent was to prohibit the boom or load from being over any part of the
area extending the Table A clearance distance to each side of the line,
OSHA has changed this language to make clear that the prohibition
applies with respect to the boom or load being above "any part of"
that area.
In reviewing this provision, OSHA realized that there appears to be
another circumstance when a fall of the boom could cause the load or
boom to breach the Table A clearance distance. This would occur as
follows: Neither the boom nor load is over the power line or over the
Table A clearance area. However, the Table A clearance distance is
within the radius of vertical travel of the boom or load. This
circumstance is depicted in the following illustrations:
In Illustration A, neither the boom nor the load is above the power
line or any part of the Table A zone. However, if the boom were to
fall, the boom would cross into the Table A zone. In Illustration B,
neither the boom nor load is above the power line or any part of the
Table A zone. However, if the boom were to fall, the load would cross
into the Table A zone.
The Agency therefore requests public comment on whether proposed
Sec. 1926.1426(a)(1)(iii) should be modified to also prohibit the
equipment from being positioned such that the fall path of the boom or
load would breach the Table A clearance distance.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would prohibit use of a live boom
where the load is over a shaft. As discussed in relation to Sec.
1926.1426(a)(1)(i) of this proposed section, C-DAC recognized that
there are situations where employees must be in the fall zone of a
suspended load. One particular scenario is when employees must receive
a load that is lowered into a shaft. Such employees would be at a
particularly high risk of being killed or injured by a free falling
boom because the shaft severely limits or eliminates any ability to get
out of the way.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(v) would prohibit free fall of a boom
when the load is over a cofferdam, except where there are no employees
\61\ in the fall zone. Much like employees who must receive a suspended
load in a shaft, employees have limited ability to escape a free
falling boom or load in a cofferdam. However, because cofferdams are
typically much larger work spaces than shafts, the fall zone of a
falling boom or load may only affect one part of the cofferdam.
Therefore, this provision contains an exception for situations where
there are no employees in the fall zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ The C-DAC draft of this provision used the term
"workers;" this has been changed to "employees," which is the
more appropriate term in light of the language in the Occupational
Safety and Health Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) would prohibit use of a live boom for
lifting operations in a refinery or tank farm. C-DAC was concerned that
a free falling boom could strike pipes or a tank in a refinery or tank
farm. Such accidental impact could cause a release of toxic materials
or conflagration.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) is an exclusive list of conditions under
which the use of cranes with live booms would be permitted. C-DAC
believed that cranes with live booms could be used safely under some
circumstances and did not believe that the cost of replacing or
retrofitting all existing such equipment was justified as long as the
use of live boom equipment was limited to those circumstances.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) would allow the use of equipment with
a live boom if that equipment was manufactured prior to October 31,
1984 and none of the circumstances listed in proposed Sec.
1926.1426(a)(1) are present. C-DAC noted that ANSI B30.5 first
prohibited live booms in its 1972 version and reiterated the
prohibition in the 1982 edition, which was published on October 31,
1983 and became effective on October 31, 1984.
C-DAC concluded that manufacturers would have begun to phase out
live-boom equipment when ANSI first prohibited its use in 1972 and that
little, if any, live boom equipment would have been manufactured after
October 31, 1984. Moreover, during this period, hydraulic hoisting
equipment, the design of which typically precluded boom free fall even
in its early designs, became more prevalent.
In light of these factors, C-DAC concluded that most equipment
manufactured after October 31, 1984 would not have live booms. Proposed
Sec. 1926.1426(a)(2) thus allows the older live boom equipment to be
phased out safely by restricting its use to situations in which none of
the circumstances listed in Sec. 1926.1426(a)(1) are present.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would allow use of a live boom if the
equipment is a floating crane/derrick or is a land crane/derrick on a
vessel/flotation device and none of the circumstances listed in
proposed Sec. 1926.1426(a)(1) are present.\62\ C-DAC noted that
equipment used on the water commonly has a live boom. This is because
the dynamics of load transfer while on water (from side to side), as
well as unexpected wave action, which can cause rapid changes in list
and trim, sometimes necessitates that the operator have a free fall
boom system to compensate for these effects. Non-live systems are not
fast enough for this purpose. As a result, C-DAC concluded that there
is no need to alter current industry practice in this regard as long as
none of the circumstances listed in Sec. 1926.1426(a)(1) are present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ OSHA has modified the language used in the C-DAC version of
this provision to conform to the terminology used in proposed Sec.
1926.1437, Floating cranes and land cranes on barges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (b) Preventing Boom Free Fall
Proposed paragraph (b) sets criteria for preventing boom free fall.
A boom that meets this criteria is considered to be designed to not
free fall. The criteria consist of requirements for a secondary system
for controlling the boom's descent in addition to the equipment's
primary system. The Committee believed that the hazard posed by a
failure of the primary system for holding or regulating the boom is so
significant that the availability of a secondary mechanism needs to be
required.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i) specifies that a friction drum must
have both a friction clutch and a braking device, to allow for
controlled boom lowering. These provisions are similar to those in
section 5-1.3.2(a)(1) and (a)(4) of ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-
2004. Proposed Sec. 1926.1426(b)(1)(ii) would require friction drums
to also have a secondary braking or locking device, which is manually
or automatically engaged, to back-up the primary brake while the boom
is held (such as a secondary friction brake or a ratchet and pawl
device). In the view of the Committee these have been well established
as effective for this purpose.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require hydraulic drums to have an
integrally mounted holding device or internal static brake to prevent
boom hoist movement in the event of hydraulic failure. The requirements
of this proposed paragraph are similar to those in section 5-1.3.1(d)
of ASME B30.5-2004. The hazard presented by this type of hoisting
system is that once the hydraulic system fails, the boom hoist drum
could free spin and allow the boom to free fall.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) states that clutches or hydraulic motors
do not qualify as brakes or locking devices for purposes of this
subpart. C-DAC believed the use of clutches or hydraulic motors for
such purposes would accelerate the wear of these systems and increase
the risk they will fail when they are needed to control the lowering of
the boom.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would require hydraulic boom cylinders to
have an integrally mounted holding device. An integrally mounted
holding device would secure the boom from pivoting down in the event
that hydraulic pressure is lost. This requirement is similar to section
5-1.3.1(d) of ASME B30.5-2004.
Paragraph 1426(c) Preventing Uncontrolled Retraction
Proposed paragraph (c) would require hydraulic telescoping booms
(which are also referred to as hydraulic extensible booms) to have an
integrally mounted holding device to prevent the boom from retracting
in the event of hydraulic failure. This proposed provision is similar
to section 5-1.3.3(c) of ASME B30.5-2004.
The C-DAC draft of this provision stated that the purpose of this
device was "to prevent boom movement in the event of hydraulic
failure." OSHA believes that this language was unintentionally broad
in that it refers to any "boom movement." The purpose of proposed
Sec. 1926.1426(b)(4) is, as discussed above, to prevent the boom from
pivoting down in the event of hydraulic failure. Therefore, there is no
need for proposed Sec. 1926.1426(c) to also require a device to
prevent that type of boom movement.
The Agency's understanding is that the purpose of proposed Sec.
1926.1426(c) is, as reflected in C-DAC's heading ("Preventing
uncontrolled retraction"), to prevent a telescoping hydraulic boom
from retracting in the event of hydraulic failure. Therefore, OSHA has
modified the language to state that the purpose of the integrally
mounted holding device is "to prevent the boom from retracting" in
the event of hydraulic failure. OSHA requests public comment on the
appropriateness of this change.
Paragraph1426(d) Load Line Free Fall
Proposed paragraph (d) lists circumstances under which free fall of
the load line hoist is prohibited and controlled load lowering is
required. "Free fall (of the load line)" is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 to mean "where only the brake is used to regulate the
descent of the load line (the drive mechanism is not used to drive the
load down faster or retard its lowering)." "Free fall" is contrasted
with "controlled load lowering," which Sec. 1926.1401 defines as
"lowering a load by means of a mechanical hoist drum device that
allows a hoisted load to be lowered with maximum control using the gear
train or hydraulic components of the hoist mechanism. Controlled load
lowering requires the use of the hoist drive motor, rather than the
load hoist brake, to lower the load."
As with free fall of the boom, free fall of the load line hoist
presents a struck-by hazard to employees. One difference with boom free
fall, however, is that free fall of the load line endangers a smaller
area. When a boom free falls, its tip (and any attached load) moves
both downward and outward. Because the load will moving in at least two
directions simultaneously, the area that will be affected by the fall
is comparatively large.
In contrast, if a load line free falls, the load will tend to fall
in a relatively straight path downward (as long as the boom is not
being moved and the load is not significantly affected by winds). Thus
the area affected will typically be smaller. C-DAC therefore concluded
that it would be appropriate to have a more limited prohibition
compared with use of a live boom. This is reflected in the prohibition
in proposed Sec. 1926.1426(d)(1) against an employee being directly
under the load. That provision is more limited than proposed Sec.
1926.1426(a)(1)(i), which would prohibit an employee from being in the
fall zone of the boom or load.
Similarly, unlike the live boom provisions, proposed Sec.
1926.1426(d) does not include a prohibition against use of load line
hoist free fall in a refinery or tank farm. Because of the more limited
affected area, the operator can more readily set up the equipment so
that, in the event of a load line free fall, the affected area will not
include safety critical refinery or tank equipment.
However, paragraphs (d)(2), (3), and (4) are similar to the boom
free fall prohibitions in that they prohibit free fall of the load line
when (1) an employee is being hoisted; (2) the load is directly over a
power line or over any part of the area extending the Table A (of
proposed Sec. 1926.1408) clearance distance to each side of the power
line; and (3) the load is over a shaft or cofferdam.
The C-DAC draft of proposed paragraph (d)(3) stated: "The load is
directly over a power line, or over the area extending the Table A
clearance distance to each side of the power line." As discussed
above, C-DAC's intent was to prohibit the load from being over any part
of the area extending the Table A clearance distance to each side of
the line, and OSHA has therefore changed this language to make clear
that the prohibition applies with respect to the load being above "any
part of" that area.
In reviewing proposed paragraph (d)(4), OSHA noted that it would
prohibit load line free fall over a shaft or cofferdam, but contains no
exception regarding cofferdams in which there is no employee in the
fall zone. In this respect this provision is broader than the live boom
provision in proposed Sec. 1926.1426(a)(1)(v), which does contain such
an exception. OSHA requests public comment on whether proposed Sec.
1926.1426(d)(4) should be modified to include such an exception.
Section 1427 Operator Qualification and Certification
Proposed Sec. 1926.1427 addresses the safety concerns created by
under-qualified crane operators. In the Committee's experience, human
error resulting from insufficient operator knowledge and capability is
a significant cause of fatal crane/derrick accidents. It concluded that
a verified testing process is essential for ensuring sufficient
knowledge and capability of crane/derrick operators and would be an
effective and efficient way to reduce these accidents.
The Committee's view was based on the extensive collective
experience of the Committee members. Members expressed the belief that
crane/derrick safety depends heavily on the operator having the
knowledge and ability to implement safe operation practices. For
example, an operator who does not know how to properly use load charts
could miscalculate the capacity of the crane and inadvertently overload
the equipment. An operator who lacks the knowledge and skill to control
and manipulate a load could lose control of it, causing other employees
to be struck by the load or the equipment.
In addition, knowledge and skill are needed to prevent electrical
contact with power lines (see the discussion above regarding proposed
Sec. Sec. 1926.1407-1926.1411). For example, an operator who does not
understand an operational/performance characteristic such as dynamic
loading may inadvertently allow the boom to get too close to a power
line. This could occur where the operator failed to account for the
fact that, under certain conditions, the boom would flex and so
continue to move towards the line after the operator had stopped the
superstructure's rotation.
Similarly, understanding and being able to minimize such effects is
important in situations such as blind picks, where the operator will be
relying on information relayed to him/her by a signal person.
The Committee considered whether it would be sufficient to set
testing criteria without a third-party (that is, independent)
verification mechanism, and determined that such an approach was not
likely to be effective in ensuring sufficient operator qualifications.
During the Committee's deliberations, members expressed a concern that
testing conducted without a check on the quality of the test, with
respect to both its content and administration, has been ineffective in
ensuring that crane operators are qualified to operate the equipment
safely. Members noted that operator "certification" cards are easily
obtained from various Internet sites without having to pass a credible
test. They also noted that the current OSHA standards, which require
employers to instruct employees on the hazards involved with crane
operation, and require the employer to permit only those employees
qualified by training or experience to operate equipment,\63\ but do
not require testing verified by a third party, have been generally
ineffective in ensuring an adequate degree of consistency with respect
to crane operator knowledge and ability. The Committee concluded that
significant advances in crane/derrick safety would not be achieved
unless such testing was required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Section 1926.20(b)(4) states that "the employer shall
permit only those employees qualified by training or experience to
operate equipment and machinery"; Sec. 1926.21(b)(2) states that
"the employer shall instruct each employee in the recognition and
avoidance of unsafe conditions.* * *"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee was aware that testing of equipment operators by an
impartial party has been used in the past to prevent fatal and other
serious accidents that result when operators lack the knowledge and
skills needed to operate safely. An example is the Department of
Transportation's requirements for over-the-road commercial drivers'
licenses ("CDL"). These are designed to reduce the incidence of
serious accidents caused by unqualified drivers of vehicles such as
trucks and buses. These requirements, codified at 40 CFR part 383,
require drivers of commercial motor vehicles to have state licenses
that are issued in accordance with federal standards for qualification,
training, and testing. To receive a license, the driver must pass
knowledge and skills tests administered either by the state or by a
third party whose examiners meet the same qualification and training
standards as state examiners. 40 CFR 383.75(a).
The Committee's view of the importance of independent testing is
further buttressed by a study conducted over a 34-year period (1969-
2002), by the Construction Safety Association of Ontario. (OSHA-2007-
0066-0009). The study showed a substantial decrease in crane and
rigging fatalities in Ontario beginning in 1979, when mandatory
training and certification requirements for Ontario crane operators
went into effect.
The Ontario system requires prospective or current crane operators
(referred to in Ontario as "hoisting engineers") to either
successfully complete an apprenticeship program or demonstrate
sufficient previous experience before seeking certification as a
hoisting engineer. The apprenticeship program includes in-school
training in a number of topics determined by the Ministry of Education,
a practical examination administered at Ministry-designated sites, and
a written examination administered by the Ministry. Upon passing this
examination and proving completion of the requisite work hours, an
apprentice receives a certificate of qualification as one of three
types of hoisting engineer from the Ministry. (OSHA-2007-0066-0010).
Hoisting engineers already qualified elsewhere must also obtain a
certification from the Ministry to operate cranes in the province.
These candidates must sit for the written examination and complete the
practical skills assessment required for qualification of apprentices,
but may demonstrate sufficient previous experience instead of
completing the number of work/training hours required by the
apprenticeship program, to receive a certificate of qualification from
the Ministry in one of the three hoisting engineer categories. (OSHA-
2007-0066-0011).
In the ten year period from 1969 through 1978, before Ontario's
requirements went into effect, 85 Ontario construction workers suffered
crane and rigging fatalities, amounting to 8.5 per year, or 19.8% of
all construction fatalities in Ontario. In the 24 year period from 1979
through 2002, there were 51 crane and rigging fatalities, or slightly
more than two per year. For this period, crane and rigging fatalities
equaled 9.6% of all Ontario construction fatalities. In the 12-year
period from 1991 through 2002, the total number of crane and rigging
fatalities was 9, or fewer than one per year. During this period, crane
and rigging fatalities amounted to 4.1% of total construction
fatalities. (OSHA-2007-0066-0009).
Proposed Sec. 1926.1427 would afford employers several options for
ensuring that operators have obtained sufficient knowledge and ability.
These options are designed to provide employers flexibility for meeting
the proposed requirement and to accommodate the needs of the U.S.
military.
Paragraph 1427(a)
As drafted by C-DAC, proposed paragraph (a) would have required the
employer to ensure that the operator of any equipment covered under
Sec. 1926.1400 is either qualified or certified to operate the
equipment in accordance with the provisions of this section or is
operating the equipment during a training period. OSHA notes, however,
that C-DAC provided for exceptions to the general rule for operator
qualification/certification in proposed Sec. Sec. 1436, Derricks;
1926.1440, Sideboom cranes; and 1926.1441, Equipment with a rated
hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or less. To make proposed
Sec. 1926.1427(a) reflect the exceptions provided in these sections,
OSHA has added the following language to proposed Sec. 1926.1427(a):
Exceptions: Operator qualification or certification under this
section is not required for operators of derricks (see Sec.
1926.1436), sideboom cranes (see Sec. 1926.1440), and equipment
with a rated hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or less (see
Sec. 1926.1441).
Paragraph 1427(b) Option 1: Certification by an Accredited Crane/
Derrick Operator Testing Organization
Proposed paragraph (b) sets out Option 1, in which the employee
becomes certified to operate equipment of a certain type and capacity
by passing an examination administered by an accredited testing
organization. Certification under this option would be "portable,"
which means that any employer covered by the proposed standard could
meet the requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.1427 by using an operator
who had this certification. These certifications would be valid for
five years.
Proposed section Sec. 1926.1427(b) incorporates a number of
safeguards to ensure that the Option 1 certification could be relied
upon by any employer to meet the requirements of Sec. 1926.1427, and
adequately establishes the employee's ability to operate the types and
capacities of crane for which he/she is certified. The first of these
safeguards is proposed Sec. 1926.1427(b)(1)(i), which would require
that the testing organization be accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting agency.
As defined in Sec. 1926.1401, a "nationally recognized
accrediting agency" is "an organization that, due to its independence
and expertise, is widely recognized as competent to accredit testing
organizations." The Agency notes that, under this definition, new
accrediting organizations would meet this definition upon establishing
a national reputation based on independence, use of widely recognized
criteria, and demonstrated competence in applying those criteria.
For a testing organization to be accredited, the accrediting agency
would have to determine that the testing organization meets industry
recognized criteria for written testing materials, practical
examinations, test administration, grading, facilities/equipment and
personnel.
In its deliberations, the Committee expressed concern about the
need for independent evaluation of certification programs. It believed
such evaluation is necessary to ensure that the certification programs
are adequately and consistently applying the requisite criteria for
safe crane operation when testing operators. This accreditation would
ensure that the testing procedures would accurately measure whether the
operator has met the knowledge and skill criteria specified in proposed
Sec. 1926.1427(j) (discussed below).
Under proposed Sec. 1926.1427(b)(1)(v), the accreditation would be
required to be reviewed every three years, to ensure continuing quality
of testing materials and administration. The Committee believed that an
entity that meets the proposed definition for a nationally recognized
accrediting agency ("an organization that, due to its independence and
expertise, is widely recognized as competent to accredit testing
organizations"), would have both the expertise and independence needed
to provide reliable assurance that a testing organization meets the
proposed standard's criteria.
The use of a nationally recognized accrediting agency to provide an
independent, authoritative assurance of a testing organization's
competence is a well-established practice. For example, for a number of
years, the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), the
accreditation body of the National Organization for Competency
Assurance (NOCA), has accredited testing organizations in a wide
variety of fields, including those that provide crane operator
certification. (OSHA-2007-0066-0021). Also, in 2003, the American
National Standards Institute began accrediting personnel certification
entities. (OSHA-2007-0066-0022).
Another safeguard is in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(A),
under which a testing organization would be required to administer both
written and practical tests addressing the criteria set forth in
proposed Sec. 1926.1427(j). The Committee believed that operator
ability cannot be assessed reliably unless both written and practical
tests are used. In its view, operator ability depends both on knowledge
of a variety of subjects, which the written test would address, and the
ability to apply that knowledge, which would be addressed by the
practical test.
Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) would require that different
levels of certification be provided, based on varying equipment
capacities and types. This proposed requirement is designed to ensure
that the extent of knowledge and skill required is commensurate with
the type and capacity of equipment the employee operates. For example,
an employee who only operates a hydraulic truck crane would not need to
also have the additional knowledge and skills necessary to operate a
lattice boom crawler crane. Similarly, an employee who operates only a
22 ton capacity hydraulic truck crane would not need to also have the
additional knowledge and skills necessary to operate a 300 ton
hydraulic truck crane.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Note that certification on a more complex and/or higher
capacity piece of equipment would typically qualify an operator to
operate less complex/lower capacity equipment of the same type. For
example, an operator certified for a 300 ton hydraulic truck crane
would not need a separate certification to operate a 22 ton
hydraulic truck crane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its deliberations, the Committee determined that requiring the
certification to be model-specific would be unnecessarily restrictive,
and instead agreed on the term "type." In the SBREFA Panel Report,
the Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public comment on whether the
term "type" is sufficiently clear for this purpose. OSHA requests
public comment on whether this term is appropriate, whether it needs to
be defined (and if so, what that definition should be),\65\ and
suggestions as to what other terms may be better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ One possible approach, referred to by the SBREFA Panel,
would define "type" by using the categories of equipment
represented in Figures 1-10 of the ASME B30.5-2004 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the SBREFA process, several SERs described situations in
which an operator is very knowledgeable and skillful with respect to
one particular model of crane, but has very limited knowledge and
ability regarding other models and types of cranes. These SERs were
concerned that such operators would be unable to obtain a certification
based on equipment capacity and type. They believe that, since these
operators are well qualified to operate a particular crane model, there
should be a mechanism for them to become certified to operate that
model. The Panel recommended that OSHA consider and solicit public
comment on expanding the levels of certification so as to allow an
operator to be certified on a specific brand's model of crane.
Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, OSHA seeks public comment
on this issue.
The SBREFA Panel also received comments from some SERs suggesting
that the standard should accommodate crane operators who were fully
capable of operating particular equipment in a limited set of circumstances
but who would be unable to pass certification tests that required knowledge
and abilities beyond those circumstances. The Panel recommended that
OSHA consider and solicit public comment on expanding the levels of
operator qualification/certification to allow such operators to be
certified for a specific, limited type of circumstance defined by a set
of parameters that, taken together, would describe an operation
characterized by simplicity and relatively low risk. In response to the
Panel's recommendation, OSHA requests public comment on whether such
parameters could be identified in a way that would result in a clear,
easily understood provision that could be effectively enforced.
Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(iii) would require that the testing
organization have procedures for operators to re-apply and be re-tested
in the event an applicant fails a test. This would help ensure that if
the employee initially failed to pass the test, the employee would be
able to retake the test and still have the opportunity to obtain the
certification.
Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(iii) would also require that the
testing organization have procedures for operators to re-apply and be
re-tested in the event an operator was decertified. This would
similarly help protect an employer's expenditures for training and
certification testing.
Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(iv) would require that the testing
organization have procedures for re-certifying operators designed to
ensure that the operator continues to meet the requirements of proposed
Sec. 1926.1427(j). The Committee believed that testing for
recertification would not need to be as rigorous as for initial
certification. This proposed provision was therefore included so that
recertification procedures appropriate for those who have already been
certified would be available.
Under proposed paragraph (b)(2), the certification would be
"portable," which means that any employer of an operator certified
under Option 1 would meet the requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.1427
with respect to that operator.\66\ The Committee believed that
accredited testing organizations could be relied upon to consistently
adhere to the criteria in Sec. 1926.1427, since they would be fully
independent and their business interest would depend on their continued
accreditation. Therefore, it would be appropriate for all employers to
be able to rely on their certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See the explanation of the proposed definition of
"portable" below in the discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.1427(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under proposed Sec. 1926.1427(b)(3), the certification would be
valid for five years. The Committee believed that this is an
appropriate length of time to assume that, absent a specific indication
to the contrary, an employee would retain the knowledge and proficiency
demonstrated through the testing process.
In the SBREFA Panel Report, the Panel indicated that some Small
Entity Representatives were concerned that there would be an
insufficient number of accredited crane operator testing organizations
and that many employers would not be able to set up and maintain an
audited employer program under Option 2 (see discussion of Option 2
below). At present, there are two testing organizations that have been
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting organization to
certify crane operators.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ These organizations are the National Commission for the
Certification of Crane Operators (NCCCO), which is accredited by the
National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) (OSHA-2007-0066-
0021) and by ANSI (OSHA-2007-0066-0025), and the Southern California
Crane & Hoisting Certification Program (SCCHCP), which is accredited
by NCCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-DAC considered this issue and was of the view that, with a four-
year phase-in period, there would be sufficient time for the market to
respond to an increased demand for certification services. Some SERs
expressed a similar expectation. Nonetheless, the Panel recommended
that OSHA solicit public comment on whether it would be appropriate to
expand Option 1 so that an accredited educational institution could be
used to "administer" tests. In other words, under this concept,
Option 1 would be expanded so that an accredited educational
institution could administer written and practical tests that were
developed or approved by an accredited crane/derrick testing
organization. Many educational institutions currently have an
accreditation through a national or regional accrediting agency that is
listed by the U.S. Secretary of Education (SOE) or have an
accreditation by a State agency that has been recognized by the SOE for
approval of public post-secondary vocational education. Such an
expansion could broaden the availability of certification services.
C-DAC considered a related concept in which an educational
institution or program accredited in this manner could both develop and
administer tests. However, it rejected that concept because the SOE-
related type of accreditation would be more broadly based on the
institution as a whole, rather than on its operator certification
program in particular.
It is the Agency's understanding that much of the Committee's
concern in this regard was related to the development of the tests
rather than their administration. In other words, while considerable
subject-specific expertise is needed to develop accurate and reliable
crane operator tests, the expertise needed to administer such tests may
be similar to the expertise needed to administer tests in general.
However, there is a question as to whether this is equally true for
written and practical tests.
Therefore, OSHA solicits public comment on these issues.
Specifically, the Agency seeks comment on whether Option 1 should be
expanded so that an accredited educational institution could administer
written and practical tests that were developed or approved by an
accredited crane/derrick testing organization.
Paragraph 1427(c) Option 2: Qualification by an Audited Employer
Program
Proposed paragraph (c) sets out Option 2, in which the employer
would determine, through its own audited testing program, that its
employee is qualified to operate the equipment. The Committee
recognized that some employers, including those that have already
established in-house testing programs, may want to do their own testing
to meet the proposed Sec. 1926.1427 requirements. The Committee also
recognized that, for there to be a significant improvement in the
industry with respect to operator qualifications, it is essential that
there be a mechanism to ensure that such testing is accurate and
reliable. Therefore, under Option 2, the tests would be required to be
either developed by an accredited crane operator testing organization,
or approved by an auditor who is certified by an accredited crane
operator testing organization. In addition, the administration of the
tests would be audited.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) sets forth the requirements that would
apply to the contents and design of the tests (requirements for the
administration of the tests is dealt with separately in proposed Sec.
1926.1427(c)(2), discussed below) used in an audited employer program.
To ensure that the tests meet the industry standards for written and
practical examinations, they would have to be developed by an
accredited testing organization (as described in proposed
Sec. 1926.1427(b)), or approved by an auditor in accordance with the
requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii).
An employer choosing to use tests other than those developed by an
accredited testing organization under proposed Sec. 1926.1427(c)(1)(i)
would be required to have the tests approved by an auditor in
accordance with the criteria in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii). The
auditor would have to be certified as a test evaluator by an accredited
testing organization. To ensure that the auditor's evaluation is
independent and impartial, the auditor would be prohibited from being
employed by the employer seeking evaluation of its qualification
program. Also, the audit would need to determine that the program meets
nationally recognized test development criteria and adequately assesses
the criteria in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(j).
The Committee believed that these requirements are necessary to
ensure that the contents and design of the tests meet the criteria in
proposed Sec. 1926.1427(j) and generate valid and reliable results.
The requirements for test administration that would apply under
Option 2 of this section are set forth in proposed Sec.
1926.1427(c)(2). Proposed Sec. 1926.1427(c)(2)(i) would require that
the auditor find that the administration procedures meet nationally
recognized test administration standards. The Committee believed that
this proposed provision is needed to ensure that the test results would
be valid and reliable.
Under proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (c)(2)(iii), the auditor
would have to be certified by an accredited certifying organization as
described in Sec. 1926.1427(b), and would be prohibited from being
employed by the employer seeking the auditor's approval for its
operator qualification program. Finally, proposed paragraph Sec.
1926.1427(c)(2)(iv) would require that the audit be conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized auditing standards. The Committee
believed that, to avoid a conflict of interest and assure the integrity
of the audit, it is necessary to have the auditor be independent of the
employer and apply well recognized procedures for conducting the audit.
The Agency notes that the proposed requirement that the audit be
conducted in accordance with nationally recognized auditing standards
would apply only to the audit of the administration of the tests, and
not to the audit of the contents of the written and practical tests. It
appears to the Agency that this was a drafting error, and that the
Committee intended that the entire audit be conducted in accordance
with nationally recognized auditing standards. Therefore, the Agency
solicits public comment on whether a new Sec. 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(D),
reading as follows, should be added:
(D) The audit shall be conducted in accordance with nationally
recognized auditing standards.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) addresses the need for an audit of an
employer's operator qualification program shortly after its inception,
as well as periodically thereafter. This would ensure regular and
independent oversight of employer-run qualification programs to verify
that operators are being tested according to nationally recognized
standards, on at least those qualifications set forth in proposed Sec.
1926.1427(j).
Proposed paragraph (c)(4) would require an employer's program to
include re-qualification procedures, which would have to be audited as
described in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(c)(1) and (c)(2). The Committee
believed that this is necessary to ensure the operators' continued
proficiency with, at a minimum, the criteria set forth in proposed
Sec. 1926.1427(j).
In the event an auditor discovers a deficiency in an employer's
operator qualification program, the employer would have to meet the
requirements set forth in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(c)(5). Proposed
Sec. 1926.1427(c)(5)(i) requires that no additional operators be
qualified until the auditor determines that the deficiency has been
corrected. Under Sec. 1926.1427(c)(5)(ii), the program would also have
to be re-audited within 180 days of the deficiency's correction to
ensure that the minimum qualifications in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(j)
were being adequately and consistently tested.
Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(iii) would require the auditor to file a
report of any such deficiency with the appropriate OSHA Regional Office
within 15 days of discovery. In addition, records of the employer's
qualification program audits would be required to be maintained by the
auditor for three years and, under Sec. 1926.1427(c)(5)(iv), would
have to be made available at the request of the Secretary of Labor or a
designated representative. The Committee believed that these provisions
are necessary to facilitate enforcement of the Option 2 requirements.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(6)(i), a qualification by an
employer's operator qualification program (Option 2) of this section
would not be portable. It was the Committee's view that the degree of
consistency in adhering to the proposed requirements of Sec. 1926.1427
is likely to be highest among accredited crane operator testing
organizations, since they would be fully independent and their business
interest would depend on their continued accreditation. That view is
reflected in full portability being restricted to certification under
Option 1 of this section.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(6)(ii), a qualification by an
employer's operator qualification program would be valid for five
years. The Committee believed that this is an appropriate length of
time to assume that, absent a specific indication to the contrary, an
employee would retain the knowledge and proficiency demonstrated
through the testing process.
Paragraph 1926.1427(d) Option 3: Qualification by the U.S. Military
Proposed paragraph (d) provides that an operator would be deemed
qualified if he/she had a current qualification issued by the United
States military. Under proposed Sec. 1926.1427(d)(2), such a
qualification would be considered valid for the length of time
stipulated by the United States military, and would not be portable.
At the C-DAC meetings a representative of the United States Navy
explained that, because of a variety of potential exigencies associated
with the mission of the United States military, i.e., national defense,
the military needs to be able to use its own qualification program, the
criteria for which may have to vary based on the circumstances.
Consequently, the criteria for qualification under Option 3 would be
left to the military to determine, including the length of time for
which such a qualification would be valid.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1427(d) must be read in light of Executive
Order (E.O.) 12196 (Feb. 26, 1980) and 29 CFR Part 1960, which exclude
military personnel (uniformed members of the Armed Forces) and uniquely
military equipment, systems, and operations from OSHA coverage.
Consequently, uniformed military personnel would not be covered by any
of this proposed standard and there would be no obligation under this
standard or E.O. 12196 for uniformed military personnel operating
cranes to be certified. Civilian employees of the Defense Department
and Armed Forces engaged in work encompassed by "uniquely military
equipment, systems and operations" similarly would not be covered by
any of the provisions of this proposed standard, including the
certification provisions. Therefore, even in the absence of Option 3,
the Department of Defense is free to impose whatever qualifications it
requires for crane operators who are military personnel or civilian
employees engaged in such work.
Under E.O. 12196, OSHA standards apply with respect to a civilian
employee of the Department of Defense and Armed Forces who is engaged
in work that falls beyond "uniquely military equipment, systems and
operations." Under that executive order, proposed Sec. 1926.1427
would be applicable to those employees. Therefore, the U.S. military
could use Option 3 by qualifying its own civilian employee operators
engaged in work that falls beyond "uniquely military equipment,
systems and operations."
In reviewing this part of the C-DAC consensus document, the Agency
has determined that there is an ambiguity in the text of Option 3 in
that it does not clearly indicate whether it would also cover employees
of private contractors of the Armed Forces or Defense Department. With
respect to such private contractor employees, E.O. 12196 is
inapplicable and OSHA has the authority to promulgate qualification/
certification requirements regarding them.
The Agency believes that C-DAC's intent was to have Option 3 be
applicable only with respect to civilian employees of the U.S.
military; it was not intended to include private contractor employees.
This intent is reflected in C-DAC's use of the term "Not portable" in
Option 3 and that term's definition. Proposed Sec. 1926.1427(d)(2)(i)
specifies that an operator's U.S. military-issued qualification is not
portable. Under the definition of that term in Sec. 1926.1427(m)(2),
such a qualification is valid "only where the operator is employed by
(and operating the equipment for) the employer that issued the
qualification." Since private contractor employees are not "employed
by" the U.S. military, this indicates that Option 3 was not intended
to apply to them. Instead, Option 3 was intended to apply only with
respect to the U.S. military's own employees.
Accordingly, OSHA is planning on changing the regulatory language
in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(d) to more clearly reflect this intent.
Specifically, the Agency is considering making the following changes to
proposed Sec. 1926.1427(d)(1):
(1) For purposes of this section, an operator who is an employee
of the U.S. military is considered qualified if he/she has a current
operator qualification issued by the U.S. military for operation of
the equipment.
In addition, in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(m)(Definitions), the
following definition would be added:
(3) An "employee of the U.S. military" is a federal employee
of the Department of Defense or Armed Forces and does not include
employees of private contractors.
OSHA requests public comment on this issue.
Paragraph 1427(e) Option 4: Licensing by a Government Entity
This option would allow a government licensing department/office to
qualify crane operators. The Committee included this option because it
believed that some States have effective, reliable licensing
procedures, and that making use of them for purposes of proposed Sec.
1926.1427 would provide additional flexibility to employers. However,
in the experience of Committee members, there is significant
variability in criteria and administrative practices among government
licensing entities. Therefore, under this option, the license could be
used to meet the requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.1427 only if the
government entity meets the licensing criteria in proposed
1926.1427(e)(2).
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i) would require that the criteria used
by the licensing department/office address the knowledge and skill
requirements listed in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(j). Proposed Sec.
1926.1427(e)(2)(ii) would require that the government entity follow the
same test content, test administration and related criteria as required
under Option 1. Proposed Sec. 1926.1427(e)(2)(iii) would require that
the office with authority over the licensing department/office assess
the tests and procedures used by the licensing office/department and
determine that the requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.1427(e)(2)(ii)
and (e)(2)(iii) have been met. Also, the government licensing office
would have to have re-certification procedures in place as discussed in
proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1427(b)(1)(iv) and 1926.1427(c)(4). The
Committee believed that these provisions are necessary to ensure that
the government licensing criteria and procedures yield valid and
reliable results.
Under proposed paragraph (e)(3)(i), this qualification would be
valid only within the geographic jurisdiction of the licensing entity.
For reasons of federal-local government comity, the Committee decided
not to include a provision requiring the government entity to be
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency for purposes
of Option 4. In the absence of such accreditation, there is an
increased potential for variability in the degree to which the criteria
in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(e)(2) will be met. Consequently, the
Committee believed that, for purposes of meeting the requirements in
proposed Sec. 1926.1427, the validity of the qualification under
Option 4 should not extend beyond the geographical jurisdiction of the
government entity.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii) provides that the licensing entity
may determine the time period for which the qualification is valid, but
cannot issue a qualification intended to be valid for more than five
years. The five year maximum was included in the provision because the
Committee believed that this is an appropriate length of time to assume
that, absent a specific indication to the contrary, an employee would
retain the knowledge and proficiency demonstrated through the testing
process.
Paragraph 1427(f) Pre-Qualification/Certification Training Period
This proposed paragraph addresses the requirements that would have
to be met for a trainee to operate a crane on the job while preparing
for qualification/certification assessment. Proposed Sec.
1926.1427(f)(1) would allow for the operation of cranes by employees
who are not qualified or certified, provided that they meet the
requirements in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(f)(2). Proposed Sec.
1926.1427(f)(2) would allow those undergoing training in preparation
for qualification/certification tests to operate equipment under the
conditions outlined in Sec. 1926.1427(f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(v). The
Committee believed that it is necessary for there to be a process by
which operators who are not certified or qualified can get experience
working with the equipment to help prepare for obtaining a
certification/qualification. This proposed paragraph would require
appropriate oversight of such trainees to ensure worksite safety.
In the C-DAC consensus document, Sec. 1926.1427(f)(2) states that,
An employee who has passed neither the written nor practical
tests required under this section is permitted to operate equipment
as part of his/her training where the following requirements are
met. * * *
It is the Agency's understanding that the intent of the Committee
was to allow trainees who had not yet obtained a certification or
qualification to operate equipment on the job as part of the training
process as long as the criteria in Sec. 1926.1427(f)(2) were met.
However, the C-DAC language would allow such an operator to do this
only if the operator had passed not yet passed both the written and practical
tests.
The anomalous result of that language would have been that an
operator who had passed one of those tests but not both would have been
prohibited from operating the crane as a trainee under this provision.
Since that would have been contrary to the Committee's intent, the
Agency has modified that language for the proposed rule, which now
reads:
An employee who has not passed both the written and practical
tests required under this section is permitted to operate equipment
as part of his/her training where the following requirements are
met. * * *
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) would require that the trainee/
apprentice be provided with sufficient training prior to operating the
equipment to enable him/her to operate it safely under the limitations
listed in this proposed section and any additional limitations
established by the employer. This would ensure that, before beginning
to operate the equipment at the site, the trainee/apprentice would have
attained sufficient knowledge and skills to operate the equipment
safely as a trainee/apprentice.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(ii) would restrict the trainee/
apprentice's operation of the equipment to those tasks currently within
his/her ability. The Committee believed that this is necessary to
ensure that, throughout the training period, the tasks the trainee/
apprentice performs are always commensurate with his/her ability. This
provision would also allow the trainee/apprentice to perform
progressively more complex tasks as the trainee/apprentice develops the
necessary ability.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii) sets forth the requirements that an
employee would have to meet to be permitted to supervise the trainee/
apprentice's operation of the crane. The Committee believed that
setting the criteria for such supervision is necessary to ensure that
the equipment is operated safely during the training/apprenticeship
period.
Under proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(A), the trainee/apprentice's
supervisor would have to be an employee or agent of the trainee's/
apprentice's employer. The Committee believed that this is necessary to
ensure that the supervisor would have the authority to direct the
actions of the trainee/apprentice.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(B) would require that the trainee/
apprentice's supervisor be either a certified operator (in accordance
with proposed Sec. 1926.1427), or have passed the written portion of a
certification test under one of the Options in proposed Sec.
1926.1427. In addition, whether the supervisor is a certified operator
or has passed the written test, the supervisor would have to be
familiar with the proper use of the equipment's controls.
The SBREFA panel recommended that OSHA consider whether the
trainee/apprentice's supervisor should have additional training beyond
the qualifications required under proposed Sec.
1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B). This recommendation is addressed below in the
discussion of Sec. 1926.1430, Training.
The Committee believed that this provision is necessary to ensure
that the supervisor has sufficient knowledge about the equipment to
enable him/her to effectively oversee the safe operation of the crane.
The Committee determined that a supervisor who had passed the written
portion of a certification test would not need to be sufficiently
proficient to pass the practical portion in order to effectively
supervise a trainee/apprentice. However, both in the instance where the
supervisor is certified and in the instance where he/she is not
certified but has passed the written portion of the certification test,
the Committee believed that it is necessary that he/she be familiar
with the proper use of the equipment's controls, since such knowledge
is essential to being able to effectively supervise a trainee/
apprentice.
The C-DAC consensus document language refers to "certified
operator" and the written portion of a "certification" test.
However, under proposed Sec. 1926.1427, an operator may be either
"certified," which would be obtained under Option 1, or
"qualified," which would be obtained under any one of the other
options. The Agency believes that the Committee intended that as long
as the supervisor meets the qualification/certification criteria under
any of these options, or has passed the written portion of a test used
to obtain a qualification/certification under any of these options, and
all other aspects of proposed Sec. 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii) have been met,
the employer should be permitted to use that supervisor to supervise
the trainee/apprentice.
In addition, the C-DAC consensus document language regarding this
provision states that a supervisor who is a "certified operator" may,
if the other criteria listed in the provision are met, supervise the
trainee/apprentice. Alternatively, the supervisor must have "passed
the written portion of a certification test * * *." The Agency
believes that it was the Committee's intent that the certification or
written test that was passed be valid for the equipment that the
trainee/apprentice is operating. However, the C-DAC language, read
literally, would permit a supervisor with a certification or passing
score on a written test that was valid only for equipment other than
what the trainee/apprentice was operating to supervise that trainee/
apprentice.
To conform proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(B) to C-DAC's intent,
OSHA is planning to modify that provision as follows and requests
public comment on this change.
(B) The operator's supervisor is either a qualified/certified
operator under this section for the equipment the trainee/apprentice
is operating, or has passed the written portion of a qualification/
certification test for such equipment under one of the Options in
paragraphs (b) through (e), and is familiar with the proper use of
the equipment's controls.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(C) would require that the operator's
supervisor perform no tasks that would detract from his/her ability to
supervise the trainee/apprentice. The Committee believed that
permitting the operator's supervisor to engage in tasks that would
impinge on his/her ability to supervise the trainee/apprentice would
endanger the trainee/apprentice and other employees in the vicinity of
the crane.
Under proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(D), for equipment other than
tower cranes, the operator's supervisor and the trainee/apprentice
would be required to be in direct line of sight of each other, and
would be required to communicate either verbally or by hand signals.
The Committee believed that this would ensure that the operator's
supervisor could rapidly and effectively give instructions to the
trainee/apprentice, especially for purposes of correcting the trainee/
apprentice.
With respect to tower cranes, it was the Committee's view that the
height of the operator's station would typically make it infeasible to
maintain direct line of sight between the operator's supervisor and the
trainee/apprentice. For the same reason, use of hand signals is also
often not feasible. Therefore, the proposed provision would instead
require that they be in direct communication with each other. For
example, direct communication could be achieved by radio or other
instant electronic voice communication system.
The Committee believed that it would be infeasible for the
operator's supervisor to supervise the trainee/apprentice 100 percent
of the time. Proposed Sec. 1926.1427(f)(2)(iv) is designed to set
criteria that would permit the trainee/apprentice to continue operating
the crane in the absence of the operator's supervisor for
short breaks under circumstances that would result in safe operation.
Those criteria would be as follows:
Under proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(A), the break would be
restricted to no more than 15 minutes, and no more than one break per
hour. The Committee believed that this restriction is needed because
otherwise there would be a significant likelihood that the other
criteria (discussed below) would not be followed, and that the trainee/
apprentice would not receive the amount of supervision that is needed
to ensure safe operation.
Under proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B), immediately prior to the
break, the operator's supervisor would have to inform the trainee/
apprentice of the specific tasks that the trainee/apprentice would be
authorized to perform and the limitations that he/she must adhere to
during the break. Under proposed Sec. 1926.1427(f)(2)(iv)(C), the
specific tasks that the trainee/apprentice would perform during the
break would have to be within the trainee/apprentice's ability. The
Committee believed that these provisions are necessary to prevent
injuries and fatalities that could be caused by a trainee/apprentice
operating a crane under circumstances that are beyond his/her ability.
The Committee believed that there are certain circumstances in
which it is inappropriate for a trainee/apprentice to operate a crane
because of the complexity and/or heightened risks involved. Therefore,
for the circumstances listed in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(A)-
(D), the trainee/apprentice would be prohibited from operating the
equipment in all cases, even if the operator's supervisor believed the
trainee/apprentice had attained the necessary knowledge and skill.
With respect to operations involving multiple-lift rigging, the
Committee believed that the difficulty and/or risk involved is not at
the same level as those listed in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(A)-
(D). Consequently, as reflected in proposed Sec.
1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(E), while there would be a general prohibition
against a trainee/apprentice operating the equipment when multiple-lift
rigging is involved, an exception would apply where the operator's
supervisor determined that the trainee/apprentice's skills are
sufficient for this high-skill work.
Paragraph 1427(g)
Proposed paragraph (g) would permit a testing entity to provide
training as well as testing services as long as the criteria of the
applicable accrediting agency (in the Option selected) for an
organization providing both services are met. The Committee was aware
of an impression among some people in the industry that a testing
entity could not get accredited if it also provided training. However,
after some research, the Committee determined that this was not a bar
to accreditation if certain procedures were instituted. Specifically,
an industry consensus standard, the International Organization for
Standardization ("ISO") 17024, addresses entities that offer
certifications to individuals. It requires that no such entity offer
training unless the entity can demonstrate that the training is
independent of both evaluation and certification. This is intended to
preserve both confidentiality and impartiality in the testing/
certification process.
Therefore, at least with respect to those accrediting agencies that
apply the ISO standard, a testing entity may also conduct training as
long as an adequate "firewall" exists between the two functions.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1427(g) reflects the Committee's intent to make
clear that a testing entity is not be prohibited from providing
training, as long as the applicable criteria have been met.
Paragraph 1427(h)
The Committee deliberated about the need for operators to be able
to read to operate a crane safely and how some operators, even though
they can read, nonetheless have difficulty taking written tests. The
Committee believed that it is crucial for operators to be able to read
the load chart and other manufacturer procedures for the equipment they
operate. In its view, the failure to be able to read that information
could result in injuries and fatalities through a wide variety of
errors (for example, by overloading the crane as a result of exceeding
the crane's working radius, failing to deploy outriggers in accordance
with the manufacturer's instructions, or failing to apply a footnote in
a load chart that explains that the capacity is lower when a particular
configuration of the crane is used).
However, the Committee recognized that some employees, while they
have sufficient literacy to be able to read this type of material, for
other reasons are unable to take written tests effectively. Therefore,
under proposed Sec. 1926.1427(h), the written qualification/
certification test could be administered verbally, with the answers
given verbally, if two prerequisites are met.
The first is that the qualification/certification candidate pass a
written demonstration of literacy relevant to the work (proposed Sec.
1926.1427(h)(1)). The second is that the candidate demonstrate the
ability to use the type of written manufacturer procedures applicable
to the class/type of equipment for which the candidate is seeking
qualification/certification (proposed Sec. 1926.1427(h)(2)). These
would typically include, for example, the load chart and operator's
manual for the crane the candidate would be operating.
As reflected in the SBREFA Panel Report, some SERs expressed a
concern that operators who are not proficient in English would not be
able to meet either requirement. The Panel recommended that OSHA
solicit comment on whether employers should be permitted to use manuals
that have been re-written to accommodate the level of English
proficiency (that is, lower level or lack of proficiency) of the
operator.
C-DAC considered this same concern in designing Sec. 1926.1427(h).
Neither the demonstration in Sec. 1926.1427(h)(1) nor (h)(2) would
necessarily have to be made in English as those provisions are
currently drafted. As an example, under these proposed provisions, an
employer could obtain a Spanish-language version of the load charts and
operator's manual from the manufacturer, and arrange to have the
literacy test administered in Spanish. An operator able to meet the
requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.1427(h) using these Spanish
language materials would have demonstrated adequate literacy under the
proposed rule.
However, it may be necessary to modify proposed Sec.
1926.1427(b)(1), (c) and (e) so that, in such instances, the
qualification/certification is limited to the use of equipment that is
equipped with such translated materials. In addition, there is an issue
with respect to whether the rule needs to incorporate safeguards to
ensure that a translation of manufacturer-supplied materials conveys
the same information as in the original. OSHA requests comment on these
issues.
Some SERs also expressed a concern that many operators are not
sufficiently literate in any language to meet the proposed requirements
in Sec. 1926.1427(h)(1) and (h)(2). As discussed above, C-DAC
determined that it is essential for ensuring safe crane operation that
operators have sufficient literacy to read and comprehend written
materials that relate to critical aspects of operation, such as load
charts and manufacturer's manuals. However, the Panel
recommended that OSHA solicit comment on whether employers should be
permitted to use manuals that have been re-written to accommodate the
literacy level of operators.
The concept underlying this recommendation is that a lower level of
literacy may be sufficient as long as that level still enables the
operator to read and understand the simplified language (and perhaps
greater use of illustrations) in the re-written manual. If this were to
be allowed, it would be necessary to modify proposed Sec.
1926.1427(b)(1), (c) and (e) so that the certification is limited to
the use of equipment that is equipped with a suitably re-written
manual. Another issue that such a change would raise is whether the
rule would need to incorporate safeguards to ensure that the modified
materials conveyed the same information as in the original,
manufacturer-supplied materials. OSHA requests comment on the Panel's
recommendation and these related issues.
Paragraph 1427(i) [Reserved.]
Proposed paragraph (i) would be reserved because it is inconvenient
for readers to determine whether "i" is being used as a letter or a
roman numeral.
Paragraph 1427(j) Certification Criteria
Proposed paragraph (j) sets out the qualification and certification
criteria applicable to the options described in proposed Sec. Sec.
1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(A), 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(C), and
1926.1427(e)(2)(iv). The Committee determined that these are the
criteria needed to address the knowledge and skills that are
fundamental to safe crane operation. As stated in the introductory
language in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(j), these would constitute
"minimum" criteria; the accredited certifying entities, employers, or
local or state licensing offices would not be precluded from adding
additional requirements to their certification or qualification
programs.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1) describes the criteria that would have to
be covered by the written examination portion of a qualification/
certification program. As stated above in the discussion of examination
administration, the written portion of the examination may be
administered orally, so long as the candidate has demonstrated
sufficient literacy relevant to the work (e.g., load charts and
equipment manual).
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i) states that the individual seeking
qualification or certification must know "the information necessary
for safe operation of the specific type of equipment the individual
will operate * * *" As discussed above with respect to proposed Sec.
1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) (requirement that different levels of
certification be provided, based on varying equipment capacities and
types), during the SBREFA process, several SERs described situations in
which an operator is very knowledgeable and skillful with respect to
one particular model of crane, but has very limited knowledge and
ability regarding other models and types of cranes. These SERs were
concerned that such operators would be unable to obtain a certification
based on equipment capacity and type. They believe that, since these
operators are well qualified to operate a particular crane model, there
should be a mechanism for them to become certified to operate that
model. The Panel recommended that OSHA consider and solicit public
comment on expanding the levels of certification so as to allow an
operator to be certified on a specific brand's model of crane.
Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, OSHA seeks public comment
on this issue.
Also, as discussed above with respect to proposed Sec.
1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B), the SBREFA Panel received comments from some
SERs suggesting that the standard should accommodate crane operators
who were fully capable of operating particular equipment in a limited
set of circumstances but who would be unable to pass certification
tests that required knowledge and abilities beyond those circumstances.
The Panel recommended that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on
expanding the levels of operator qualification/certification to allow
such operators to be certified for a specific, limited type of
circumstance defined by a set of parameters that, taken together, would
describe an operation characterized by simplicity and relatively low
risk. In response to the Panel's recommendation, OSHA requests public
comment on whether such parameters could be identified in a way that
would result in a clear, easily understood provision that could be
effectively enforced.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The SBREFA Panel also recommended that OSHA ask for public
comment on whether the standard should state more clearly that more
limited training is required for operators of smaller capacity
equipment than for more complex equipment. This recommendation is
addressed below in the discussion of Sec. 1926.1430, Training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(A) would require that the written
examination address the candidate's knowledge of the equipment controls
and operational/performance characteristics of the specific type of
equipment. Operational/performance characteristics would include, for
example, the deflection characteristics of the boom, including how
deflection affects the positioning of the load and the extent to which
deflection varies with boom angle and length as well as load weight.
Also, equipment with lattice/cable supported booms has different
deflection characteristics than equipment with non-lattice booms (that
is, hydraulic ram supported booms). Meeting these criteria would ensure
that the person controlling the equipment would be able to make
necessary judgments and adjustments for safe crane operation.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(B) was included to ensure that
operators would be able to use load capacity information on a variety
of configurations of the capacity and type of equipment. Such
information is typically contained in load charts and manuals. This
would ensure that the operator would be able to accurately determine,
independently, the capacity of the equipment in each situation that he/
she might encounter. The Committee believed that this ability is
critical to helping prevent injuries and fatalities caused by
overloading the equipment.
The Committee considered whether it is also necessary for the
operator to be able to use the load information without the aid of a
calculator. It determined that calculators are now so commonly
available and used that it is not necessary for the operator to be able
to use the load information without one.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(C) addresses the need for crane
operators to know how to prevent power line contact. In the Committee's
experience, electrocutions and electrical injuries are typically caused
when the operator unintentionally brings the boom, load line or load in
electrical contact with a power line. Operator knowledge of the
procedures that are necessary for preventing such contact (see the
discussions of proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1407 through 1926.1411 above)
is essential for preventing these injuries and fatalities.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(C) also addresses the need for crane
operators to know how to respond to a power line contact if one occurs.
For example, the Committee determined that some electrocutions of
operators occur while an operator attempts to exit the equipment. After
realizing that the equipment is in electrical contact with a power
line, the operator is electrocuted when he/she creates a grounding path
by touching the equipment while stepping on the ground.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Note that, as provided in proposed Sec.
1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(A) on power line safety, operators must be aware
of the danger of electrocution if they simultaneously touch
energized equipment and the ground. They must also, pursuant to
proposed Sec. 1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(B), be trained to understand that
when the equipment makes electrical contact with a power line, the
operator's safety requires him or her to remain inside the cab
except where there is an imminent danger of fire, explosion, or
other emergency that necessitates their leaving the cab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(D) addresses the need for crane
operators to have technical knowledge on a range of subjects that, if
not sufficiently understood, could cause injuries and fatalities. The
list of subjects in proposed Non-Mandatory Appendix E of this subpart
serves as an example of that set of knowledge. The Committee believed
that a degree of flexibility should be accorded in terms of what
specific subjects need to be included. For example, a subject relevant
only to an extensible boom crane would not need to be covered for a
certification for a traditional lattice boom crane. Therefore, the
proposed provision states that the testing criteria must include
technical knowledge "similar" to the subject matter criteria listed
in Appendix E of this subpart. To accommodate those who have less of a
need for such flexibility and more of a need for specificity in this
regard, the proposed provision also makes clear that, when the subjects
listed in Appendix E are used, the requirements of the provision would
be met.
In addition to the technical knowledge that would be required under
proposed Sec. 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(D), technical knowledge applicable to
three specific subjects would also be required under proposed Sec.
1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(E).
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(E)(1) would require that an operator
be able to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of how to assess ground
conditions to identify potential hazards. The operator would therefore
be able to assess ground conditions through inspection, and would also
be aware of the potential for unseen hazards such as sewers, water
mains, and other underground installations or conditions that might
affect the ability of the ground to support the equipment and expected
load.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(E)(2) would require operators to
demonstrate sufficient knowledge of site hazards so that the operator
would be able to identify them and understand their significance to
safe operation of the equipment. Examples of typical site hazards
include electrical hazards posed by underground electrical or cable
lines and aboveground telephone poles and power lines, and ground-
support hazards posed by manholes, drains and trenches, which can lead
to tip-overs.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(E)(3) would require operators to
demonstrate sufficient technical knowledge to ensure that conditions at
the entrance to the site are sufficient to enable the equipment to
travel safely onto the site. For example, where equipment must descend
or ascend a dirt ramp, the operator needs to be able to assess the
effect of the ramp's steepness and to detect signs of instability.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(F) would require operators to
demonstrate a thorough knowledge of this subpart, including
incorporated materials. The Committee believed that operators play a
key role in the application of these requirements and it is therefore
essential that they understand them.
Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(ii) is intended to ensure that operators
have the ability, at a minimum, to demonstrate sufficient literacy to
locate and understand information both in the equipment manual as well
as in other sources which address the information discussed in proposed
Sec. 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(A) through (j)(1)(i)(F). Since the Committee
determined that safe crane operation depends on applying that
information, the operator needs to be able to locate and understand it.
Proposed paragraph (j)(2) would require a practical test and sets
criteria for such a test. Safe crane operation depends on an operator
having sufficient skill to operate the equipment safely. The Committee
felt that a successful demonstration of ability to perform the
operations discussed below is essential to ensuring that the operator
will be able to apply the requisite knowledge in the field. The
practical test under this proposed paragraph would be conducted using
equipment of the capacity and type for which the candidate seeks
certification.
Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(i) would require an operator to
demonstrate the ability to recognize, from visual and audible
observation, the items listed in proposed paragraph Sec.
1926.1412(d)(shift inspection). Irrespective of whether the operator or
someone else conducts the shift inspection, the operator needs to be
able to recognize apparent deficiencies associated with these parts and
mechanisms. First, the operator needs to be able to identify
indications of safety problems that may arise after the shift
inspection has been completed. In addition, this ability is important
since the operator needs to be able to effectively exercise his/her
authority under proposed Sec. 1926.1418, Authority to stop operation
to stop lifting operations (see discussion of that proposed section
above).
Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(ii) addresses the need for operators to
have demonstrated proficiency with operational and maneuvering skills.
Lack of such proficiency could result in a wide range of accidents that
could cause injuries or fatalities. For example, without this level of
skill, the operator could unintentionally exceed the crane's capacity
(such as by booming out too far) and overturn the equipment, make
electrical contact with power lines, or cause struck-by injuries and
fatalities (such as by losing a load or losing control of the load).
Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(iii) requires that the operator
demonstrate the ability to apply load chart information. The Committee
believed that if an operator is unable to apply load chart information,
there is a significantly heightened risk of the crane overturning. This
is because an operator without this ability may fail to keep the crane
within the required operational parameters called for by the load chart
(for example, by failing to recognize that proceeding with the lift
will result in exceeding the maximum allowable boom radius as specified
in the load chart).
As with proposed paragraph (j)(2)(i) (ability to recognize
inspection items), this ability is also important since the operator
needs to be able to effectively exercise his/her authority under
proposed Sec. 1926.1418 (Authority to stop operation) to stop lifting
operations (see discussion of that proposed section above). For
example, if the only way to land the load with the crane in its current
position would be to exceed the allowable radius specified in the
chart, the operator would need to be able to recognize that this would
happen and stop the lift.
Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(iv) would require that an operator be
able to shut down and secure equipment safely. This ability is
necessary to ensure that the shut down procedure is done safely and the
equipment is properly secured to prevent unintended movement of the
equipment after shut down.
Paragraph 1427(k) Phase-In
Under proposed paragraph (k), the qualification/certification
requirements in proposed Sec. 1926.1427 would not become effective
until four years after the effective date of the final rule. The
Committee believed that this four year period would provide time for
operators to get additional training (where needed) to prepare them for
the testing, for additional testing organizations to become accredited
for purposes of Option 1 (proposed Sec. 1926.1427(b)), for additional
organizations to become nationally recognized accrediting agencies, for
employers (who so choose) to develop audited programs for use under Option 2
(proposed Sec. 1926.1427(c)), for accredited testing organizations to
develop programs to certify auditors as described under Option 2, and for
state and local government entities (who so choose) to make preparations to
meet the criteria under Option 4 (proposed Sec. 1926.1427(e)). It would
also give employers time to plan which of the qualification/
certification options would be most suitable for them.
Under proposed paragraph (k)(1), during this four year period,
proposed paragraphs Sec. 1926.1427(k)(1)(i) and (ii) would address
operator qualifications and training. Specifically, proposed Sec.
1926.1427(k)(1)(i) would require that operators be competent for the
purposes of operating the equipment safely. This would require that the
operator have the requisite knowledge and skill to identify,
anticipate, and avoid actions which could result in hazardous
conditions related to the equipment and job site.
Proposed paragraph (k)(1)(ii) would require employers to ensure
that operators who do not already have sufficient knowledge or skill to
operate the equipment safely undergo training prior to engaging in
operations. In addition, the employer would be required to ensure that
the operator is evaluated to confirm that he/she understands the
information provided in the training. These interim measures are not
significantly different from current requirements under Subpart N of
this part, Sec. 1926.20(b)(4) ("the employer shall permit only those
employees qualified by training or experience to operate equipment and
machinery") and Sec. 1926.21(b)(2) ("the employer shall instruct
each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions * *
* "). However, they would ensure that there would not be a gap with
respect to this issue between the termination of the requirements under
Subpart N of this part and the effective date of proposed Sec.
1926.1427(a) through (j) and (m). The four-year phase-in period
discussed above is set out in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(k)(2).
Paragraph 1427(l) [Reserved.]
Proposed paragraph (l) would be reserved because of the
inconvenience that would result from the use of "l" both as a small
Arabic numeral and as the letter "l."
Paragraph 1427(m) Definitions
Proposed paragraph (m) defines two terms used in the qualification/
certification provisions in Sec. 1926.1427(b) through (e) (addressed
above). Proposed Sec. 1926.1427(m)(1) explains that, if an operator
has a "portable" certification, any employer may rely on that
certification. The employer of an operator who carries a portable
certification (which can be obtained only through the method described
in proposed Sec. 1926.1427(b)) has ensured that the operator has been
qualified or certified, and has met the requirements of proposed Sec.
1926.1427(a).
Proposed paragraph (m)(2) explains that, if an operator has a
qualification that is "not portable," only the employer who issued
that qualification may rely on it for purposes of meeting the
requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.1427(a). As discussed above, OSHA
is considering adding a third definition for the term "employee of the
U.S. military" (see the discussion above of proposed Sec.
1926.1427(d)).
Dissenting View of C-DAC Member Brian H. Murphy
Under the C-DAC ground rules (OSHA-S030-2006-0663, Ex. 36-1-8), the
Committee reaches consensus if no more than two non-federal members
dissent on a particular issue. The ground rules also provide that, upon
the request of a dissenting member, OSHA will include the member's
reasons for dissenting in the preamble to the proposed rule. Two
members of C-DAC, Mr. Brian H. Murphy and Mr. Craig Steel, dissented
from the Committee's draft of proposed Sec. 1427. Mr. Murphy asked
that his reasons for dissenting be included in the preamble, and
provided them in the letter reprinted below (OSHA-2007-0066-0007). Note
that, pursuant to the ground rules, OSHA has not reprinted comments in
the letter regarding issues upon which the member did not dissent.
Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary Snare:
Thank you for providing an opportunity for the Associated
General Contractors of America (AGC) to serve on the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) Crane and Derrick
Advisory Committee (C-DAC). AGC welcomed and appreciated the chance
to explore OSHA's several options for a new standard on cranes and
derricks with the other knowledgeable members of that committee. In
addition, it was a personal privilege for me to represent AGC's
33,000 members.
AGC is a nationwide trade association of general contractors,
specialty contractors, material suppliers, equipment dealers and
other firms that collectively form the core of the construction
industry. The association was formed in 1918 at the express request
of President Woodrow Wilson, and today, AGC maintains a network of
98 state and local chapters throughout the United States. Its
members engage in the construction of commercial buildings,
factories, warehouses, highways, bridges, airports, waterworks
facilities, waste treatment facilities, dams, water conservation
projects, defense facilities and multi-family housing projects, and
on site preparation and utilities installation for housing
development.
AGC shares and strongly supports OSHA's mission. While AGC
occasionally disagrees with OSHA's views on the best and most
effective means and methods of improving construction safety and
health, AGC is and will remain equally committed to that goal.
Indeed, from its very inception, AGC has taken a great interest in
the safety and health of construction workers. Its bylaws expressly
provide that "[t]he members of [AGC] shall work to develop good
relations with employees * * * and shall make every effort to
provide safe working conditions on construction projects and to
promote safe working habits by their employees.
AGC has long taken a very proactive approach to construction
safety and health. Over the last 15 years, AGC has produced over 100
videos and publications on the various practices and procedures that
may be necessary, on any given jobsite, to protect construction
workers from occupational injury or illness. Each year, AGC sponsors
two nationwide safety award programs. Regularly, AGC also offers
safety management training courses and other safety training
programs. In 2003, AGC used a Susan Harwood Training Grant to train
1,800 construction workers on OSHA's new steel erection standard. In
2004, AGC will use a third grant to train another 600 construction
workers on fall protection. AGC was proud to receive these grants,
and today, AGC is even prouder that an overwhelming number of its
trainees gave these programs excellent reviews. These efforts
demonstrate AGC's commitment to partnering with OSHA to make
construction work-sites safer.
AGC also supports OSHA's very specific effort to set new
standards for the men and women operating cranes and derricks. AGC
agrees that systematically increasing the knowledge and improving
the skill of these construction workers will reduce the number of
accidents involving cranes and derricks and limit the closely
related risks of injury. Long before serving on C-DAC, AGC
collaborated with the St. Paul Companies on an exemplary training
program on the essentials of crane safety. AGC also signed a
cooperative agreement with the National Commission for the
Certification of Crane Operators (NCCCO), recognizing the
"importance of safe crane operations on our nation's construction
sites" and "the CCO written and practical examination is a method
of documenting the qualifications criteria outlined in ASME B30.5-
3.1-1995, "Qualifications for and Conduct of Operators and
Operating Practices."
As a member of C-DAC, fully committed to its goals and
objectives, AGC worked long and hard to find common ground with the
other members of that group. At the end of the day, both AGC and the
others did reach agreement on a vast majority of the issues that the
group had to confront. The group wrote forty-two sections and two
appendices into the new standard that it proposed to OSHA, developing
a document that totaled one-hundred-nineteen pages in length. During its
deliberations, the group reached agreement on forty-one of those
sections and both appendices, which collectively accounted for one-
hundred-twelve of the pages of text. On only one of the sections,
and only seven pages of the text, did everyone fail to agree. On
only that one section, and those few pages of text, did AGC find it
necessary to part company with the others. (Endnote 1).
AGC would not, however, suggest that the disagreement was a
trivial one. Quite to the contrary, AGC believes that the
disagreement was a serious one that OSHA needs to address. C-DAC
accomplished most but not all of its mission. It is now incumbent
upon OSHA to correct the one significant error that C-DAC made.
The disagreement between AGC and the other members of the
committee was over section 1427 of the committee's proposal. That
section is entitled "Operator qualification and certification." In
paragraph (a), it requires an employer to "ensure" that its crane
and derrick operators are either:
"Qualified or certified * * * in accordance with" one
of four procedures, found in the following paragraphs (b), (c), (d)
and (e); or
"Operating the equipment during a training period in
accordance with paragraph (f)
Paragraph (b) of section 1427 provides for "[c]ertification by
an accredited crane/derrick operator testing organization."
Paragraph (c) provides for "[q]ualification by an audited employer
program." Paragraph (d) provides for "[q]ualification by the U.S.
military." And paragraph (e) provides for "[l]icensing by a
government entity." (Endnote 2)
AGC opposes section 1427 primarily because its requirements for
the qualification and certification of crane and derrick operators
are too restrictive. For many and perhaps the vast majority of
construction contractors, none of the four options for operator
qualification or certification are practical to pursue. At the same
time, section 1427 omits several requirements that would far more
directly affect crane and derrick safety. If adopted as currently
written, section 1427 would disrupt the construction industry and
might actually hinder the broad effort necessary to ensure that
crane and derrick operators are knowledgeable, competent and well
prepared, every day, to perform their work.
Following are AGC's more specific comments on each of the four
options that Section 1427 provides, on the risks that this provision
would create for any employer that chose to implement an operator
training program, and on several significant omissions from the
proposed standard.
Certification by an Accredited Crane/Derrick Operator Testing
Organization
While less restrictive than paragraph (d), paragraph (b) fails
to provide an option for many and perhaps most of the small to
medium-sized firms that dominate the construction industry.
Paragraph (b) would permit employers to engage third parties to test
and certify their crane and derrick operators, but in the process,
paragraph (b) would severely restrict the number of organizations
qualified to perform those tasks. The proposed standard would permit
employers to rely on only those organizations "accredited by a
nationally recognized accrediting agency."
To the best of AGC's knowledge, information and belief, only two
organizations are "accrediting" agencies within the meaning and
for the purposes of Section 1427, and only one of the two agencies
has actually accredited any other organization to test and certify
crane and derrick operators. During the lengthy deliberations among
the members of C-DAC, the National Commission for Certifying
Agencies (NCCA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
were the only two organizations said to be such "accrediting"
agencies. The NCCA was the only one of the two said to have actually
accredited any other organization to test and certify operators.
To make matters worse, it was acknowledged and agreed that the
NCCCO is the only testing organization that the NCCA has accredited.
If other organizations are also accredited to test and certify crane
and derrick operators, within the meaning and for the purposes of
Section 1427, then neither the other members of C-DAC nor OSHA
identified them, and AGC is unaware of them.
AGC would emphasize that it holds the NCCCO in high regard. As
already mentioned, AGC has gone so far as to sign a cooperative
agreement with the NCCCO. Nevertheless, AGC doubts that the NCCCO
could meet the enormous demand that section 1427 would generate for
crane and derrick operator testing and certification. If adopted,
Section 1427 would take that demand to an entirely new level. It
should be noted that NCCCO has largely succeeded in meeting the much
more limited demand for voluntary certification.
In fairness, AGC believes that other members of C-DAC harbor the
same doubt. Something had to motivate the authors of section 1427 to
include paragraph (k), delaying the mandate for operator testing and
certification for four years. It is certainly possible that the
other members of C-DAC supported section 1427 in the belief that
other testing organizations would use this time to seek
accreditation--in the hope of profiting on a dramatic increase in
the demand for operator testing and certification. The problem is
that neither the other members of C-DAC nor OSHA undertook any study
of the costs that such organizations would have to incur to qualify
for accreditation, or to provide testing or certification services
on the massive scale that section 1427 contemplates. Nor did the
other members identify the sources of capital that these other
testing organizations would require, or the prices they would have
to charge for their services, or how they could even begin to
sustain themselves until testing and certification became mandatory.
There were no business plans or business models for either the
committee or OSHA to review. It might be appealing to suppose that
future demand for testing and certification would call forth the
necessary supply, but it would remain little more than speculation.
There is no factual record to support any such conclusions.
However logical it may be, AGC maintains that OSHA cannot simply
suppose that the supply of the necessary services would materialize.
The stakes are much too great. If other testing organizations did
not enter the market, or they subsequently failed for financial or
other reasons, or they simply found it necessary to charge more than
most contractors could bear, the construction industry could quickly
find itself in gridlock.
AGC also doubts the wisdom of giving any private organization--
whether the NCCA, ANSI, the NCCCO or any other accrediting agencies
or testing organization--such a dominant role in the implementation
of a federal regulation. Section 1427 would set minimal standards
for accreditation, leaving most of that process in private hands.
OSHA would not have any direct oversight over (or other relationship
with) any testing organization. The agency would be two steps
removed from that process.
Qualification by an Audited Employer Program
Paragraph (c) also fails to provide an option for many and
perhaps most construction companies. That provision would permit an
employer to test and qualify its own employees to operate cranes and
derricks, but only if inter alia (1) the employer's written and
practical tests were "developed by an accredited crane/derrick
operator testing organization," (2) the employer's "program" were
approved by an auditor "certified," in turn, by such an
organization, and (3) the "circumstances" under which the employer
administered the tests were also approved by such an auditor.
As noted, the NCCCO appears to be the only "accredited crane/
derrick operator testing organization" at this time. AGC doubts
that small or medium-sized construction contractors would have the
resources necessary to self-administer the NCCCO's written and
practical tests, particularly "under circumstances * * * meeting
nationally recognized test administration standards." In addition,
it appears that neither the NCCCO nor any other testing
organizations would have any business incentive to develop a large
pool of certified auditors. To the contrary, they would have an
obvious interest in maintaining the demand for their own testing
services, and their own certifications. Nothing in the proposed
standard would compel or even encourage the NCCCO or any other
testing organization to help construction employers develop
practical alternatives.
Further eroding paragraph (c) are provisions that would require
the employer to have its "program" re-audited every three
years, and suspend the employer's "program" for any "significant
deficiency." Though it would expressly forbid the auditor of the
employer's program to be the employer's employee--and therefore
subject to the employer's control--paragraph (c) would also render
the employer liable for the auditor's failure to file a "documented
report" of any "significant deficiency" to OSHA within 15 days,
to maintain records of his or her audits for three years, or to make
such records available to the U.S. Department of Labor.
For all of these reasons, AGC believes that paragraph (c) would
not be a practical and dependable option for any significant number
of construction employers.
Qualification by the U.S. Military
As a threshold matter, paragraph (d) is limited to the men and
women in uniform. By its terms, it is "[n]ot portable," meaning
that it "meets the requirements of paragraph (a) only where the
operator is employed by (and operating the equipment for) the
employer that issued the qualification." See Section 1427(m). To
any operator to which paragraph (d) might apply, the military would
be "the employer that issued the qualification." It follows that
any operator qualified by the military would be qualified to operate
a crane or derrick only for the military. (Endnote 3).
Licensing by a Government Entity
Whether paragraph (e) provided any practical option for
construction contractors would depend entirely on how state and
local governments responded to it. This provision would permit
employers to use state or local government agencies to test and
license their crane and derrick operators. Employers, however, could
use only the government agencies that had volunteered to perform
those tasks.
In some ways, paragraph (e) is superior to paragraphs (b) and
(c). The state or local agency would have to be the one that
"issue[d] operator licenses for operating [relevant] equipment,"
and it would have to qualify for accreditation as a "government
accredited crane/derrick operator testing organization." But the
"government authority that overs[aw]" the agency, and not any
private entity, would determine whether the agency met the
substantive criteria for accreditation. Unlike paragraphs (b) and
(c), paragraph (e) makes no direct or indirect reference to a
"nationally recognized accrediting agency."
Paragraph (e) does not, however, go far enough to save Section
1427. It would not--and probably could not--require any state or
local agency to test or license operators. It would not--and
probably could not--provide any positive incentives for any such
agency to perform those tasks. It would not--and probably could
not--even reimburse any government agency that volunteered to
perform those tasks.
Many state and local budgets are already tight, and neither OSHA
nor other members of C-DAC have given AGC any reason to expect that
any significant number of state or local agencies would be likely to
step forward. AGC believes that some would do so but doubts that the
number would be high enough, or their distribution broad enough, to
meet what would be a truly nationwide demand for the testing and
certification of crane and derrick operators. A government license
issued under paragraph (e) would satisfy section 1427 "only within
the jurisdiction" of the agency that issued it, and at best, AGC
would expect an irrational patchwork of options for crane and
derrick operators and their employers across the country.
Operator Training
AGC also believes that Section 1427 would put employers that
provided hands-on training for crane or derrick operators at great
and ultimately uncontrollable risk of liability for any accidents
that their trainees or apprentices might cause, and could become a
legal deterrent to such training. The relevant paragraph of the
proposed standard is paragraph (f), entitled "Pre-qualification/
certification training period." In subparagraph (f)(2)(i), that
provision states that a trainee or apprentice "shall be provided
with sufficient training prior to operating the equipment to enable
the trainee to operate the equipment safely* * *" In subparagraph
(f)(2)(ii), that provision adds that "[t]he tasks performed by the
trainee/apprentice while operating the equipment shall be within the
trainee's ability." In subparagraph (f)(2)(iv)(C), that provision
further provides that "[t]he specific tasks that the trainee/
apprentice will perform during [any fifteen minute] break" that his
or her supervisor may take "are within the trainee/apprentice's
abilities."
If these were merely statements of principle, AGC would
wholeheartedly support them. AGC completely agrees that trainees and
apprentices should have any prior training that they require to
operate the equipment safely. AGC completely agrees that all tasks
that a trainee or apprentice actually performs--at any time--should
be within his or her ability.
The problem is that these would be legal requirements, and not
merely goals to which contractors should aspire. As written, they
would render contractors legally liable not for failing to make
every reasonable effort--or even every conceivable effort--to
provide such prior training, or to limit the tasks that a trainee or
apprentice actually performed. In substance and effect, paragraph
(f) would render contractors strictly liable for outcomes that
contractors could not guarantee. If a trainee or apprentice caused
an accident, it would necessarily follow that the individual did not
have prior training "sufficient" to operate the equipment safely.
It would also follow that the trainee or apprentice had actually
performed a task not "within" his or her "ability."
Neither construction workers nor their supervisors are any less
human than anyone else. No one can guarantee that others will not
make mistakes, or that they will always follow instructions. Nor is
an individual's prior training, or his or her current abilities,
something that one can measure with great precision. Of course, all
construction contractors should make a very strong effort to prevent
accidents. The human toll of any accident involving a crane or
derrick can easily exceed anything that anyone would ever want to
bear. Holding employers strictly liable for any accident that a
trainee or apprentice may cause would, however, punish the good as
well as the bad actors, and in the end, AGC fears that it would
discourage useful training and hinder the effort to protect
construction workers. One could well expect employers to provide no
more than the minimum training necessary to satisfy the proposed
standard, and whenever feasible, to engage third parties to perform
that function.
Significant Omissions From the Proposed Standard
AGC also encourages OSHA to reconsider the broader question that
Section 1427 raises. At the heart of that provision lies the
assumption that elaborate procedures for testing and certifying
crane and derrick operators would have benefits commensurate with
their cost. The proposed requirements for such testing and
certification are above and beyond the broader training requirements
that C-DAC embedded--with AGC's concurrence--in Section 1430. In
many other instances, OSHA requires employers to train their
employees, and even to ensure that the individuals employed to
perform certain functions are "competent persons." In these other
instances, OSHA has not, however, found it necessary to go so far as
to require sophisticated testing and formal certification.
Paragraph (k) of Section 1427 contemplates a four-year "phase-
in" for the testing and certification procedures, and indeed, for
that substantial phase-in period, even the authors of Section 1427
considered it sufficient to require operators "to be competent,"
to "be provided the necessary training," and to be "evaluated to
confirm that he/she understands the information provided in the
training." Under these circumstances, AGC would consider it more
than fair to request that OSHA take a hard look at the actual costs
and benefits of ever going beyond paragraph (k)--to the point of
requiring testing and certification by third parties beyond the
federal government's supervision or direct control. (Endnote 4).
AGC would simply add that the costs of the proposed testing and
certification could be social as well as financial. The construction
workforce is not entire English-speaking. AGC is also concerned that
Section 1427 could have the unintended but clearly detrimental
effect of limiting employment opportunities for competent crane
operators who do not speak English. AGC is unaware of any
organization that currently provides nationally recognized testing
for crane or derrick operators in any language other than English.
* * * * *
Conclusion
In closing, AGC would like to thank you for the opportunity to
serve on C-DAC. Crane and derrick safety is extremely important to
AGC's members, and the association greatly appreciated the chance to
participate in the committee's deliberations.
In the end, C-DAC succeeded in reaching agreement on all but one
of the provisions included in the standard that the committee
proposed to OSHA. AGC could not support that one provision because it
is too restrictive. AGC supported the proposed requirements for the
training of crane and derrick operators, and AGC could even support a
carefully tailored and clear requirement that construction contractors
employ "competent" operators for their cranes and derricks. AGC is far
less certain that the benefits of mandating elaborate procedures for the
sophisticated testing and formal certification of crane and derrick
operators would ever outweigh the great cost of doing so.
* * * * *
AGC supports OSHA's effort to improve crane and derrick safety,
and believes that C-DAC has greatly contributed to that effort, but
maintains that Section 1427 of the proposed standard requires
serious reconsideration.
Sincerely,
/S/
Brian H. Murphy, P.E., C.S.P. AGC C-DAC Representative.
Endnote 1: On that one section, the National Association of Home
Builders also parted company with the other members of the
committee.
Endnote 2: Presumably, the authors of this provision intended to
equate "licensing" with "qualification" or "certification."
Endnote 3: AGC has received reports that some members of C-DAC
were led to believe that a military certification would be valid for
a construction contractor working for the military on a military
installation. The wording of paragraph (d) is, however, clear and
makes no reference to military projects or installations, or to the
contractors construction such projects at such locations. By the
express and unambiguous terms of paragraph (d), a military
certification is "[n]ot portable" and in paragraph (m) by
definition applies "only where the operator is employed by (and
operating the equipment for) the employer that issued the
certification."
Nor is it clear that OSHA could justify such awkwardly limited
portability for military certifications. If OSHA rewrote paragraph
(d) to provide for portability then whether a construction
contractor could use a military certification to satisfy section
1427 would depend entirely on (1) whether the project owner is a
branch of the military and (2) whether the project is located on a
military installation. Those two factors would not, however, have
any obvious bearing on the merits of the process that the military
used to certify crane or derrick operators, or the knowledge or
skills that such operators actually possessed. AGC cannot readily
identify any rational basis for rendering a military certification
portable to a contractor working for the military project on one of
its installations but not portable to even the same contractor when
working for a different owner, or simply across the street.
In any event, paragraph (d) could not begin to solve the larger
problem. Even if it provided for portability to construction
contractors working for the military on military installations,
paragraph (d) would remain far too limited to provide an option for
the overwhelming majority of construction contractors. The military
and its installations account for only a small fraction of the
contractors and projects that the new standard would cover.
Endnote 4: AGC would also encourage OSHA to compare paragraph
(k) with other standards that require construction contractors to
employ "competent persons" to perform certain functions. AGC
believes that many if not most of those other provisions define the
required competence far more precisely. AGC presumes that paragraph
(k) refers to competence in dealing with the various subjects listed
in paragraph (j) of section 1427, or perhaps paragraph (c) of
Section 1430, but paragraph (k) of section 1427 does not cross-
reference either of those other provisions or otherwise define the
required competence. Nor does it define the "required training."
[End of Murphy comments.]
OSHA notes that Mr. Murphy indicated in his letter that proposed
Sec. 1926.1427 would apply to derricks. However, under paragraph (q)
of proposed Sec. Sec. 1926.1436 Derricks, Sec. 1926.1427 would not
apply to derricks. This is explained in more detail below in the
discussion on proposed Sec. 1926.1436.
Operator qualification/certification was the only section of the C-
DAC document for which there were dissenting committee members (as
noted above, two members dissented: Mr. Murphy and Mr. Steele). In his
letter, Mr. Murphy addressed a number of issues associated with this
subject, such as questioning the need for, and practicality of,
limiting an employer's operator qualification/certification options to
those that require the involvement of independent third parties. There
was considerable discussion by C-DAC on this subject and its many
associated issues, including the degree of portability of a
qualification/certification. The Agency requests public comment on
these issues.
Physical Qualifications and Substance Abuse Testing
Physical Qualifications
Section 5-3.1 of ANSI B30.5-1968 contains criteria for operator
vision and hearing, disqualification for a "history of epilepsy" or a
"disabling heart condition," and a general statement that "when he
is physically or mentally unfit, an operator shall not engage in the
operation of his equipment." Subpart N at Sec. 1926.550(b)(2) states
that "all crawler, truck, or locomotive cranes in use shall meet the
applicable requirements for design, inspection, construction, testing,
maintenance and operation as prescribed in the ANSI B30.5-1968 * * *."
In a May 8, 1981 letter of interpretation to Mr. A. Bennett Hill
Jr. (OSHA-2007-0066-0016), OSHA stated that:
It is the interpretation of OSHA that the physical
qualifications requirements incorporated by reference in 29 CFR
1926.550 do not apply to operators of equipment covered by those
standards.
In other words, OSHA interpreted the incorporation by reference in
Sec. 1926.550(b)(2) for "operation" as referring to how the crane
was to be operated, not to who was operating it. The Agency therefore
has taken the position that the incorporation by reference excludes the
physical criteria listed above.
C-DAC considered whether to include in this proposed standard
provisions that would require equipment operators to meet particular
physical qualifications. After considering various possible approaches,
including those in current industry consensus standards, the Committee
decided that it would be very difficult, and likely unnecessary, to
identify minimum physical requirements that would be appropriate.
First, the physical demands of equipment vary significantly
depending on the type and, in some cases, age of the equipment. For
example, some equipment is operated largely by electronic controls. In
contrast, older "friction cranes" have pedal controls that can
require significant strength and stamina to operate. Some equipment is
air conditioned whereas other equipment is not. A requirement regarding
physical qualifications would have to account for these types of
differences.
Second, establishing physical qualifications that would
appropriately account for the effect of medical conditions would be a
complex undertaking. The Committee ultimately determined that, in light
of its members' experience that accidents caused by problems associated
with the operator's physical/medical condition are rare, the issue of
physical qualifications did not need to be addressed by this standard.
Substance Abuse Testing
The Committee also considered whether to include mandatory
substance abuse testing for equipment operators and others, such as
signal persons, whose jobs affect safety. OSHA informed the Committee
that the case law requires that any substance abuse testing
requirements included in the proposal would have to meet constitutional
safeguards.\70\ Because the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) already
has substance abuse requirements and designed them to meet these safeguards,
C-DAC considered whether to incorporate DOT regulations on controlled
substance testing, Title 49 CFR part 382 and Title 49 CFR part 40, into
the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 109 S. Ct.
1402 (1989) and International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Department
of Transportation, 932 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOT regulations govern commercial drivers and are designed to
protect public highway safety. Under these requirements an employer is
required to establish a program for substance abuse testing. This
program must include an employer's policy statement, supervisory
education and training, controlled substances and (optional) alcohol
testing program, evaluation of driver, and recording keeping. Under the
DOT requirements the controlled substances and alcohol testing program
must include six different types of testing, which include: Pre-
employment, reasonable suspicion, post-accident, random, return to duty
and follow up testing.
After researching the DOT regulations and several discussions with
DOT representatives, OSHA presented information to C-DAC on the
procedural and substantive aspects of the DOT regulations, including
the administrative requirements, the types of testing by employers, and
optional alcohol testing. Committee members discussed implementation
and enforcement concerns such as an employer's inability to "stand
down" a crane operator based on an unconfirmed test result, until a
positive result is verified by a medical review officer. The parallel
DOT requirement prohibits an employer from:
temporarily removing an employee from the performance of a safety-
sensitive function based only on a report from a laboratory to the
MRO (medical review officer) of a confirmed positive test for a drug
or drug metabolite, an adulterated test, or a substituted test,
before the MRO has completed verification of the test result.
Committee members were concerned that including a substance testing
provision in this standard would restrict an employer's ability to
suspend an operator who tested positive pending confirmation of the
result. Committee members believed that many employers already have
voluntarily instituted substance abuse testing programs. They believed
that employers are able to judge whether an operator who tested
positive presents a risk to workers on the site and should be able to
remove an operator immediately if, in the employer's judgment, the
operator presents such a risk.
In short, the Committee balanced the potential benefits from a
requirement for substance abuse testing that would have more
restrictive procedures against the fact that many employers already
have their own programs in place that, in C-DAC's view, may be more
protective than what could be enacted as an OSHA requirement. C-DAC
concluded that it would be better not to include a substance abuse
requirement.
Section 1428 Signal Person Qualifications
As discussed under Sec. 1926.1419, Signals--general requirements,
the safety of equipment operations depends in many situations on
signals given to the operator. It is critical that the operator
understand the signals given, and the signal person must therefore be
able to give clear, accurate and appropriate signals that unambiguously
convey the needed information to the operator. The Committee was
concerned that some signal persons are not able to recognize the
hazards involved with certain crane operations, do not, in some cases,
understand what it is that the crane needs to do to accomplish the
task, and do not know how to give the appropriate signals. This poses
hazards, such as struck-by and crushed-by hazards, due to either
miscommunication or the communication of instructions that are
inappropriate.
An example of the type of accident that can be caused by
miscommunication from not knowing the appropriate signals is as
follows: The signal person intends to indicate to the operator to hoist
up, since the load needs to be raised straight up. However, the signal
person uses the standard signal for booming up in the mistaken belief
that this signal is for hoisting up. A struck-by or crushed-by incident
could result because, when booming up, the load will move laterally as
well as vertically.
A failure to understand what it is that the crane needs to do to
accomplish a task can also lead to struck-by or crushed-by incidents.
For example, as a crane booms down, boom deflection tends to increase,
which has the effect of lowering the load more than if there were no
boom deflection. If the signal person is unfamiliar with this boom
characteristic, he or she may fail to signal in time for the load to
stop at the correct point or may cause the load to descend too quickly.
The Committee concluded that to prevent such accidents it is
necessary to establish qualification criteria that would have to be met
in order for an individual to serve as a signal person (that criteria
is set out in proposed Sec. 1926.1428(c), discussed below). The
employer would have the option of using one of two methods for ensuring
that these criteria were met. Under Option (1) (proposed Sec.
1926.1428(a)(1)), the signal person would have documentation from a
third party qualified evaluator showing that the evaluator had
determined that the signal person meets the requirements of Sec.
1926.1428(c).
This qualification would be portable, that is, any employer could
rely on such documentation to show that a signal person meets the
criteria. C-DAC believed that such portability would be appropriate
because of the independence and expertise of the third party evaluator.
Under Option (2) (proposed Sec. 1926.1428(a)(2)), an employer's
own qualified evaluator would have determined that a signal person
meets the qualification requirements. Since such a determination would
not be done by an independent entity, other employers would not have a
basis to assume that the assessment had been done correctly. Therefore,
a qualification under this option would not be portable; other
employers would not be permitted to rely upon it to show that the
signal person meets these requirements.
The term "qualified evaluator" used in proposed Sec.
1926.1428(a)(2) is defined in proposed Sec. 1926.1401 as "a person
employed by the signal person's employer who has demonstrated that he/
she is competent in accurately assessing whether individuals meet the
Qualification Requirements in this Subpart for a signal person." In
reviewing the C-DAC document, the Agency realized that the Committee
had not provided a definition for the term "third party qualified
evaluator," which is used in proposed Sec. 1926.1428(a)(1). OSHA has
therefore added the following definition for this term:
An entity that, due to its independence and expertise, has
demonstrated that it is competent in accurately assessing whether
individuals meet the Qualification Requirements in this Subpart for
a signal person.
The Agency requests public comment on whether this is an
appropriate definition for this term.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(3), the documentation for whichever
Option is used (that is, Option (1) or (2)) of this section, would have
to be available while the signal person is employed by the employer.
With respect to an employer using Option (1) of this section, the signal
person's documentation from the third party qualified evaluator would have
to be available. The Committee believed that this documentation is essential
for this to be a viable and effective Option. Under this option the
employer would be permitted to rely on someone else's assessment of the
signal person rather than its own. In such a circumstance such
documentation is essential for this to be a reliable means of assuring
the signal person has the requisite ability.
In reviewing these provisions, the Agency noted that C-DAC used the
term "available," rather than "available at the site." It is OSHA's
understanding that C-DAC's intent was that the documentation be
available at the site by, for example, the documentation being
physically present at the site or through use of an on-site computer.
For clarity, OSHA is planning on changing the term "available" to
"available at the site." OSHA requests public comment on this issue.
In addition, in reviewing the C-DAC draft of Option (2) of this
section, the Agency noted that it does not explicitly state that
documentation of the signal person's qualification by this method is
required. However, proposed Sec. 1926.1428(a)(3) states that "the
documentation for whichever Option is used shall be available * * *."
It is not clear to the Agency if C-DAC intended to require
documentation under Option (2) as it did for Option (1), or if it only
intended that any documentation the employer chose to create under
Option (2) would have to be made available.
One reason to require documentation under Option (2) is the
Committee's concern that, at present, the operator's employer has no
ready means of determining if the signal person (who is typically a
different employer's employee) has the necessary knowledge and skill
for signaling until after hoisting operations have begun. In other
words, a problem with the signal person's ability may not become
evident to the operator until a hazardous situation has already arisen.
Requiring documentation, which would have to be available at the site,
would enable that determination be made before hoisting operations
begin.
Requiring documentation under Option (2) of this section would
address C-DAC's concern. Therefore, the Agency has expanded the first
sentence of the C-DAC version of proposed Sec. 1926.1428(a)(2) to
clarify that documentation would be required under Option (2). The
proposed paragraph now reads, with the added language highlighted:
(2) Option (2)--Employer's qualified evaluator. The employer has
its qualified evaluator assess the individual and determine that the
individual meets the Qualification requirements (see Sec.
1926.1428(c)) and provides documentation of that determination. An
assessment by an employer's qualified evaluator under this Option is
not portable--other employers are not permitted to use it to meet
the requirements of this section.
The Agency requests public comment on whether this revision is
appropriate.
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses circumstances in which a signal
person who had been qualified under Sec. 1926.1428(a) subsequently
acts in a manner that indicates that he or she may not meet the
qualification requirements. Such an indication would result, for
example, where the use of Standard Method signals have been agreed to
but the signal person does not give a Standard Method signal. Another
example would be where the signal person gives inappropriate signals
(such as indicating to the operator to boom up when the action that is
needed is to hoist up).
In such circumstances the employer would be prohibited from
allowing the individual to continue working as a signal person until he
or she is re-trained and has been requalified in accordance with
proposed Sec. 1926.1428(a).
Proposed paragraph (c) sets forth the qualification requirements
for signal persons. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require that the
signal person know and understand whatever signal method will be used
for that particular job site.
In addition, if hand signals are used, the signal person must know
and understand the Standard Method for hand signals. Hand signals are
widely used in this industry. As discussed above with respect to
proposed Sec. 1926.1419(c), C-DAC believed that accidents due to
miscommunication could be reduced if there were more widespread use of
standardized hand signals. C-DAC concluded that this provision would
promote greater use of standardized hand signals through the use of the
Standard Method.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ As discussed above with respect to proposed 1926.1419(c),
there are circumstances when it would be permissible to use hand
signals other than the Standard Method signals. Also, under proposed
Sec. 1926.1419, signals other than hand signals could be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would help prevent miscommunication
between the signal person and the crane operator by requiring the
signal person to be competent in the application of whatever signals
are used.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would require the signal person to have a
basic understanding of crane operation and limitations, including crane
dynamics involved in swinging and stopping loads and boom deflection
from hoisting loads. As explained above in the beginning of this
discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.1428, it is critical that a signal
person understand how the crane and load will move in response to the
various signals he or she gives so that the signal person will give the
most appropriate signals and reduce the occurrence of struck-by,
crushed-by and other hazards.
Proposed paragraph (c)(4) specifies that signal persons must know
and understand the relevant requirements in proposed Sec. Sec.
1926.1419-1926.1422, which address the types of signals that may be
used and the circumstances surrounding their use, and the requirements
of proposed Sec. 1926.1428. C-DAC included the phrase "relevant
requirements" to make clear that a signal person's qualification could
be limited with regards to the use of a particular type of signal and
associated information.
For example: A crane operation is going to use Standard Method
hand signals. The signal person knows and understands all aspects of
proposed Sec. 1926.1419 that are relevant when using hand signals,
as well as Sec. 1926.1422, Signals--hand signal chart. In addition,
the signal person meets the proposed requirements in proposed Sec.
1926.1428(c)(1) and (2) with respect to the use of Standard Method
hand signals. The signal person also has the knowledge necessary to
meet the provision in proposed Sec. 1926.1428(c)(3), and
demonstrates through a verbal or written test, and through a
practical test, that he/she has this knowledge and capabilities.
However, the signal person is unfamiliar with the contents of
proposed Sec. 1926.1420, Signals--radio, telephone or other
electronic transmission of signals, or of proposed Sec. 1926.1421,
Signals--voice signals--additional requirements.
In this example, it would be appropriate for the signal person
to be qualified under either Option (1) or Option (2) (see proposed
1926.1428(a)) so long as that qualification was limited to signaling
with Standard Method hand signals. Since the signal person would be
qualified only for Standard Method signaling, there would be no need
for that person to have the knowledge or capabilities associated
with other types of signaling. In such a situation employers,
though, would be precluded from using such a person if other types
of signals were to be used.
Proposed paragraph (c)(5) would require that the signal person pass
knowledge and practical tests to demonstrate that he or she meets the
qualification requirements. It would allow the knowledge test to be
either verbal or written. Reading or writing is not normally necessary
when working as a signal person. Therefore, C-DAC believed that administering
the knowledge test verbally, without a separate demonstration of literacy,
should be permitted.
Section 1429 Qualifications of Maintenance and Repair Workers
This proposed section addresses the qualifications that the workers
who maintain and repair cranes/derricks must possess. Subpart N of this
part currently contains no provisions concerning the qualifications of
maintenance and repair workers.
The Committee had two basic concerns regarding maintenance and
repair work. First, it was aware of accidents that had occurred when
the equipment that was being maintained or repaired was operated
improperly. For example, a maintenance worker who booms down a mobile
hydraulic crane to one side without following the manufacturer's
instructions for deploying outriggers may overturn the equipment. C-DAC
believed that placing restrictions on equipment operations during such
work would help prevent such accidents.
Second, the Committee sought to avoid hazards that can result from
maintenance and repair work that is done improperly by ensuring that
maintenance and repair workers are sufficiently qualified to perform
their work. For example, if a load-bearing component is removed for
maintenance or repair and re-installed incorrectly, unintended movement
of the load or even a collapse could occur during operations.
Paragraph 1429(a)
The Committee was aware that maintenance and repair workers
sometimes need to operate equipment in order to perform maintenance,
inspect or verify the performance of the equipment. This work typically
involves operating the equipment to get access to components, diagnose
problems and check repairs.
C-DAC did not believe it necessary for maintenance, inspection and
repair personnel to meet the requirements in proposed Sec. 1926.1427,
Operator qualification and certification, when operating equipment for
such purposes. The operations involved for these purposes are almost
always done without a load on the hook. The only instance when there is
a load on the hook is if the equipment is load tested. However, even
when load testing, the operation is very limited, since the load is not
moved about as it would be during crane operations.
While such limited operation does not, in C-DAC's view, necessitate
the maintenance, inspection or repair personnel to meet the proposed
Sec. 1926.1427 requirements, a failure to operate the equipment
properly even in these limited circumstances can result in accidents
from, for example, unintended movement or tip-over. Therefore, this
proposed paragraph would permit maintenance and repair workers to
operate equipment during their work only under specific restrictions
designed to ensure safety.
Specifically, under proposed paragraph (a)(1), maintenance and
repair workers would be permitted to operate the equipment only to the
extent necessary to perform maintenance, inspect or verify the
performance of the equipment. Under this provision, maintenance and
repair workers would not be permitted to operate the equipment during
regular operations.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require the maintenance and repair
worker who operates equipment to either (i) do so under the direct
supervision of an operator who meets the requirements of Sec.
1926.1427, Operator qualification and certification, or (ii) be
familiar with the operation, safe limitations, characteristics and
hazards associated with the type of equipment involved.
Paragraph 1429(b)
Proposed paragraph (b) provides that maintenance and repair
personnel must meet the definition of a qualified person with respect
to the equipment and maintenance/repair tasks they perform. Proposed
Sec. 1926.1401 defines "qualified person" as "a person who, by
possession of a recognized degree, certificate, or professional
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training, and experience,
successfully demonstrated the ability to solve/resolve problems
relating to the work, the subject matter, or the project." In light of
the safety hazards that could result from maintenance and repairs that
are performed improperly, C-DAC believed that it was necessary for
maintenance and repair workers to meet the "qualified person"
criteria.
The Committee believed that many current maintenance and repair
workers have received comprehensive, in-depth, on-the-job training from
highly experienced supervisors and/or co-workers and have become highly
experienced themselves. Because of such extensive training, long
experience and high level of knowledge, the term "qualified persons"
under this provision would include such workers under the prong for
"extensive knowledge, training, and experience."
1430 Training
This proposed section both references training criteria that would
be required by other sections of this subpart and sets forth training
criteria and requirements not otherwise included in the proposed
standard. Additionally, paragraph Sec. 1926.1430(g) of this section
would require employers to evaluate employees' understanding of the
training. The following chart summarizes the location of the training
requirements in this proposed rule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph Training requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1926.1408(g)....................... Power line safety: The
operator and crew assigned
to work with the equipment,
including spotters, must be
trained in specified topics
relevant to power line
safety.
Sec. 1926.1424(a)(2).................... Swing radius hazards:
Employees assigned to work
on or near the equipment
must be trained to
recognize struck-by and
pinch/crush hazard areas of
rotating superstructures.
Also, where the employer
protects against swing
radius hazards by using
warning signs and high
visibility markings, the
employer must train
employees to understand
what the markings signify.
Sec. 1926.1437(c)(2)(ii)................ Swing radius hazards
(floating cranes): Where
the employer protects
against swing radius
hazards on floating cranes
by using warning signs and
high visibility markings,
the employer must train
employees to understand
what the markings signify.
Sec. 1926.1430(e)....................... Crush/pinch points:
Employees who work with
equipment must be
instructed to keep clear of
holes, crush/pinch points,
and the hazards addressed
in Sec. 1926.1424.
Sec. 1926.1430(f)....................... Tag-out: Operators and other
employees authorized to
start/energize equipment or
operate equipment controls
(such as maintenance and
repair workers), shall be
trained in the tag-out
procedures in Sec.
1926.1417(f).
Sec. 1926.1430(d)....................... Competent and Qualified
Persons: Competent persons
and qualified persons must
be trained in the
requirements of this
subpart applicable to their
respective roles.
Sec. 1926.1430(g)(2).................... Refresher training
(general): Refresher
training in relevant topics
shall be provided when the
employee's conduct or an
evaluation of the
employee's knowledge
indicates that retraining
is necessary.
Sec. 1926.1430(b)....................... Signal person training:
Employees who will be
assigned to work as signal
persons who do not meet the
requirements of Sec.
1926.1428(c) shall be
trained in the areas
addressed in that
paragraph.
Sec. 1926.1428(b)....................... Signal person re-training: A
signal person whose actions
indicate that he or she
does not meet the
qualification requirements
of Sec. 1926.1428 must be
retrained before being
allowed to continue to work
as a signal person.
Sec. 1926.1427(f)(2)(i)................. Operator trainee/apprentice:
Before a trainee/apprentice
is assigned to operate
equipment, the employee
must be provided with
sufficient training for
operating the equipment
safely under the
limitations established
under Sec. 1926.1427.
Sec. 1926.1427(k)....................... Operator training during
phase-in period: An
employee assigned to
operate the equipment
during the phase-in period
of Sec. 1926.1427 who
does not have the knowledge
or ability to operate the
equipment safely must be
provided with necessary
training prior to operating
the equipment.
Sec. 1926.1430(c)(1).................... Operator training for
qualification or
certification: Operators
who have not yet been
qualified or certified
under Sec. 1926.1427 must
be trained in the areas
addressed in Sec.
1926.1427(j). An operator
who does not pass a
qualification or
certification test must be
retrained as necessary.
Sec. 1926.1430(c)(2)(i)................. Operator training--boom
hoist brake test: Operators
must be trained to
determine if the boom hoist
brake needs to be adjusted
or repaired by first
raising the boom a short
distance and testing the
brake.
Sec. 1926.1430(c)(2)(ii)................ Operator training--emergency
procedures (halting
unintended movement): Where
a manufacturer's emergency
procedures for halting
unintended equipment
movement are available,
operators must be trained
in those procedures.
Sec. 1926.1441(e)....................... Operator training (2,000
pound maximum rated
capacity): Operators of
equipment with a rated
hoisting-lifting capacity
of 2,000 pounds or less
must be trained in the safe
operation of the equipment
the operator is using.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believed that both training and testing of certain
employees are critical to the safety of equipment use on construction
sites.\72\ With respect to training, the Committee concluded that there
is a need to improve upon the current general requirement for
construction industry training established by Sec. 1926.21, Safety
training and education, which requires the employer to (1) "establish
and supervise programs for the education and training of employers and
employees in the recognition, avoidance and prevention of unsafe
conditions in employments covered by the [OSH] Act," Sec. 1926.21(a),
and (2) "instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of
unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to his work
environment to control or eliminate any hazards or other exposure to
illness or injury," Sec. 1926.21(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ With respect to operator testing, as discussed in
connection with Sec. 1926.1427, Operator qualification and
certification, this proposed standard places special emphasis on
ensuring that equipment operators have acquired the knowledge and
skills necessary to operate their equipment safely. This proposed
standard also includes specific assessment requirements for signal
persons (see proposed Sec. 1926.1428(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-DAC found that more specific provisions were needed to ensure
that employees are able to work safely with and around cranes. First,
greater specificity would highlight the particular tasks (and the
hazards associated with them) for which certain types of training are
necessary. Second, training tailored to the specific hazards faced by
particular employees would be an efficient and effective means of
preventing injury.
Proposed paragraph (a), Overhead powerlines, states that employees
must be trained as outlined at proposed Sec. 1926.1408(g) (see the
explanation of hazards and training requirements in the discussion of
proposed Sec. 1926.1408(g)).
Under proposed paragraph (b), Signal persons, employees who will be
assigned to work as signal persons who need training in order to meet
the requirements of Sec. 1926.1428(c) must be trained in the areas
addressed in that paragraph. As discussed in relation to proposed Sec.
1926.1428(c), each employee who will serve as a signal person must pass
a verbal or written test and a practical test demonstrating the
required knowledge and skills. Any such employee who does not pass
those tests must receive additional training in the areas of
deficiency.
Proposed paragraph (c), Operators, provides, at proposed paragraph
(c)(1), that an equipment operator who is neither qualified nor
certified under Sec. 1926.1427, Operator qualification and
certification, would be required to be trained in the areas addressed
in Sec. 1926.1427(j).
This proposed paragraph applies to operators who will need to be
qualified or certified under Sec. 1926.1427 but who are not yet
qualified or certified or who have lost their qualification or
certification. Operators in this category would include those who,
during the four-year phase-in period of Sec. 1926.1427, would not yet
be required to be qualified or certified. Also in this category would
be employees who the employer has decided will be assigned to work as
operators and will need to be qualified or certified under Sec.
1926.1427, as well as operators who need such training in order to
become re-qualified or re-certified, or who failed to pass a
qualification or certification test.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require operators to be trained in
two practices. Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require training in the
testing of the boom hoist brake on friction equipment prior to moving a
boom off a support to determine whether the brake requires adjustment
or repair. The purpose of this procedure is to ensure that the brake is
sufficient before the boom is at too great an angle or height. Using
this procedure, if the brake is deficient, the boom will fall only a
very short distance. This provides an additional safety practice
related to the hazards resulting from an uncontrolled boom. Moving the
boom when the brake is not working properly can result in uncontrolled
lowering of the boom, which can endanger workers in the proximity of
the hoisting equipment.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would require the operator to be
trained in the manufacturer's emergency procedures, when available, for
stopping unintended equipment movement. This provides another level of
protection to minimize employee injury resulting from unintended
equipment movement. The Committee recognized that manufacturer's
emergency procedures for halting unintended equipment movement may not
always be available and therefore this training would be required only
when the procedures are available.
The C-DAC version of Sec. 1926.1430(c)(2) began: "In addition to
training in the areas addressed in Sec. 1926.1427(j), operators shall
be trained in the following practices." This wording implied that all
operators must be trained in the topics listed in Sec. 1926.1427(j).
However, Sec. 1926.1427(j) is not a training requirement but sets forth
criteria that must be addressed in a qualification or certification
test. Operators who are sufficiently knowledgeable in these topics
through prior training and/or experience need not receive additional
training under this proposed standard. To avoid any confusion in this
regard, OSHA has changed C-DAC's wording to read, in proposed Sec.
1926.1430(c)(2): "Operators shall be trained in the following
practices."
The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA seek public comment on
several issues related to operator training. Several Small Entity
Representatives (SERs) believed that the training requirements in the
proposed standard are too broad and should instead be keyed to the
particular operations the operator performs and the particular
equipment he/she operates. The SBREFA Panel also recommended that OSHA
consider and ask for public comment on whether a more limited operator
training program would be appropriate for operations based on the
capacity and type of equipment and nature of operations.
The Panel noted that proposed Sec. 1926.1427(j)(1)(i) requires
operator training in "the information necessary for safe operation of
the specific type of equipment the individual will operate" and
understood this to address the SERs' concern that operators of smaller
capacity equipment used in less complex operations should require less
training than those operators of higher capacity, complex equipment
used in more complex situations. The Panel recommended that OSHA seek
public comment on whether this point should be made more clearly, and
OSHA welcomes such comment.
The Panel further recommended that OSHA consider and ask for public
comment as to whether the supervisor responsible for oversight for an
operator in the pre-qualification period described at Sec.
1926.1427(f) should have additional training beyond that required at
Sec. 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B). The discussion was focused on the issue
of whether the supervisor should be trained to be able to take over the
controls, if necessary, while supervising the operator in the pre-
qualification period.
As the proposed rule is written, when the supervisor is not a
certified operator, he/she must be certified on the written portion of
the test and be familiar with the proper use of the equipment's
controls; the supervisor is not required to have passed a practical
operating test. In accordance with the Panel's recommendation, OSHA
requests comment on whether the supervisor needs additional training in
this regard than the proposal would require.
Paragraph (d), Competent persons and qualified persons, would
require that competent persons and qualified persons be trained
regarding the requirements of this Subpart applicable to their
respective roles. See Sec. 1926.1401, Definitions, for a description
of what is necessary to be a competent person or a qualified person.
A person assigned by an employer to be a "competent person" or
"qualified person" under this proposed rule must already have had a
certain level of training (or, in the case of a competent person,
training or experience) in order to meet the criteria applicable to
such a designation. This paragraph does not address such training--it
would not require the employer to provide the training needed for an
employee to meet those criteria in order to become a competent or
qualified person. The sole purpose of this paragraph is to require the
employer to ensure that both competent persons and qualified persons
are trained on the requirements of this Subpart that are applicable to
the person's role and responsibility. For example, a "competent
person" assigned to conduct shift inspections under Sec. 1926.1412(d)
must be trained under proposed Sec. 1926.1430(d) in the required
elements of a shift inspection. This training is necessary to ensure
the competent person or qualified person is aware of his/her
responsibility under this subpart for finding/correcting hazardous
conditions.
Proposed paragraph (e), Crush/pinch points, provides that employees
who work with equipment covered by this Subpart must be instructed to
stay clear of holes, crush/pinch points and the hazards that are
addressed in Sec. 1926.1424, Work area control. See the discussion of
hazards and requirements in the discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.1424.
Proposed paragraph (f), Tag-out, states that operators and other
employees authorized to start or energize equipment or operate
equipment controls (such as maintenance and repair workers) must be
trained according to the tag-out procedures in Sec. 1926.1417(f). See
the discussion of tag-out procedures discussed in proposed Sec.
1926.1417(f).
Proposed paragraph (g), Training administration, would require that
employers ensure employees understand required training and provide
refresher training when necessary. Specifically, proposed Sec.
1926.1430(g)(1) would require that the employee be evaluated to verify
that he/she understands the information provided in training required
by this Subpart. The Committee determined that training without any
follow-up measure to determine understanding or effectiveness would not
achieve the goal of a safe work environment.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) would require the employer to provide
refresher training of an employee when, based on evaluation or employee
conduct, it is indicated that retraining is needed.
Section 1431 Hoisting Personnel
Cranes and derricks are designed to move materials, not personnel.
However, situations arise when a crane or derrick can be the safest
means to move employees to their work area and/or to hold them in
position while they do their work.
Although there are situations when using a crane or derrick to lift
personnel to work areas is the safest means of accomplishing the task,
there are inherent dangers in such an operation because of the heights,
equipment and environment involved. A number of workers have been
killed and seriously injured while being lifted by a crane or derrick
when the equipment's lifting mechanism malfunctioned and they did not
have adequate fall protection. The height to which the workers are
lifted means that any instability in their supporting platform creates
a serious fall hazard. See 53 FR 29116, 29117-18 (Aug. 2, 1988)
(discussing accidents that occurred when cranes were used to lift
personnel). Because of that risk, in 1988 OSHA added regulations to
subpart N of this part to both limit the use of cranes for lifting
personnel and increase employee protection when it is necessary to use
cranes for this purpose. See 29 CFR 1926.550(g), Crane or derrick
suspended personnel platforms.
Because of the inherent hazards such operations present, OSHA
currently permits cranes and derricks to be used to lift personnel only
"when the erection, use, and dismantling of conventional means of
reaching the worksite, such as a personnel hoist, ladder, stairway,
aerial lift, elevating work platform or scaffold, would be more
hazardous, or is not possible because of structural design or worksite
conditions." 29 CFR 1926.550(g)(2). When a crane or derrick is used to
lift personnel, a personnel platform that complies with requirements in
Sec. 1926.550(g) must be used.
The Committee concluded that the current subpart N standards
governing personnel hoisting by equipment have resulted in a reduction of
accidents and determined that their fundamental substance should be
maintained in the proposed standard. Accordingly, the Committee
proposal largely continues the current requirements of subpart N, Sec.
1926.550(g). Some changes have been made to provide additional safety
and to eliminate ambiguity. Requirements specific to certain
activities, such as personnel hoisting in pile-driving operations,
drill shafts, storage tanks and marine transfer have been added. The
discussion below focuses on these changes and additions.
One of the resources the Committee consulted in developing this
proposed paragraph was ASME B30.23-1998, "Personnel Lifting Systems."
Since the Committee finished its work, that industry consensus standard
was superseded by ASME B30.23-2005. OSHA has compared the two versions
and found no substantive differences in the provisions that correspond
to paragraphs in this proposal. Where the ASME standard is cited in
this section, the citations will refer to the 2005 version.
OSHA stresses that the proposed provisions in this section would be
additional requirements that must be met when equipment is used to lift
personnel. During such use, all other applicable requirements of this
proposed standard would also be required to be met.
Paragraph 1431(a)
This proposed paragraph states that equipment may be used to hoist
personnel only when all other means of reaching the work area would
present a greater hazard or would not be possible because of the
project's structural design or worksite conditions. The same limitation
is currently found in Subpart N's Sec. 1926.550(g)(2). It reflects
OSHA's longstanding recognition that using cranes and derricks to lift
personnel is inherently hazardous and should only be done when it is
either the least hazardous means or when, in light of the configuration
of the worksite, it is the only means of performing required work.
This proposed paragraph differs from the current Sec.
1926.550(g)(2) by substituting the word "equipment" for "crane or
derrick." The terms "crane" and "derrick" do not represent the
full spectrum of equipment that would be covered by this standard. See
Sec. 1926.1400, Scope for a description of the equipment covered by
this Subpart.
Additionally, this proposed paragraph would not apply to work
covered by 29 CFR part 1926 subpart R, Steel Erection. Subpart R, at
Sec. 1926.753(c)(4), allows the use of equipment to hoist personnel in
a platform that complies with Sec. 1926.550 without the need for a
showing that other means of reaching the work area would create a
greater hazard or are impossible. This provision was included in
Subpart R because steel connectors must often work at high locations
before there is a solid structure to stand on and where a personnel
platform suspended from a crane is the safest place for them to work.
OSHA's reasons for including this exception in Subpart R are discussed
in detail in the preamble to the steel erection standard, 66 FR 5196,
5209 (Jan. 18, 2001).
Paragraph 1431(b) Use of Personnel Platform
This proposed paragraph would generally require the use of a
personnel platform when hoisting employees and require that criteria
specified in proposed Sec. 1926.1431(e) be met for such platforms. It
also provides for exceptions to the use of personnel platforms that are
not currently allowed by Sec. 1926.550(g)(2).
For reasons discussed above, proposed Sec. 1926.1431(b)(1) would
generally require that a personnel platform be used when hoisting
employees and that the platform meet the requirements of Sec.
1926.1431(e) of this proposed section. As discussed below, the
requirements of Sec. 1926.1431(e) are comparable to requirements
currently found in Sec. 1926.550(g).
Proposed paragraph (b)(2), Exceptions, sets forth the construction
activities in which hoisting personnel without using a personnel
platform would be allowed because, in the Committee's view, use of a
personnel platform might be infeasible or more hazardous than an
alternative means of hoisting personnel. These activities are: Hoisting
employees into and out of drill shafts 8 feet and smaller in diameter,
pile driving operations, marine worksites, storage tanks (steel or
concrete), and shaft operations and chimney operations. This proposed
section contains specific requirements for hoisting personnel during
these operations at Sec. 1926.1431(o), (p), (r), and (s) that provide
for alternatives to the use of a personnel platform. For drill shafts,
pile driving operations, storage tanks, and shaft and chimney
operations, which present access restrictions, the alternative to a
personnel platform would be a boatswain's chair. For marine worksites,
it would be a marine hoisted personnel transfer device, which is
designed to facilitate exit in the event it enters the water.
For the purposes of this proposed standard, a "marine worksite"
is a construction worksite that is located in, on or above the water
(see proposed Sec. 1926.1401, Definitions). The Committee determined
it was necessary to clearly define this term since marine worksite
conditions and hazards differ significantly from non-marine worksites.
In particular, with respect to equipment covered by this section, the
marine worksite presents unique hazards for equipment stability and
environmental conditions affecting operations.
Section 1926.1401 defines a "marine hoisted personnel transfer
device" as a device, such as a "transfer net" used to hoist an
employee to or from a marine worksite that is designed to protect the
employee during a marine transfer and that allows for rapid entry/exit
from the device. Such devices do not include a boatswain's chair when
hoisted by equipment covered by this standard. The Committee determined
it was necessary to clearly specify the type of device that will or
will not be considered a marine hoisted personnel transfer device for
this standard, as marine worksites involve unique conditions and
hazards with respect to hoisting employees. The Committee determined
that it was necessary to require a device designed for such conditions
while allowing flexibility so the employer may select the most
appropriate device based on the site and working conditions.
Each of the exceptions is discussed below under the particular
paragraph that addresses it. Subpart N of this part does not currently
address these worksite activities (nor does ASME B30.23-2005 address
these particular topics).
Paragraph 1431(c) Equipment Set-Up
This paragraph sets forth the basic criteria for equipment set-up
for personnel hoisting. The requirements continue and refine those
currently in Subpart N's Sec. 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(D).
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require the equipment to be on
level, firm and stable footing. It differs from the current standard at
Sec. 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(D) in that a qualified person must determine if
the footing is "sufficiently firm and stable." Stable footing is
essential to minimize the hazard of the equipment tipping while
hoisting personnel. ASME B30.23-3.2.2(a)(4)-2005 has a similar
requirement, with the operator of the equipment determining equipment
to be level within one percent during set-up and hoisting operations.
The Committee believed that the danger of equipment potentially tipping
when hoisting personnel justifies the need for a qualified person to examine
and approve the equipment's stability. See Sec. 1926.1401, Definitions for
the criteria for a qualified person.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) specifies that each outrigger be both
extended and locked. The amount of extension must be the same and also
be in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. This is
similar to the current requirement of Sec. 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(D);
however, the current requirement that outriggers be "fully deployed"
has been changed to require that outriggers be equally extended and in
accordance with manufacturer's procedures and load charts. Equal
extension eliminates the hazard of the operator forgetting that one or
more outriggers has a shorter extension and swinging into that area
with a load that exceeds the crane's capacity in that area. The
Committee determined that a requirement of full extension of all
outriggers would not be appropriate for all worksite conditions. Nor is
it necessary, as long as partial extension is within the manufacturer's
procedures; the critical factor is to have each outrigger extended
equally, whether it is a full or shorter extension.
Proper placement and deployment of outriggers is essential to
prevent the hazard of equipment tipping while hoisting personnel.
Paragraph 1431(d) Equipment Criteria
This paragraph sets forth requirements for the equipment used to
hoist personnel. These requirements refine and expand the equipment
requirements currently in Subpart N.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1): Capacity: use of suspended personnel
platform, would continue the requirement at Sec. 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(E)
to limit the total load to 50 per cent of the equipment's rated
capacity. It would clarify the current standard by specifying that the
total load includes the hook, load line, and rigging. The 50 percent
capacity limit would not apply during equipment proof testing.
The 50 percent limit reflects that using this equipment to hoist
personnel requires additional safety precautions than when lifting
materials. The limit provides for an extra margin of safety to prevent
overloading the equipment, which could cause tip-over or structural
collapse.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2), Capacity: use of boom-attached personnel
platforms, establishes the load limit at 50 percent of rated capacity
for platforms that are attached to the boom. It also provides an
exception to the 50 percent capacity limit during equipment proof
testing. The same reasons for the 50 percent limit in Sec.
1926.1431(d)(1) also apply here.
The Committee considered prohibiting the use of boom attached
personnel platforms for hoisting personnel. However, the Committee
concluded that it was unaware of any reason to prohibit their use. As
discussed above under Sec. 1926.1400, Scope, Committee members were
concerned that boom-attached platforms may present additional hazards
not addressed in this proposed standard, and OSHA is requesting comment
on whether additional requirements should apply when using them.
In reviewing the C-DAC consensus document, the Agency determined
that the Committee did not address the issue of capacity when no
personnel platform is used. Since there are several situations where no
platform will be used at all (these are listed in proposed Sec.
1926.1431(b)(2) of this section), the Agency believes that a capacity
limit similar to those set by the Committee when using a personnel
platform is needed. Therefore, OSHA has added proposed Sec.
1926.1431(d)(3), Capacity: hoisting personnel without a personnel
platform, which establishes the load limit at 50 percent of rated
capacity. In calculating the load, the weight of the personnel,
including the hook, load line, rigging and any other equipment that
imposes a load must be included. The addition of this proposed
paragraph has resulted in the renumbering of the remaining paragraphs
in proposed Sec. 1926.1431(d) (as compared to the numbering in the C-
DAC document).
Proposed paragraph (d)(4) would require engaging all the
equipment's locking or braking devices when the platform has reached
its stationary work position. The purpose is to minimize sudden and
unintended movement or tipping of the platform when employees have
reached the work area.
This differs from current provision Sec. 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(C) in
Subpart N in that the proposed provision adds a requirement to use
operator actuated secondary braking/locking features, when available,
in addition to other braking systems. This is similar to sections
1.2.2(f) and 3.2.2(a)(19) of ASME B30.23-2005 for automatic brake
systems and setting of brakes before work begins from the platform.
The subsections of proposed paragraph (d)(5), Devices, would
require certain safety devices for equipment addressed by this proposed
section.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(i) would address the requirements for
equipment with a variable angle boom. Such equipment would be required
to be equipped with both a boom angle indicator and boom hoist limiting
device (except for derricks). Use of these devices minimizes the
potential for hoisting personnel at an unsafe angle, which could result
in the platform or equipment tipping.
A boom angle indicator is currently required in Sec.
1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(A). Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(d)(4)(i) would add a
requirement for a boom hoist limiting device. The Committee believed
that both a boom angle indicator and a boom hoist limiting device are
necessary to prevent the boom from being moved to unsafe angles. A boom
hoist limiting device would be required when hoisting personnel, even
though it would not otherwise be required for equipment manufactured
before December 17, 1969 under proposed Sec. 1926.1416(d)(1) (see
discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.1416(d)--Operational aids). This
reflects the need for equipment used to hoist personnel to have
additional safety features.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(i) would not apply to derricks. This is
consistent with C-DAC's recommendation that boom hoist limiting devices
and boom angle indicators not be required on derricks. See proposed
Sec. 1926.1436(f), which addresses operational aids for derricks. As
discussed below, the Committee believed that these devices were not
needed on derricks because the current practice in the industry of
marking the boom hoist cable of derricks with visible caution and stop
marks corresponding to maximum and minimum allowable boom angles is a
safe work practice. Accordingly, paragraph Sec. 1926.1436(f) permits
employers to use this practice. Alternatively, it permits employers to
use an electronic or other device that either signals the operator in
time to prevent the boom from moving past its minimum and maximum
angles or automatically prevents such movement.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(ii) would address the requirements for
equipment, including derricks, when a luffing jib is used for personnel
hoisting. This paragraph would require all equipment to have both a jib
angle indicator and jib hoist limiting device. Use of these devices
minimizes the likelihood of platform tipping and equipment failure.
Neither the current Subpart N nor ASME B30.23-2005 addresses the
use of luffing jibs for personnel hoisting. The Committee believed that
this proposed requirement is needed to help improve the safety of crane
and derrick operations.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(iii) would require a telescoping boom to
either have a device indicating the boom's extended length or measuring
marks that are clear and visible to the equipment operator. This would
allow the operator to easily ascertain the extension length in order to
stay within safe operating parameters. This requirement would address
the hazard of equipment or platform tipping or equipment failure that
can result when a telescoping boom is extended beyond appropriate
operating parameters. Currently, Sec. 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(B) permits,
as an alternative to equipping the boom with a device to indicate the
boom's extended length, an "accurate determination" to be made of the
load radius to be used prior to hoisting personnel. Proposed Sec.
1926.1431(d)(5)(iii)'s provision for measuring marks on the boom would
enable this determination to be made accurately if the boom is not
equipped with a device indicating its extended length.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(iv), Anti-two-block, would require a
device that automatically prevents contact between a component on the
hoist line (load block, overhaul block, etc.) with the boom tip, which
can damage or sever the load line or cause other forms of equipment
failure. This contact between the hoist line component and the boom tip
is referred to as two-blocking. The purpose of the anti-two-blocking
device is to prevent this condition, which can result in a sudden drop
of the personnel platform. See the discussion of two-blocking in
proposed Sec. 1926.1416, Operational aids.
Paragraph (d)(5)(iv) is similar to current Sec.
1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(C) and adds an exception for pile driving
operations. The proposed requirement would not apply when hoisting
personnel in pile driving operations due to the fact the vibration of
the pile driving activity makes use of an anti-two-block device
ineffective.
In reviewing this portion of the C-DAC document, the Agency has
noted that the use of alternative measures for preventing two-blocking
during pile driving operations would be required under proposed Sec.
1926.1431(p)(2). However, the C-DAC language for proposed provision
Sec. 1926.1431(d)(5)(iv) did not refer to the requirement for
alternative measures. Therefore, OSHA has added a reference to the
exception in Sec. 1926.1431(d)(5)(iv) advising the reader that
alternative measures are required under Sec. 1926.1431(p)(2).
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(v), Controlled load lowering, would
require a system or device on the load line hoist drum that positively
regulates the lowering speed. It would require this system to be used
when hoisting personnel, in addition to a load line hoist brake. The
purpose is to minimize the likelihood of free fall of the personnel
that could lead to hitting the ground from a sudden fast descent.
Additionally, the proposed paragraph would note that free fall of the
load line hoist is prohibited and use of equipment in which the boom
hoist mechanism can free fall is prohibited. Refer to proposed Sec.
1926.1426, Free fall/controlled load lowering, for additional
information.
Currently, 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(D) similarly requires a system or
device that positively regulates the lowering speed. Proposed Sec.
1926.1431(d)(5)(v) would explicitly specify that the system must be
used when hoisting personnel.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(vi), Proper operation required, specifies
that personnel hoisting would only occur when and if all the devices
required in Sec. 1926.1431(d)(5)(i) through (v) are in proper working
order. It would also mandate that if a required device stops working
while personnel are being hoisted, all personnel hoisting operations
must be stopped and not resumed until all devices are working properly.
Alternative measures would not be allowed.
The purpose of this paragraph is to clearly establish that
personnel hoisting may only be done when all necessary safety devices
are working properly. The hazards addressed by this requirement
include: structural failure, equipment tipping, dropping personnel, and
platform tipping. These are severe hazards, so safeguards to prevent
them are clearly needed.
This paragraph does not have a specific corollary in the current
Subpart N, although the Subpart N provisions that require safety
devices implies that they be working properly. Sections 3.2.2(a)(23)
and 1.2.2 of ASME B30.23-2005 are comparable to this requirement.
Proposed paragraph (d)(6) would prohibit the use of a personnel
platform directly attached to a luffing jib. Thus, only a suspended
type of personnel platform may be used on a luffing jib. The Committee
determined that it would be dangerous to use a boom-attached personnel
platform if attached to a luffing jib and that a complete prohibition
of use of a boom-attached personnel platform to a luffing jib is
appropriate.
Paragraph 1431(e) Personnel Platform Criteria
This proposed paragraph would establish the minimum criteria for a
personnel platform. The criteria are similar to those currently in 29
CFR part 1926 subpart N's Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(i) and (ii). However,
Sec. 1926.1431(e)(2) would add the requirement that the connection
system keep the platform within 10 degrees of level and Sec.
1926.1431(e)(10) would add a visibility requirement for the overhead
protective cover to the personnel platform.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would require that both the platform and
its attachment/suspension system be designed by a qualified person who
understands structural design and be designed for the particular
function of personnel hoisting. The purpose of this paragraph is to
clearly stipulate that the platform must be designed for employee
safety. This would address the hazards of structural failure of the
platform, failure of the attachment/suspension system, and preclude the
use of designs that would be inappropriate for hoisting people. This is
similar to the current 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N's Sec.
1926.550(g)(4)(i)(A), which states that either a "qualified engineer
or a qualified person competent in structural design" shall design the
platform, but clarifies that even if the platform is designed by a
qualified engineer, that engineer must understand structural design.
See Sec. 1926.1401, Definitions, for the definition of "qualified
person."
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) would require the system used to connect
the personnel platform to the equipment to be within 10 degrees of
level. This would address the hazard of platform tipping by maintaining
the platform close to level. This requirement is not currently in
subpart N.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would require the platform designer to
consider the movement of employees on the platform and design the
suspension system to minimize platform tipping from such movement. The
purpose is to design the platform in such a way as to limit the
likelihood of platform tipping while employees are working from the
platform. This continues the requirement of subpart N's Sec.
1926.550(g)(4)(i)(B).
Proposed paragraph (e)(4) would require the platform to support its
own weight plus a minimum of five times the maximum intended load
without failure. This limit would provide an adequate margin of safety
for employee protection from structural failure of the platform. The
guardrail system and personal fall arrest system anchorages
would not be subject to this requirement but instead would be subject
to proposed Sec. 1926.1431(e)(6). This continues a requirement in
proposed Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(i)(C).
Proposed paragraph (e)(5) would require that welding of any part of
the platform or its component parts be performed by a welder who is
certified and familiar with the weld grades, types and material
specified in the particular platform's design. This requirement is
designed to prevent structural failure of the platform due to improper
welding.
"Certified welder" is defined in Sec. 1926.1401 as "a welder
that meets the nationally recognized certification requirements that
are applicable to the task being performed." The requirement for a
"certified" welder modifies the current requirement of Subpart N's
Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(H), which requires a "qualified" welder. It
is similar to section 1.2.1(b)(2) of ASME B30.23-2005 welding standards
for personnel platforms. The Committee believed that because proper
platform welding is so critical to employee safety, it is necessary for
the welding to be done by a certified welder.
Proposed paragraph (e)(6) would detail the requirements of the
platform for guardrails, fall arrest anchorage points and enclosure of
the platform between the toeboard and mid-rail. Proper guardrails and
fall arrest anchorage points are critical fall protection devices, and
the required platform enclosure is needed to protect employees below
from falling objects.
Proposed paragraph (e)(6) adds to the current requirements of 29
CFR part 1926 subpart N's Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(A) in specifying
that "points to which personal fall arrest systems are attached must
meet the anchorage requirements in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart M." This
is similar to the guardrail and anchorage specifications in sections
1.1.1(b)(2) and (3) of ASME B30.23-2005. This would update the
requirements for the anchorage so that the same degree of protection
currently required under Subpart M would be required under this
standard.
Proposed paragraph (e)(7) would require the placement of a grab
rail within the entire perimeter of the personnel platform except for
access gates/doors, where a grab rail would be impractical. The grab
rail provides a place for the employee to hold onto while in the
platform instead of using a guardrail as a hand hold. Use of the
guardrail for this purpose exposes the employee's hand to being smashed
by external objects. This would modify the current requirement of
Subpart N's Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(B) by clarifying that grab rails
are not required on the access gates/door. It is similar to ASME
B30.23-1.1.1(b)(4)-2005.
Proposed paragraphs (e)(8)(i) and (ii), Access gates/doors, would
specify that access gates/doors be designed to not swing outward and
must also have a mechanism that will keep the gate/door from being
opened unintentionally. A door that swings outward or opens
unexpectedly puts the employee at risk of fall from the platform. This
modifies the current requirements of Subpart N's Sec.
1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(C) and (D) by requiring that access doors not swing
outward at any time and expands the list of types of gates/doors to
include "swinging, sliding, folding, or other types." Section
1.1.1(b)(8) of ASME B30.23-2005 has similar requirements for access
gates.
Proposed paragraph (e)(9) would require adequate headroom to allow
employees to stand upright in the personnel platform. This would
provide adequate space for the employee to work from the platform while
keeping his/her entire body within the platform, and would also
contribute to greater stability during platform movement. This
continues the current requirement at Sec. 1925.550(g)(4)(ii)(E).
Proposed paragraph (e)(10) would require an overhead protective
cover attached to the platform when an employee is exposed to falling
objects. It would mandate that the overhead cover of the platform be of
such material and design to provide visibility for both the operator
and the employees on the platform, while maintaining adequate
protection from falling objects. The reference to a wire mesh with \1/
2\ inch openings is an example of a type of material and design that
could be used for the platform cover. The nature of the worksite
conditions and foreseeable falling objects would determine the type of
material and design to provide the necessary protection for the
platform occupants. Full overhead protection (i.e., no visibility
through the protective cover) would be allowed when conditions are such
that a full protective cover is necessary to protect employees from
falling objects. The visibility requirement is similar to section
1.1.1(b)(11) of ASME B30.23-2005. This proposed paragraph would change
current Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(F) by clarifying the type of overhead
protection that is required.
Proposed paragraph (e)(10) explicitly states that the protection
provided by the cover would be supplemental to the protection provided
by hard hats--the use of hard hats would not obviate the requirement
for the cover. While a hard hat provides some protection to an
employee's head from overhead hazards, it does not protect the rest of
an employee's body from such hazards.
Proposed paragraph (e)(11) would require that all edges of the
platform be smooth enough to prevent injury. The purpose is to protect
the employee from injuries such as lacerations and puncture wounds. A
similar requirement is found in Subpart N's Sec.
1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(G).
Proposed paragraph (e)(12) would require conspicuously posting a
plate or other permanent written notice on the personnel platform
listing the weight of the platform itself and the platform's rated load
capacity. The purpose is to make employees aware of the platform's
limits to prevent overloading, which could result in structural failure
of the platform or equipment, and to facilitate compliance with Sec.
1926.1431(f)(1), which prohibits loading the platform in excess of its
rated capacity.
Proposed paragraph (e)(12) would modify the current requirement of
Subpart N's Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(I) by deleting the phrase "or
maximum intended load." That phrase was included in Subpart N because
platforms made on the worksite did not have a manufacturer's rated
capacity. However, under proposed Sec. 1926.1431(e)(1), all personnel
platforms would be required to be designed by a qualified person
familiar with structural design, and such a person will be able to
determine the rated capacity for the platform.
Paragraph 1431(f) Personnel Platform Loading
Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would prohibit loading the platform in
excess of its rated load capacity. Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(f)(1)
differs from current Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(A) by deleting a
provision stating that if a personnel platform does not have a rated
load capacity it shall not be loaded in excess of its maximum intended
load. The "maximum intended load" provision was deleted for the same
reason previously discussed under Sec. 1926.4131(e)(12).
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) would require that the platform be
used exclusively for personnel hoisting and not for hoisting materials.
However, it would allow the necessary materials and tools for the work
activity to be hoisted along with the employees. Using a personnel
platform to hoist materials can lead to damage of the platform due to
materials shifting or excessive loading. This can subject the platform
to structural stresses that may not be visible and contribute to
platform structural failure. This would continue the current requirement
of Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(iii)(C).
Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(ii) would provide an exception to
(f)(2)(i) to allow materials and tools on the personnel platform during
the trial lift as long as the materials/tools are properly secured and
distributed as specified in Sec. 1926.1431(f)(3). Since the materials
and tools would be secured, they would not damage the platform. Subpart
N, at Sec. 1926.550(g)(5)(i), currently allows materials/tools to be
on the platform during the trial lift but does not specify that they
need to be properly secured and distributed.
Proposed paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) would require that any
materials and tools that are on the platform during the hoist be
secured, and evenly distributed within the platform itself while the
platform is suspended. These precautions are designed to prevent
platform tipping and injury to employees due to movement of materials
or tools during the hoist. These requirements would continue those in
Subpart N's Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(iii)(D) & (E).
Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would limit the number of employees on a
personnel platform to the lesser of either the number needed to perform
the work or the maximum number for which the platform was designed. The
purpose is to expose the fewest possible number of employees to the
hazards presented when hoisting personnel and to minimize the load on
the platform to the extent possible. This would provide greater clarity
than the current requirement of Subpart N's Sec.
1926.550(g)(4)(iii)(B) by noting that the number of platform occupants
is limited not only by work requirements but also the platform's
design.
Paragraph 1431(g) Attachment and Rigging
Proposed paragraph (g)(1) would establish the requirements for the
device used to connect the personnel platform to the hoist line. It
would expand and clarify the requirements of Subpart N's Sec.
1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(B).
The nature and type of connector used is critical to the overall
safety of the suspended personnel platform. Under the proposed
paragraph, a hook used to connect the hoist line and personnel platform
must be the type that can be closed/locked and must be closed/locked
when attached to the platform. When a shackle is used in lieu of a
hook, it must be of the alloy anchor type with either: a bolt, nut and
retaining pin in place; or: the screw type with the screw pin secured
against accidental removal. Any detachable device other than a shackle
or hook that is used must be closable and lockable to the same extent a
hook or shackle would be when in compliance with this proposed section.
When used to connect the personnel platform, such a device must be
closed and locked to ensure that the platform is secured to the hoist
line.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) would require that each bridle leg in a
rope bridle be connected to the master link/shackle in a manner that
would allow the platform's load to be equally distributed among each
bridle leg. The purpose of this type of attachment is to avoid platform
tipping. The proposed requirement differs from current Subpart N at
Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(A) by changing the phrase "wire rope" to
"rope." Currently, the only type of rope that Subpart N permits to be
used for bridles is wire rope, and it is C-DAC's and OSHA's
understanding that no other type of rope suitable for this purpose is
currently available. However, the Committee believed that synthetic
ropes now under development could someday meet the safety factor
requirement in Sec. 1926.1431(g)(3) and it did not want to preclude
the potential use of sufficiently strong synthetic rope.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3) would continue the current requirement of
the first sentence of Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(C) that all hardware
used for rigging must be able to support five times the maximum
intended load applied to or transmitted to that component. However, the
C-DAC consensus document omitted the second sentence in current Sec.
1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(C), which requires slings using rotation resistant
rope to be able to support at least ten times the maximum intended
load. In promulgating Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(C), OSHA arrived at the
safety factor of ten for rotation resistant rope by doubling the normal
design factor of five for such rope (see discussion of the design
factor for rotation resistant rope above under Sec. 1926.1414, Wire
rope--selection and installation criteria) to add an extra margin of
safety when hoisting personnel. 53 FR 29116, 29122, 29132 (Aug. 2,
1988). OSHA believes that C-DAC did not intend to lower the safety
factor for rotation resistant rope used for personnel hoisting and
inadvertently omitted the requirement that slings using rotation
resistant rope to have a safety factor of ten. OSHA has therefore
restored that requirement to proposed 1926.1431(g)(3). As modified,
1926.1431(g)(3) reads:
(3) Rigging hardware (including wire rope, shackles, rings,
master links, and other rigging hardware) and hooks must be capable
of supporting, without failure, at least five times the maximum
intended load applied or transmitted to that component. Where
rotation resistant rope is used, the slings shall be capable of
supporting without failure at least ten times the maximum intended
load.
Proposed paragraph (g)(4) would require the eyes in wire rope
slings to be fabricated with thimbles, continuing the current Subpart
N's Sec. 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(D) requirement. The purpose of this
requirement is to prevent excessive wear to the eyes and possible
failure of the platform's rigging.
Proposed paragraph (g)(5) would require that bridles and rigging
used to suspend the personnel platform be used exclusively for hoisting
personnel operations, continuing the current requirement of Sec.
1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(E). Rigging components must be dedicated for the
sole use of personnel hoisting to provide maximum safety. Materials
hoisting can lead to damage of the rigging components due to material
shifting or excessive loading. This can make the rigging components
susceptible to structural stress that may not be visible, yet
contribute to structural failure.
Paragraph 1431(h) Trial Lift and Inspection
The proposed requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through (5)
generally continue the current requirements of Subpart N's Sec.
1926.550(g)(5)(i) through (v). The proposed requirements have been
reorganized and reworded for clarity. Requirements for removal of the
test weight, checking for wire rope deficiencies, and use of a
competent person for trial lifts are not currently in 29 CFR part 1926
subpart N.
Proposed paragraph (h)(1) continues the requirement of Sec.
1926.550(g)(5)(i) for a trial lift without occupants with the platform
loaded to at least the anticipated liftweight. The purpose of the trial
lift is to confirm that: the lift set-up works properly; the lift route
is free of obstacles; the accessibility of the work location; no work
locations will place the crane or derrick in such a configuration where
the intended load would exceed 50 percent of the equipment's rated
capacity; the soil or other supporting surface is stable; and that the
lift route is suitable for the intended lift.
The path of the trial lift would be required to begin at the point
the employees enter the platform and end at the ultimate location the
platform is being hoisted to and positioned (end point). When there are
multiple destination locations from a single set-up point, the trial
lift would be required to be conducted in one of two ways.
First, individual lifts may be conducted in which the platform is
moved to one of the end points from the starting point, returned to the
starting point, moved to a second end point, again returned to the
starting point, and the process repeated until each end point has been
reached. Second, a single lift may be conducted from the starting point
to all of the end points in sequence, without returning to the starting
point until after the last end point has been reached.
Upon reviewing Sec. 1926.1431(h)(1) in the C-DAC document, OSHA
believes that the phrase "a single trial lift for all locations,"
which was taken from current Sec. 1926.550(g)(5)(i), may not be
sufficiently clear to describe the intended meaning. In addition, OSHA
is concerned that allowing the trial lift to be conducted in either of
these two ways, irrespective of how the personnel will actually be
hoisted, may result in the trial lift failing to reveal problems that
would be encountered in the actual lift. OSHA believes that the
following language would more clearly reflect the intent of the
provision and requests public comment on whether the language should be
clarified in this manner:
(h) Trial lift and inspection.
(1) A trial lift with the unoccupied personnel platform loaded
at least to the anticipated liftweight shall be made from ground
level, or any other location where employees will enter the
platform, to each location at which the platform is to be hoisted
and positioned. Where there is more than one location to be reached
from a single set-up position, either individual trial lifts for
each location, or a single trial lift, in which the platform is
moved sequentially to each location, shall be performed; the method
selected must be the same as the method that will be used to hoist
the personnel.
Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require that the trial lift take
place immediately prior to each shift when hoisting personnel, and each
time the equipment is moved and set up in a new location or a
previously used location. Additionally, a trial lift must be done when
the lift route is changed, unless a competent person determines the new
lift route does not present new factors affecting safety. Similar
requirements are found in Subpart N's Sec. 926.550(g)(5)(i) and (ii).
Proposed paragraph (h)(3) would require a competent person to
ensure that all required safety devices and operational aids required
by this proposed section are activated and properly functioning, that
nothing interferes with the equipment or personnel platform during the
trial lift, that the lift load does not exceed 50 percent of the
equipment's rated capacity, and that the load radius used is accurately
determined. These requirements would ensure that necessary safety
measures are in place and validated by a competent person for the trial
lift. The proposed paragraph differs from the current requirements at
Sec. 1926.550(g)(5)(i) as it would require a competent person to make
the determination rather than the operator. Under sections 3.2.2(a)(9)
and (a)(10) of ASME B30.23-2005, the operator is also required to
determine that the trial lift has been conducted properly. It is
important for this to be the responsibility of a competent person
because such a person not only has the knowledge necessary to make the
determinations, but also has the authority to take any necessary
corrective action.
Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would establish the duties of the
competent person immediately after the trial lift. It would require the
competent person to conduct a visual inspection of the personnel
platform and equipment to determine if there is any problem or defect
resulting from the trial lift or if it produced any adverse effect. In
addition, the competent person must ensure that the test weight used
during the trial lift has been removed prior to personnel loading.
The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that any defects in
the equipment, base support or ground and personnel platform revealed
by the trial lift are seen by a competent person prior to hoisting
personnel (note that, under proposed Sec. 1926.1431(h)(6), any
condition found during the trial lift that fails to meet a requirement
of this proposed standard or otherwise constitutes a safety hazard must
be corrected before hoisting personnel). Proposed paragraph (h)(4)
would continue the current requirements of Sec. 1926.550(g)(5)(iv)
while adding the requirement that the competent person ensure that the
test weight is removed. This has been added because the Committee was
aware of incidents in which overloading of the personnel platform
occurred due to use of the platform to hoist personnel with the test
weights still on board.
Under proposed paragraph (h)(5)(i), immediately prior to each
personnel lift, the competent person must inspect the platform while it
is lifted a few inches to ensure that the platform is secure and
properly balanced.
It is the understanding of the Agency that the purpose of this
procedure is to ensure that, with the occupants and materials/tools to
be hoisted on the platform immediately before the hoist is to take
place, the platform is secure and properly balanced. The purpose of
having the occupants and materials/tools on board during this check is
twofold. First, it ensures that the check takes place just before the
personnel lift, which minimizes the chance that damage or other
problems affecting the platform's security will occur after the check.
In addition, it would be difficult to ensure that the platform will be
properly balanced when in actual use without having the employees and
materials/tools on board.
However, while the text of this proposed provision implies that the
check is to be done with the personnel and materials/tools on board, it
does not specifically so state. The Agency plans to add language to
that effect so that proposed Sec. 1926.1431(h)(5)(i) would read as
follows:
(i) The platform shall be hoisted a few inches with the
personnel and materials/tools on board and inspected by a competent
person to ensure that it is secure and properly balanced.
The Agency requests public comment on such a change.
Proposed paragraph (h)(5)(ii) would require a competent person to
determine that hoist ropes are free of defects, that multiple part
lines are not twisted around each other, and that the primary
attachment is centered over the platform. If the load rope is slack,
the competent person must inspect the hoisting system to ensure the
rope lines are properly seated on drums and in sheaves. Proposed
paragraphs (i) and (ii) continue the current requirements of Sec.
1926.550(g)(5)(iii), with the additional clarification that hoist ropes
must be free of deficiencies (that is, not just free of "kinks," as
required by existing Sec. 1926.550(g)(5)(iii)(A)). The purpose of
these requirements is to mandate an additional final review by a
competent person to evaluate the personnel platform, the balance of the
load, and the lifting devices to ensure that necessary safety
requirements are met.
Proposed paragraph (h)(6) would establish that any condition that
fails to meet any requirements of this standard or otherwise creates a
safety hazard must be corrected before personnel are hoisted. This
includes such conditions found during the trial lift or in any
inspection or subsequent review of the equipment, platform or rigging.
This is similar to the requirement of Subpart N's Sec.
1926.550(g)(5)(v).
Paragraph 1431(i) [Reserved.]
This proposed paragraph is reserved because it is inconvenient for
readers to determine whether "(i)" is being used as a letter or a
roman numeral.
Paragraph 1431(j) Proof Testing
This proposed paragraph would delineate the requirement of and
method for proof testing the personnel platform and rigging. It would
require the proof test to be done at each jobsite prior to hoisting
personnel and after any repair or modification of the platform. The
proof test would be at 125 percent of the platform's rated capacity,
with an evenly distributed test load. The platform must be lowered by
controlled load lowering, braked, and held in a suspended position for
at least five minutes. After this proof test, the competent person must
inspect the platform and rigging to determine if it has passed the
proof test. If not, all deficiencies that pose a safety hazard must be
corrected and another proof test performed. The competent person must
determine that the platform and rigging have successfully passed the
proof test before any personnel hoisting begins.
The purpose of this proposed paragraph is to determine if the
structural integrity of the personnel platform is intact or if it has
been affected by any condition, damage, repair or modification which
could result in structural failure or other safety hazards of the
platform or rigging. Proposed paragraph Sec. 1926.1431(j) contains
requirements similar to those in Subpart N's Sec. 1926.550(g)(5)(vi).
It adds the requirement in proposed Sec. 1926.1431(j)(2) that the
platform be lowered by controlled load lowering and braked before being
held in position for five minutes. This provision was added to ensure
that the load lowering and braking mechanisms are functioning properly
before personnel are lifted. In addition, proposed Sec.
1926.1431(j)(3) clarifies that only deficiencies that present a safety
hazard need be corrected to avoid any implication that minor
deficiencies bearing no relation to safety need to be corrected.
The Committee discussed requiring the employer to document the
proof test but determined that documentation of the proof test would
not add to employee safety.
Paragraph 1431(k) Work Practices
Proposed paragraph (k)(1) would require hoisting of the personnel
platform in a slow, controlled, cautious manner, with no sudden
movements of the equipment or platform. This precaution would minimize
the likelihood of platform tipping, loss of footing, and loss of
control of the platform by the operator during hoisting. A comparable
requirement is now contained in Subpart N at Sec.
1926.550(g)(3)(i)(A).
Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(i) would require that all occupants of
the personnel platform keep all parts of the body inside the platform
while it is being raised, lowered or moved horizontally. This would not
apply when a platform occupant must position the platform.
Additionally, this does not apply while performing the duties of a
signal person. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent an
employee from having a body part struck or caught in between the
personnel platform and another object. This differs from the current
requirement of Subpart N at Sec. 1926.550(g)(6)(i) by providing an
exception for a platform occupant positioning the platform. The
Committee believed that such positioning can be important to safety,
and therefore an exception in this regard would be appropriate.
Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(ii) would add a new provision by
prohibiting platform occupants from standing on, sitting on, or working
from any surface other than the floor of the personnel platform during
hoisting or when working from the platform. It would prohibit working
from a railing or toeboard or the use of any means or device to raise
the employee's working height. The purpose is to ensure that the
occupants receive the protections of the guardrail system and do not
destabilize the platform.
Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(iii) would add a new provision by
prohibiting platform occupants from pulling the platform out of plumb
in relation to the hoisting equipment. The purpose is to prevent
tipping of the platform with employees on board, which could exacerbate
the fall hazard.
Proposed paragraph (k)(3) would require a personnel platform that
is not landed to be secured to the structure before employees enter or
exit the platform. It would allow an exception when a greater hazard
would be created by securing the platform to the structure. The purpose
is to provide a stable surface to prevent loss of footing when entering
or exiting the platform. This provision is similar to Subpart N's Sec.
1926.550(g)(6)(ii) but replaces the words "unsafe condition" with
"greater hazard" to clarify that the exception only comes into play
when the hazard that would be created by securing the platform to the
structure is greater than would exist if it were not secured.
Proposed paragraph (k)(4) would add a new requirement that the
operator receive confirmation that the platform is no longer tied to
the structure and is freely suspended before the operator moves the
platform. This requirement would prevent structural damage to the
platform and/or rigging and prevent the fall hazard that could result
from pulling the platform out of plumb if there is an attempt to move
it while it is still attached.
Proposed paragraph (k)(5) would require the use of tag lines when
necessary to control the personnel platform. The purpose is to provide
an additional way to control platform stability to decrease the risk of
injury from loss of footing or from the platform striking an object.
This would modify the current requirement of Subpart N's Sec.
1926.550(g)(6)(iii), which requires the use of tag lines unless their
use would create an unsafe condition. The Committee believed it is not
always necessary to use tag lines even when their use would not create
an unsafe condition and was of the view that this change would not
decrease safety.
Under proposed paragraph (k)(6), where the platform is not equipped
with controls, the equipment operator would be required to remain at
the equipment controls at all times while the personnel platform is
occupied. Since there are no controls in the personnel platform, the
equipment operator must be available to make any necessary adjustments
to protect the employees from injury from any condition arising after
the platform is placed at the working location. Subpart N at Sec.
1926.550(g)(6)(iv) currently contains a similar requirement but
requires the operator to remain at the controls "when the crane engine
is running and the platform is occupied." Proposed Sec.
1926.1431(k)(6) specifies that the operator must stay at the controls
at all times the platform is occupied, whether or not the crane engine
is running.
Proposed paragraph (k)(7), Platforms with controls, and its
subsections apply when a personnel platform has controls. At present,
platforms being manufactured with controls are boom-tip mounted
platforms. Controls on certain personnel platforms enable a platform
occupant to articulate both the platform and the boom. Other platform
designs enable an occupant to control only the platform/basket itself,
for example to level the basket as it is boomed up or down. Currently,
Subpart N of this part does not distinguish between platforms with
controls and platforms without controls, so the requirement of Sec.
1926.550(g)(6)(iv) that the operator remain at the equipment controls
when the engine is running and the platform is occupied applies to both
types of platform.
Proposed paragraph (k)(7)(i) would require the platform occupant
using the platform's controls to be a qualified person with respect to
their use, including the safe limitations of the equipment and hazards
associated with its operation. Such knowledge and skill is essential for
the safety of the platform occupants and employees in the surrounding area.
Proposed paragraph (k)(7)(ii) would require the equipment operator
to be either at the equipment controls, in the personnel platform, or
onsite in view of the equipment. It is OSHA's understanding that the
purpose of this proposed provision is to require the equipment operator
to be available to take action if necessary, such as where there is
unexpected or inadvertent platform or equipment movement, a sudden
change in wind conditions, or an injury to a platform occupant.
It is also OSHA's understanding that C-DAC intended this provision
to give employers the flexibility to position the operator where he or
she is needed in certain common situations. For example, if the
controls on the platform are designed to control both the platform and
the boom, the operator could be the qualified person on the platform
who operates the controls. If the controls allow only limited control
of the platform itself, the operator will be needed at the equipment
controls, as under proposed Sec. 1926.1431(k)(6). The Agency also
believes that C-DAC intended the option of having the operator onsite
and in view of the equipment to accommodate radio-controlled
operations, in which the operator controls the equipment from a
position off the equipment but within its line of sight.
Upon reviewing proposed paragraph (k)(7)(ii), OSHA is concerned
that the proposed provision would not operate in this manner.
Specifically, it would not limit the employer's choices to situations
where they are suitable. For example, under the provision as written,
the operator could be on the platform even if the controls on the
platform allow only limited control of the platform, and the operator
would therefore not be available at the equipment controls to move the
boom when it is necessary to do so. OSHA requests public comment on
whether it is necessary to reword proposed Sec. 1926.1431(k)(7)(ii) to
clarify the circumstances under which employers can use the three
options for positioning the equipment operator and, if so, how the
provision should be worded to achieve that goal.
Proposed paragraph (k)(7)(iii) would require the platform operating
manual to be on the platform or on the equipment while the platform is
occupied. The purpose is to have ready access to manufacturer's
operating information when employees are on the platform.
Proposed paragraph (k)(8)(i), Environmental conditions--Wind, would
require a qualified person to determine if it is unsafe to hoist
personnel when the wind speed (gust or sustained) exceeds 20 mph. High
winds increase the likelihood of platform tipping, sudden unexpected
movement of the platform, or structural failure of the equipment. If
the qualified person determines that hoisting personnel is unsafe,
hoisting operations must not begin or, if already in progress, must be
terminated.
Subpart N at Sec. 1926.550(g)(6)(v) currently requires personnel
hoisting operations to stop when there is indication of any dangerous
weather conditions or other impending danger. The Committee believed
that it was necessary to establish a clearer guideline with respect to
hoisting personnel under windy conditions. C-DAC discussed setting a
particular wind speed at which hoisting personnel would be prohibited
(it considered, for example, that section 3.2.1(e) of ASME B30.23-2005
prohibits personnel hoisting operations when wind speed exceeds 20
mph). It determined that the number of variables involved at each site
precludes establishing a single wind speed threshold at which, in each
instance, it could be said that hoisting personnel is not safe. It did,
however, determine that 20 mph is an appropriate point at which a
determination, in all cases, needs to be made. Therefore, it found that
it was appropriate to have the qualified person evaluate all relevant
factors in order to determine if conditions are such that hoisting
personnel with wind speed over 20 mph is unsafe.
Proposed paragraph (k)(8)(ii), Environmental conditions--Other
weather and environmental conditions, would require a qualified person
to determine if it is not safe to hoist personnel when there are
indications of dangerous weather or any other impending/existing
dangerous environmental condition. Upon determination that it is
unsafe, personnel hoisting operations must not be started or must be
terminated if already in progress.
The purpose of this paragraph is to require evaluation of all
environmental conditions, including weather, by a qualified person, to
determine if the conditions make it unsafe to hoist personnel.
Dangerous conditions, such as those presented by severe weather, may
contribute to the hazards of platform tipping, unexpected platform
movement, dropping the platform, or structural failure of the platform
or equipment. Examples of non-weather environmental dangers would be a
neighboring fire that threatens the area of the crane operations or a
chemical release from a neighboring manufacturing facility that
threatens to drift into the area. Section 3.2.1(c) of ASME B30.23-2005
lists electric storms, snow, ice, sleet, or other adverse weather
conditions that could affect the safety of personnel as reasons for
suspending operations. Rather than listing specific dangers or events,
C-DAC believed that the determination of whether conditions were
dangerous was best left to the assessment of the qualified person.
As noted above, Sec. 1926.550(g)(6)(v) requires personnel hoisting
operations to stop when there is indication of any dangerous weather
conditions or other impending danger. The proposed paragraph continues
that requirement; however, it adds the requirement that a qualified
person must make the determination.
Proposed paragraph (k)(9) would require employees being hoisted to
remain in direct communication with either the signal person (where
used) or equipment operator at all times. In some instances the
platform occupants are in a better position to see potential problems
developing than the operator, or to recognize that there is some other
safety-related need for the operator to take action. In addition, there
are instances when the operator becomes aware of a developing problem
and needs to communicate that to the employees being hoisted. This
provision would ensure that such information can be communicated
quickly between the hoisted employees and operator.
Currently, Subpart N's Sec. 1926.550(g)(6)(vi) requires hoisted
employees to remain in continuous sight of and in direct communication
with the operator or signal person. Reliance on direct communication
alone (such as by radio) is only permitted when visual contact with the
operator is not possible and the use of a signal person (to relay
information by hand signals) would create a greater hazard. The
Committee believed that direct communication, either with a signal
person (when used) or with the operator, is an effective way for the
hoisted employees to communicate with the operator and that Sec.
1926.550(g)(6)(vi)'s preference for visual contact does not add to
safety. Accordingly, proposed Sec. 1926.1431(k)(9) would allow direct
communication with a signal person or the operator in all instances.
Proposed paragraphs (k)(10)(i) and (ii), Fall protection, would
require employees on the personnel platform to be provided with and use
a personal fall arrest system attached to a structural member within
the personnel platform. The fall arrest system (including the
attachment point) must comply with Sec. 1926.502, Fall protection
systems criteria and practices. When hoisting personnel over water, a
personal fall arrest system would not be required since, in the event
that an error or failure occurred that resulted in the employees being
in the water, being tied-off would exacerbate the drowning hazard.
However, the requirements of Sec. 1926.106, Working over or near
water, would apply.
The purpose of this requirement is to protect employees from a fall
hazard while in the personnel platform in the event of sudden movement,
tipping, or other circumstance in which a fall would not be prevented
by the platform's guardrail system. This is similar to the requirements
of Subpart N's Sec. 1926.550(g)(6)(vii). However, it replaces use of a
"body belt/harness system with lanyard" with "personal fall arrest
system" to reflect current technology, terminology and practice for
personal fall protection and to be consistent with 29 CFR part 1926
subpart M's personal fall arrest system requirements. Additionally, the
Committee determined that the requirement in the current standard to
attach a personal fall arrest system to the "lower load block or
overhaul ball" was no longer considered good industry practice and,
instead, an employee needs to be tied off to "a structural member
within the personnel platform." Tying off to the lower load block or
overhaul ball places the employee at risk of being pulled through the
top of the personnel platform and into the rigging attached to the
personnel platform.
Proposed paragraph (k)(11)(i), Other load lines, would mandate that
while hoisting personnel no other lifts may be made with any of the
equipment's other load lines. This proposed provision has several
purposes. First, it would prevent platform tipping due to entanglement
with other load lines or loads. Second, it would reduce the chance that
the equipment would be overloaded. Third, when hoisting personnel, it
is essential that the operator's full attention be devoted to the
personnel; use of another load line would necessarily divert his/her
attention. This is comparable to the requirement of Subpart N's Sec.
1926.550(g)(6)(viii), with the addition of an exception for pile
driving equipment. In pile driving operations, personnel have to be
hoisted at times as part of the pile driving operation while the pile
driving apparatus is being suspended on another load line.
In reviewing this aspect of the C-DAC document, the Agency noted
that under the C-DAC language, the provision would have applied only
when personnel were "suspended on a platform." Since there are
specified exceptions to the proposed requirement to use a personnel
platform, there will be specific instances where personnel will be
hoisted without a platform. The Agency believes that it is equally
important to safety that the prohibition against using any other load
lines apply in these instances (with the exception of pile driving
operations, in which it is not feasible to use only one load line), and
that this was a textual oversight by the Committee. Therefore, OSHA has
modified the C-DAC language of this provision so that the prohibition
would apply "while personnel are being hoisted. * * *" OSHA requests
comment on this change.
Proposed paragraph (k)(11)(ii), Other load lines, would allow the
use of a winch line while hoisting personnel when all of the following
factors are present: the personnel platform is a factory-produced boom-
mounted personnel platform incorporating a winch as original equipment,
the load on the winch line does not exceed 500 pounds, and the load on
the winch line itself does not exceed the rated capacity of the winch
and platform. The Committee believed that, when all of these factors
are present, there is little chance that the use of the winch line
would compromise safety.
Proposed paragraph (k)(12)(i), Traveling--equipment other than
derricks, would prohibit any traveling by equipment with hoisted
employees except in two circumstances. The first is where the equipment
is traveling on fixed rails. The second is where the employer
demonstrates that there is no less hazardous way to perform the work
than by traveling. However, this second exception does not apply to
rubber-tired equipment, for which traveling is always prohibited.
Traveling with hoisted employees is also always prohibited for
derricks, as set forth under proposed Sec. 1926.1431(k)(13), discussed
below.
Traveling while hoisting personnel is generally prohibited due to
several additional risks that it presents. The platform will tend to
swing when the equipment is traveling, which presents an increased
likelihood of employee injury from platform tipping or loss of footing.
If the swing is pronounced, the equipment could become unbalanced and
its capacity exceeded. Also, the chance of an unplanned circumstance or
event increases when the equipment travels, which heightens the risk to
the employees being hoisted. Therefore, the exception to this
prohibition is narrowly drawn.
Traveling would be permitted with equipment that travels on fixed
rails, as travel on fixed rails is relatively stable and predictable,
which reduces the chance of significant uncontrolled movement.
Traveling may be done with equipment that is not on fixed rails and not
rubber-tired, but only where the employer can demonstrate that there is
no less hazardous way to perform the work.
However, traveling would be prohibited with rubber-tired equipment.
The Committee was of the view that traveling with such equipment while
hoisting personnel is inherently dangerous due to the bouncing and
swaying of the equipment that is inherent in this type of equipment
because of the tires and suspension.
The current requirements of Subpart N at Sec. 1926.550(g)(7)(i),
prohibit hoisting employees while a crane is traveling "except for
portal, tower or locomotive cranes, or where the employer demonstrates
that there is no less hazardous way to perform the work." The proposed
paragraph would have a clearer restriction on equipment traveling by
establishing a complete prohibition on traveling while hoisting
employees for any rubber-tired equipment. Instead of referring to
particular types of cranes, the proposed paragraph allows for hoisting
personnel by equipment that travels on fixed rails, which more directly
relates to what makes the use of such equipment acceptable for this
purpose. The proposed paragraph still allows for hoisting personnel if
there is no less hazardous means to do the work, but this exception
does not apply to rubber-tired equipment.
Proposed paragraph (k)(12)(ii), Traveling--equipment other than
derricks, would establish certain criteria that would have to be met
when traveling with employees is allowed. The purpose of this proposed
paragraph is to establish the conditions necessary to minimize the
effect of traveling on the stability of the equipment and personnel. In
order to hoist employees while traveling, the following would be
required: travel restricted to a fixed track or runway; distance of
travel limited to the length of the boom, including any attached jib;
the boom parallel to the direction of travel (unless it is safer otherwise);
and a complete trial run performed to test the travel route before employees
occupy the platform.
In proposed Sec. 1926.1401, a "runway" is defined as a firm
level surface designed, prepared and designated as a path of travel for
the weight and configuration of the equipment being used to lift and
travel with the personnel platform, including an existing surface. For
the purposes of this proposed paragraph, OSHA believes it is necessary
to clearly define what constitutes a runway since its purpose differs,
for example, from a runway on a gantry crane. The function of the
runway required by this proposed paragraph would be to provide a stable
surface for equipment during travel to minimize unexpected movement.
This definition is included to remain consistent with the term, without
change, as it is used in Subpart N of 29 CFR part 1926. The required
trial run may be done at the same time as the trial lift testing the
lift route (see proposed paragraph (h)).
This continues the requirements of Subpart N's Sec.
1926.550(g)(7)(ii) with three exceptions. Currently, "the boom must be
parallel to the direction of travel"; the proposed paragraph allows an
exception when it is safer to travel with the boom not parallel to the
direction of travel. For example, if the work was being done to the
side of the crane, and booming to parallel would take the personnel
platform closer to a power line, and the manufacturer permits the crane
to travel with the boom to the side, it would be safer to travel with
the boom to the side in this instance. Next, the Committee determined
that the current travel limit of "the load radius of the boom" was
confusing terminology and found that a clearer and equally safe
restriction would be to limit the distance of travel to the "boom
length." Finally, as discussed above, the proposed paragraph would
prohibit all traveling while hoisting personnel with rubber-tired
equipment. The current standard (Sec. 1926.550(g)(7)(ii)(E)) in effect
allows use of rubber-tired equipment in limited conditions.
Proposed paragraph (k)(13), Traveling--derricks, would prohibit a
derrick from traveling while it is hoisting personnel. The current
requirements of Subpart N that address traveling refer only to cranes.
C-DAC believed that the intent of Subpart N was to prohibit derricks
from traveling with hoisted employees and decided it was necessary to
note this exclusion to eliminate any ambiguity. Hoisting employees on a
traveling derrick is dangerous because derricks are not sufficiently
stable when traveling. This proposed paragraph reflects the current
industry practice as reflected in section 3.3.4(a)(14) of ASME B30.6-
2003, "Derricks."
Paragraph 1431(l) [Reserved.]
This proposed paragraph is reserved because it is inconvenient for
readers to distinguish the letter "l" from the number "1."
Paragraph 1431(m) Pre-Lift Meeting
This proposed paragraph would require a meeting prior to the trial
lift at each new work location to review the requirements of this
section and the procedures to be followed when hoisting personnel. The
pre-lift meeting would be attended by the equipment operator, signal
person (when one is used for the lift), employees to be hoisted, and
the person responsible for the task to be performed.
Also, this paragraph would require this meeting to be repeated when
an employee is newly assigned to the operation. The purpose of this
requirement is to make all employees involved in the personnel hoisting
operation aware of the requirements of this section and the plan for
the personnel lift. This would provide an opportunity for all employees
involved to have a common and complete understanding of the hoisting
operation and to give uniform information and instructions immediately
prior to the lift. This would address hazards which could result from
misunderstanding of the requirements, particular lift conditions or
procedures.
The provisions of proposed paragraph (m) are comparable to the
requirements of Sec. 1926.550(g)(8).
Paragraph 1431(n) Hoisting Personnel Near Power Lines
This proposed paragraph would prohibit hoisting personnel within 20
feet of a power line 350 kV and below or within 50 feet of a power line
over 350 kV, except for work that is covered by 29 CFR part 1926
Subpart V, Power Transmission and Distribution.
The purpose of this requirement is to establish a safe clearance
distance from power lines to protect employees from an electrocution
hazard that would result if the personnel, a personnel platform, or
equipment made electrical contact with a power line. The clearance
distances are similar to those in proposed Sec. 1926.1407 and Sec.
1926.1408 for equipment operating near power lines. However, under
Sec. 1926.1407 and Sec. 1926.1408, clearances less than 20 and 50
feet are permitted for certain voltage ranges. Here, the Committee
believed that the extra risk that arises when personnel are hoisted
near a power line justifies the requirement to maintain the minimum
distances of 20 feet for lines 350 kV or less and 50 feet for lines
over 350 kV regardless of whether operations at closer distances
without hoisting personnel would be permitted.
Currently, Subpart N at Sec. 1926.550 has no specific requirement
for hoisting personnel near power lines, and the normal minimum
distances established by that standard apply.
Paragraph 1431(o) Hoisting Personnel in Drill Shafts
This proposed paragraph would provide requirements when hoisting
personnel in drill shafts that are 8 feet and smaller in diameter. C-
DAC noted that drill shafts of this size may be either too small to use
a personnel platform, or that use of a personnel platform might not
allow the room needed to perform the necessary work. As a result, the
Committee determined that, due to the limitations of a drill shaft of
this size, use of a personnel platform would typically be infeasible
and a boatswain's chair may be the only practical means of hoisting
personnel and performing the necessary work.
"Boatswain's chair" is defined in Sec. 1926.1401 as "a single-
point adjustable suspension scaffold consisting of a seat or sling
(which may be incorporated into a full body harness) designed to
support one employee in a sitting position." Except for the
parenthetical, this definition is identical to that in OSHA's
construction scaffolding standard, Sec. 1926.450(b). The parenthetical
has been added to clarify that a boatswain's chair in which the seat or
sling is incorporated into a full body harness complies with the
standard.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(1) would allow the employer to use
either a personnel platform or a boatswain's chair; the employer would
have the option of choosing which one to use.\73\ When the employer
elects to use a boatswain's chair in lieu of a personnel platform,
particular supplementary requirements in proposed paragraph (o)(3) would
have to be met. These particular requirements address the heightened danger
that the employee may fall from the chair or contact the wall of the drill
shaft. Subpart N does not have requirements that specifically address hoisting
personnel in drill shafts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Note that, under proposed Sec. 1926.1431(a), an employer
may only use equipment to hoist personnel when other means of
reaching the work area would present a greater hazard or would not
be possible because of the project's structural design or worksite
conditions. C-DAC provided, in paragraphs (o)(2) and (o)(3)(i), that
paragraph (a) applies to the use of either a personnel platform or a
boatswain's chair. Therefore, before using either means to hoist
personnel in drill shafts, the employer would need to determine that
hoisting personnel in lieu of using other means of access to the
work area is the least hazardous, or the only, means to gain access
to the work area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(1) would require that the employer use
either a personnel platform or boatswain's chair.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(2) would require the employer to follow
requirements (a) through (n) of Sec. 1926.1431 when using a personnel
platform to hoist employees. This would make clear that the provisions
in proposed paragraph (o) are supplementary requirements.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(3) would establish the requirements
when the employer elects to use a boatswain's chair in lieu of a
personnel platform for hoisting personnel.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(3)(i) would establish which of the
previous proposed paragraphs in Sec. 1926.1431 would continue to apply
when using a boatswain's chair. For these applicable paragraphs, the
reader would substitute the phrase "boatswain's chair" for either
"personnel platform" or "platform," and the employer must comply
with these requirements.
The proposed paragraphs omitted from proposed Sec.
1926.1431(o)(3)(i) would not apply when a boatswain's chair is used.
This is because the requirement is either specifically applicable to
personnel platform design and use, or generally not applicable when
hoisting personnel in a drill shaft.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(3)(ii) would require a signal person to
be stationed at the opening of the shaft during personnel hoisting. The
purpose is to have the signal person at the best position to watch the
employee being hoisted and signal the equipment operator, since the
employee would be out of visual range of the operator.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(3)(iii) would require the employee to
be hoisted in a slow, controlled descent and ascent. This is to limit
swinging or sudden movement of the boatswain's chair to prevent fall
from the chair or impact with the walls of the drill shaft.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(3)(iv) would require the employee in
the boatswain's chair to use personal fall arrest equipment, including
a full body harness, that is attached independent of the crane/derrick.
The purpose of requiring a tie off point independent of the equipment
is to protect the employee from a sudden drop or fall due to equipment
failure or other problem associated with the operation of the crane/
derrick and to protect the employee from falls when accessing and
egressing the boatswain's chair.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(3)(v) would require fall protection
equipment to comply with Sec. 1926.502, Fall Protection Systems
Criteria and Practices.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(3)(vi) would require the boatswain's
chair (excluding the personal fall arrest anchorages) to be capable of
supporting, without failure, its own weight plus a minimum of five
times the maximum intended load. This is similar to the requirement for
personnel platforms at proposed Sec. 1926.1431(e)(4). The strength
requirement that would be applicable to personal fall arrest anchorages
is in Sec. 1926.502(d)(15).
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(3)(vii) would mandate that only one
person be hoisted at a time when using a boatswain's chair. The
Committee believed that hoisting more than one person using a
boatswain's chair in a drill shaft would present unacceptable
additional hazards for the employees being hoisted.
Paragraph 1431(p) Hoisting Personnel for Pile Driving Operations
This proposed paragraph would provide requirements for hoisting
personnel in pile driving operations. Subpart N does not have
provisions that specifically address hoisting personnel in pile driving
operations.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(p)(1) would require that the employer use
either a personnel platform or boatswain's chair when hoisting
personnel in pile driving operations. As with drill shafts, C-DAC
believed that use of a personnel platform would often be infeasible in
this type of operation, and Sec. 1926.1431(p)(1) therefore gives the
employer the option of choosing which one to use.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(p)(2) would require the cable being used
to hoist personnel to be clearly marked at the point on the cable that
would allow the equipment operator the opportunity to stop the hoist to
prevent two-blocking. In the C-DAC document an alternative to marking
the cable would have been permitted: use of a spotter to observe the
lift and alert the equipment operator in time to prevent two-blocking.
An anti-two-blocking device would not be required for equipment during
pile driving operations since the vibration of the pile driver would
destroy this device. (See Sec. 1926.1431(d)(4)(iv), Anti-two-block).
In reviewing this portion of the C-DAC document, the Agency has
noted that the means of preventing two-blocking in the C-DAC language,
that is, to mark the cable or use a spotter, is consistent with the
temporary alternative measure for an anti two-block device specified in
proposed Sec. 1926.1416(d)(3)(ii)(D) for lattice boom cranes. However,
as indicated in proposed Sec. 1926.1416(d)(3)(i), marking the cable is
not sufficient for telescopic boom cranes when extending the boom. As
discussed above in the context of that proposed provision, when
extending a telescopic boom, a spotter is needed to warn against two-
blocking.
The Agency believes that the Committee developed its language for
preventing two-blocking when pile driving with only lattice boom cranes
in mind, since that is the type of equipment that is commonly used for
this work. However, as technology and construction practices evolve,
telescopic boom cranes may be used for this work as well. Therefore,
the Agency has modified the C-DAC language so that proposed Sec.
1926.1431(p)(2) would require that, when using a telescopic boom crane
for pile driving operations, a spotter must be used in addition to
marking the cable. The Agency requests public comment on this issue.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(p)(3) would require the employer to follow
requirements (b) through (n) of Sec. 1926.1431 when using a personnel
platform to hoist employees. Section 1926.1431(a) would not apply
because the Committee determined that the employer should not be
required to demonstrate that the other means of access listed in Sec.
1926.1431(a) are infeasible before being able to use a personnel
platform to hoist personnel during pile driving operations. C-DAC
believed that demonstrating infeasibility prior to using a personnel
platform should not be required because, in most instances, it is not
feasible to use other means of access.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(p)(4) would establish the requirements
when the employer elects to use a boatswain's chair in lieu of a
personnel platform for hoisting personnel.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(p)(4)(i) would establish which of the
previous paragraphs in Sec. 1926.1431 continue to apply when using a
boatswain's chair in a pile driving operation. For these applicable
paragraphs, the reader would substitute the phrase "boatswain's
chair" for either "personnel platform" or "platform" and the
employer must comply with these requirements.
The proposed paragraphs omitted from proposed Sec.
1926.1431(p)(3)(i) do not apply when a boatswain's chair is used
because the requirement is either specifically applicable to personnel
platform design and use or generally not applicable for pile driving
operations.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(p)(4)(ii) would require the employee to be
hoisted in a slow, controlled descent and ascent. This is to limit
swinging or sudden movement of the boatswain's chair to prevent a fall
from the chair or impact with equipment or other structures.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(p)(4)(iii) would require that the employee
in the boatswain's chair use personal fall arrest equipment, including
a full body harness. The fall arrest system must be attached to either
the lower load block or the overhaul ball. The purpose of having the
fall protection equipment and tie off point independent of the
boatswain's chair and rigging used to hoist the employee is twofold. It
would both protect the employee from a sudden drop or fall due to
failure of that equipment and protect the employee when accessing and
egressing the boatswain's chair.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(p)(4)(iv) would require fall protection
equipment to comply with Sec. 1926.502, Fall protection systems
criteria and practices. This would ensure that the fall equipment is
sufficient to safely arrest the employee's fall.
In reviewing this portion of the C-DAC document, the Agency has
noted that the Committee did not include a provision similar to
proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(3)(vi)(drill shafts) and Sec.
1926.1431(s)(3)(v)(storage tanks) to require a minimum strength for the
boatswain's chair. In addition, it did not include a provision similar
to proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(3)(vii)(drill shafts) and Sec.
1926.1431(s)(3)(vi)(storage tanks) to restrict hoisting to one person
at a time. Accordingly, the Agency is planning to add the following
provisions to proposed Sec. 1926.1431(p)(4) and requests public
comment on these additions.
(v) The boatswain's chair itself (excluding the personal fall
arrest system anchorages), shall be capable of supporting, without
failure, its own weight and at least five times the maximum intended
load.
(vi) No more than one person shall be hoisted at a time.
Paragraph 1431(q) [Reserved.]
This paragraph is reserved because it is inconvenient for the
reader to distinguish the letter q, when in parentheses, from the
letter o.
Paragraph 1431(r) Hoisting Personnel for Marine Transfer
This proposed paragraph would address the particular hazards
related to hoisting personnel for transfer to or from a marine
construction worksite. Currently, Subpart N does not address the
particular hazards and requirements of marine personnel transfer. This
proposed paragraph would apply only when hoisting employees solely for
such transfer.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(r)(1) would require the employer to use
either a traditional personnel platform or a marine hoisted personnel
transfer device. This proposed paragraph would allow an employer to use
a marine hoisted personnel transfer device instead of a personnel
platform for several reasons. Transferring personnel to or from a
marine construction site poses special problems due to the effects of
waves and gusting wind. These effects, which can be unpredictable, can
result in a situation where the equipment operator will not be able to
adequately control the equipment. In such a situation, the device used
to transfer the employees may suddenly wind up in the water. Another
possibility is that the employees may need to jump off into the water
to avoid a collision with the ship or an object on the construction
site. A third possibility is that the operator will be unable to
control the equipment while the employees are attempting to board or
disembark. The longer it takes to get on or off, the greater this risk
becomes. In all of these scenarios the employees need to be able to
either enter or exit the device being used to transfer them quickly and
easily.
A personnel platform, which is designed, in part, to keep the
employees inside, would, in most marine situations, compound the hazard
faced by the employees, since they can be difficult to enter and exit
quickly. For example, there is usually a gate that latches shut. Also,
the gate may prevent more than one employee from entering or exiting at
a time. In contrast, a marine hoisted personnel transfer device is
designed specifically to facilitate the employees' rapid entry and
exit. The Committee believed that the employer should have the option
of using such a device so that it may be used where, in the judgment of
the employer, the conditions are such that the risk of being prevented
from entering or exiting quickly is greater than the risk of
unintentionally falling off.
OSHA notes that proposed Sec. 1926.1431(r)(1) would give employers
an unrestricted choice of whether to use a personnel platform or a
marine hoisted personnel transfer device despite the fact that the
personnel platform would often be a less safe choice. OSHA requests
public comment on whether the employer should be required to select the
device used for marine transfer on the basis of which is safer under
the circumstances or should otherwise restrict the use of personnel
platforms for marine transfer.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(r)(2) would require the employer to follow
requirements (a) through (n) of Sec. 1926.1431 when using a personnel
platform to hoist employees. As discussed previously, these provisions
are designed to ensure that hoisting personnel is the safest means of
moving the employees and that the personnel platform's design and use
are adequate from a safety standpoint.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(r)(3) would establish the requirements
when the employer elects to use a marine hoisted personnel transfer
device in lieu of a personnel platform for hoisting personnel.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(r)(3)(i) would establish which of the
previous paragraphs in Sec. 1926.1431 continue to apply when using a
marine hoisted personnel transfer device. For these applicable
paragraphs, the reader would substitute the phrase "marine hoisted
personnel transfer device" for either "personnel platform" or
"platform" and the employer must comply with these requirements.
The paragraphs omitted from proposed Sec. 1926.1431(r)(3)(i) do
not apply when a marine hoisted personnel transfer device is used. This
is because the requirement is either specifically applicable to
personnel platform design and use or generally not applicable when
hoisting personnel at a marine worksite.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(r)(3)(ii) would require the marine hoisted
personnel transfer device to be used exclusively for transferring
employees. One purpose of this proposed provision is to not allow the
device to be used as a work platform. The device's design, which
specifically facilitates easy and rapid entry and exit, is ill-suited
to providing a safe work platform. In particular, it is not designed to
prevent falling while an employee uses his or her hands for working
rather than holding on to the device. Also, it is ill-suited as a
material transfer device because it is not designed to prevent
materials from falling from it and could be damaged by such use.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(r)(3)(iii) would limit the number of
employees on the marine hoisted personnel transfer device to the
maximum number the device was designed to hold. This would prevent
overloading, which could result in structural failure of the device. It
would also prevent overcrowding, which could cause an unintended fall
or preclude a worker from entering or exiting as rapidly as when used properly.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(o)(3)(iv) would require each employee
being transferred on a marine hoisted personnel transfer device to wear
a U.S. Coast Guard personal flotation device that is approved for
industrial use. The purpose is to protect the employee from drowning if
the device enters the water, or if the employee falls or needs to jump
into the water.
Paragraph 1431(s) Hoisting Personnel for Storage Tank (Steel or
Concrete), Shaft and Chimney Operations
This proposed paragraph would establish requirements when hoisting
personnel in storage tank (steel or concrete), shaft operations and
chimney operations. C-DAC determined that use of a personnel platform,
while usually feasible, is infeasible in some circumstances involving
these operations due to the nature of the work activity. Consequently,
the Committee determined that boatswain's chairs should be allowed
instead of a personnel platform in such instances, but only when the
employer can demonstrate that use of a personnel platform is
infeasible.\74\ For these reasons, proposed Sec. 1926.1431(s)(1) would
allow the employer to use a boatswain's chair only when the employer
has determined that use of a personnel platform is infeasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ There is no current requirement in Subpart N that
specifically addresses hoisting personnel in storage tanks (steel or
concrete), shaft operations, or chimney operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(s)(2) would require the employer to follow
requirements (a) through (n) of Sec. 1926.1431 when using a personnel
platform to hoist employees. Under proposed Sec. 1926.1431(a), an
employer may only use equipment to hoist personnel when other means of
reaching the work area would present a greater hazard or would not be
possible because of the project's structural design or worksite
conditions. Therefore, before using a personnel platform to hoist
personnel in storage tank (steel or concrete), shaft operations and
chimney operations, the employer would need to determine that hoisting
personnel in lieu of using other means of access to the work area is
the least hazardous, or the only, means to gain access to the work
area.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(s)(3) would establish the requirements
when the employer uses a boatswain's chair in lieu of a personnel
platform for hoisting personnel.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(s)(3)(i) would establish which of the
previous paragraphs in Sec. 1926.1431 continue to apply when using a
boatswain's chair. For these applicable paragraphs, the reader would
substitute the phrase "boatswain's chair" for either "personnel
platform" or "platform" and the employer must comply with these
requirements.
The paragraphs omitted from proposed Sec. 1926.1431(s)(3)(i) do
not apply when a boatswain's chair is used. This is because the
requirement is either specifically applicable to personnel platform use
and design or generally not applicable when hoisting personnel in
storage tanks (steel or concrete), shaft operations and chimney
operations.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(s)(3)(ii) would require the employee to be
hoisted in a slow, controlled descent and ascent. This is to limit
swinging or sudden movement of the boatswain's chair to prevent fall
from the chair or impact with the walls or other areas or structures
involved in these operations.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(s)(3)(iii) would require the employee in
the boatswain's chair to use personal fall arrest equipment, including
a full body harness, that is attached independent of the crane/derrick.
Having the tie off point independent of the equipment protects the
employee from a sudden drop or fall due to equipment failure or other
problem associated with the operation of the crane/derrick and to
protect the employee from falls when accessing and egressing the
boatswain's chair.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(s)(3)(iv) would require fall protection
equipment to comply with Sec. 1926.502, Fall protection systems
criteria and practices. This would ensure that the fall equipment is
sufficient to safely arrest the employee's fall.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(s)(3)(v) would require the boatswain's
chair to be capable of supporting, without failure, its own weight plus
a minimum of five times the maximum intended load. This is consistent
with the requirement for personnel platforms at Sec. 1926.1431(e)(4).
Proposed Sec. 1926.1431(s)(3)(vi) would mandate that only one
person be hoisted at a time when using a boatswain's chair. The
Committee believed that hoisting more than one person using a
boatswain's chair in these operations would present unacceptable
additional hazards for the employees being hoisted.
Section 1432 Multiple Crane/Derrick Lifts
This proposed section lists additional requirements for operations
involving multiple cranes and derricks. It addresses hazards arising
from operations that use more than one crane/derrick to lift a single
load. This section evolved from the Committee's concern that such
operations involve an additional level of risk due to their higher
degree of complexity. Specifically, the number and type of factors that
must be accounted for, the difficulties associated with closely
coordinating the movement of the multiple cranes/derricks, and the
likelihood that such lifts are typically outside the normal routine for
most employers, combine to create this higher level of risk.
Consequently, the Committee agreed that such lifts need an additional
level of planning and expertise over that required in routine
operations. This section would require development and implementation
of a plan by qualified persons, which would result in proactive
decision-making and greater awareness and caution during multiple-
crane/derrick operations.
Currently, Subpart N, through incorporation of section 5-3.2.31 of
ANSI B30.5-1968, addresses multiple lifts as follows: "When two or
more cranes are used to lift one load, one designated person shall be
responsible for the operation. He shall analyze the operation and
instruct all personnel involved in the proper positioning, rigging of
the load, and the movements to be made." As discussed below, this
proposed rule also requires supervision of the operation and
instruction of personnel but, in addition, specifies qualifications
that the person who supervises the lift must have and contains
additional provisions to ensure safety.
Paragraph 1432(a) Plan Development
The purpose of the proposed requirement for a plan is to help
ensure that the hazards involved with a multiple lift are identified
and eliminated. These hazards include, but are not limited to, load
slipping and unintended load shifting. Such hazards can be minimized by
a plan that addresses elements such as the capacity of the cranes/
derricks relative to load distribution (throughout the lift), load
rigging, load travel (from start to finish), and communication. The
Committee discussed several specific methods of addressing these
hazards, but in view of the wide variety and circumstances of such
lifts, determined that a plan-based requirement would be most
appropriate and would be effective in reducing the risks associated
with these operations.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1432(a)(1) would require that a qualified
person develop the plan. Because of the inherent complexity of these
operations, Committee members believed that it is necessary for a person
with a high degree of knowledge and experience to develop the plan; otherwise,
there is a significant likelihood that the plan would be ineffective in
addressing the hazards. Therefore, the Committee determined that the
plan developer would need to be a qualified person.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1432(a)(2) would require that the plan be
designed to ensure that the requirements of this Subpart are met. This
provision emphasizes that all applicable requirements in the proposed
standard must be met when performing multiple crane/derrick lifts, in
addition to the specific requirements set forth in this section. The
Committee believed that it was important to emphasize this in the plan
to help ensure safe multiple-crane/derrick lift operations.
Paragraph 1432(a)(3)
Proposed Sec. 1926.1432(a)(3) would require engineering expertise
to be provided by the employer whenever the qualified person determines
that it is necessary. In the view of the Committee, some, but not all
multiple-crane/derrick lifts need to be planned with engineering
expertise so that the lift can be performed safely. The Committee
believed that it is not practical to set criteria in this proposed rule
for identifying which lifts need such expertise.
Paragraph 1432(b) Plan Implementation
Under this proposed paragraph, the employer would be required to
take specific steps designed to ensure that the decisions and
precautions built into the plan are effectively implemented.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1432(b)(1) would require supervision of plan
implementation by competent and qualified persons, or by one person who
meets the definitions of both. The Committee believed that, especially
in light of the inherent complexity of these operations, it is
essential that a person (or team) with sufficient expertise and
authority oversee the implementation of the plan. Supervision by a
person or team with the attributes of both a competent and qualified
person would ensure not only that potential problems are identified,
but also that the person in charge of oversight will have the authority
to correct anything that is amiss. For a detailed explanation of
competent and qualified persons, refer to the preamble discussion of
proposed Sec. 1926.1404(a), Supervision--competent-qualified person.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1432(b)(2) would mandate that the supervisor
review the plan with all employees who will be involved with the
operation before lift operations begin. This would typically involve
the signal person, rigging crew, crane operator, and sometimes
laborers, who would all meet to make certain that everyone understands
the plan and how the operation will be conducted. The Committee
believed that it is important for employees to know how the plan will
work, including their responsibilities and the responsibilities of
others, to help ensure that the diverse aspects of the operation will
be coordinated.
Section 1433 Design, Construction and Testing
Currently, Subpart N includes design, construction, and testing
requirements for specific types of equipment that either incorporate
pre-1970 consensus standards or that require equipment to conform to
manufacturer's specifications. The former category includes: Crawler,
locomotive, and truck cranes (ANSI B30.5-1968, incorporated by 29 CFR
1926.550(b)(2)); overhead and gantry cranes (ANSI B30.2.0-1967,
incorporated by 1926.550(d)(4)); and derricks (ANSI B30.6-1969,
incorporated by Sec. 1926.550(e)). The latter includes hammerhead
tower cranes (Sec. 1926.550(c)(5)) and floating cranes and derricks
(Sec. 1926.550(f)(2)(iii)). Except for crawler, locomotive, and truck
cranes, design, construction and/or testing requirements for each of
these categories of equipment is addressed in a section of this
proposed standard that is dedicated to that type of equipment. This
proposed section contains certain requirements applicable only to
crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes and, in addition, contains
requirements that apply to all of the equipment subject to this
standard.
The C-DAC draft provides that the requirements of this section
"apply to equipment that has a manufacturer-rated hoisting/lifting
capacity of 2,000 pounds or more." However, proposed Sec. 1926.1441
sets forth requirements for equipment with a rated capacity of 2,000
pounds or less and excludes Sec. 1926.1433 from the requirements for
such equipment. The two sections conflict with respect to equipment
rated at 2,000 pounds, which is a common rating. It is OSHA's
understanding that C-DAC included the 2,000-pound cutoff to parallel
ANSI B30.5 in this regard. The 1968 and 2004 versions of ANSI B30.5, as
well as intermediate versions, exclude equipment with a capacity of one
ton or less. To conform to that intent in the proposed rule, OSHA has
changed the introductory sentence so that it reads: "The following
requirements apply to equipment that has a manufacturer-rated hoisting/
lifting capacity of more than 2,000 pounds."
Paragraph 1433(a)
Proposed paragraph (a) would require that crawler, truck and
locomotive cranes manufactured prior to the effective date of this
standard meet the applicable requirements for design, construction, and
testing prescribed in ANSI B30.5-1968, safety code for "Crawler,
Locomotive, and Truck Cranes," "PCSA Standard No. 2," the
requirements in paragraph (b), or the applicable DIN (Deutsches
Institut fur Normung e.V., or German Institute for Standardization)
standards that were in effect at the time of manufacture.
This proposed provision would allow employers to continue to use
equipment that complies with Sec. 1926.550(b)(2) of Subpart N and also
gives them the flexibility to use equipment that was built to conform
to applicable DIN standards. The Committee concluded that the equipment
manufactured during this period that was built to conform to the
applicable DIN standards has not shown signs of being less safe from
the standpoint of its design and construction than equipment built
during this period to meet the applicable ANSI or PCSA standards.
The C-DAC draft of this paragraph, and of Sec. 1926.1433(c) (see
discussion below), referred to "the effective date of 1926.1400"
instead of the "effective date of the standard." For consistency
throughout this proposal, OSHA has changed the references to "the
effective date of 1926.1400" to "the effective date of the
standard."
Paragraph 1433(b)
Proposed (b) uses the phrase "mobile and locomotive cranes" to
reflect the current terminology used in ASME B30.5-2004. As drafted by
C-DAC, it would require that mobile (including crawler and truck) and
locomotive cranes manufactured on or after the effective date of this
standard meet certain provisions of ASME B30.5-2000 with addenda ASME
B30.5a-2002, "Safety Code for Mobile and Locomotive Cranes." Here, as
elsewhere in this proposal, OSHA has updated the provision to refer to
the 2004 version of ASME B30.5. OSHA has compared the 2004 and earlier
version and, as discussed below, requests public comment on whether
certain changes in the 2004 version should be adopted. The provisions
of ASME B30.5-2004 incorporated in the C-DAC document are as follows:
(1) In section 5-1.1.1 ("Load Ratings--Where Stability Governs
Lifting Performance"), paragraphs (a)-(d) (including subparagraphs);
(2) In section 5-1.1.2 ("Load Ratings--Where Structural Competence
Governs Lifting Performance"), paragraph (b);
(3) Section 5-1.2 ("Stability (Backward and Forward)");
(4) In section 5-1.3.1 ("Boom Hoist Mechanism"), paragraphs (a),
(b)(1) and (b)(2), except that when using rotation resistant rope,
Sec. 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(A) applies;
(5) In section 5-1.3.2 ("Load Hoist Mechanism"), paragraphs (a),
(a)(2)--(a)(4) (including subparagraphs), (b)--(d) (including
subparagraphs);
(6) Section 5-1.3.3 ("Telescoping Boom");
(7) Section 5-1.4 ("Swing Mechanism");
(8) In section 5-1.5 ("Crane Travel"), all provisions except 5-
1.5.3(d);
(9) In section 5-1.6 ("Controls"), all provisions except 5-
1.6.1(c);
(10) Section 5-1.7.4 ("Sheaves");
(11) Section 5-1.7.5 ("Sheave sizes");
(12) In section 5-1.9.1 ("Booms"), paragraph (f);
(13) Section 5-1.9.3 ("Outriggers");
(14) Section 5-1.9.4 ("Locomotive Crane Equipment");
(15) Section 5-1.9.7 ("Clutch and Brake Protection"); and
(16) In section 5-1.9.12 ("Miscellaneous equipment"), paragraphs
(a), (c), (e), and (f).
C-DAC's intent in this paragraph was to incorporate design and
construction provisions of ASME B30.5-2004 that would only be
applicable to mobile and locomotive cranes. Some other provisions of
ASME B30.5-2004 are not incorporated here because they deal with issues
addressed elsewhere in this proposal. For example, two-block
protection, which is required by section 5-1.9.9.1 of the ASME
standard, is addressed in Sec. 1926.1416 of this proposed standard. In
addition, the issues addressed in proposed paragraph (e) below are
addressed in ASME B30.5-2004 but, instead of making those provisions
applicable solely to mobile and locomotive cranes, C-DAC drafted
corresponding provisions that would be applied to all of the equipment
subject to this proposed standard.
The sections of ASME B30.5 referenced in proposed Sec.
1926.1433(b)(1) and (b)(13) contain substantive differences between the
2004 and earlier versions. For Sec. 1926.1433(b)(1), Table 1 of
section 5-1.1.1 includes new requirements for equipment with outriggers
partially extended that are not found in the earlier version. For
paragraph Sec. 1926.1433(b)(13), the 2004 version of section 5-1.9.3
contains a new paragraph (d) dealing with deploying partially extended
outriggers. Inasmuch as Sec. 1926.1404(q)(1) of this proposal permits
partial deployment of outriggers when manufacturer procedures permit,
OSHA believes it would serve C-DAC's intent to incorporate the
provisions on partially deployed outriggers in the 2004 version of ASME
B30.5. OSHA requests public comment on this issue.
Upon reviewing the C-DAC draft of Sec. 1926.1433(b)(5), OSHA notes
that two corrections are necessary. First, there is an internal
inconsistency between the incorporation of paragraph (a) of the ASME
section and the more limited incorporation of paragraphs (a)(2) through
(a)(4). To correct this inconsistency, OSHA is deleting the reference
to paragraph (a). Second, as noted earlier in the discussion of Sec.
1926.1414, the second sentence of section 5-1.3.2(c) of ASME B30.5-2004
is stated as a recommendation rather than a mandatory requirement. OSHA
believes it would be confusing to incorporate a non-mandatory
recommendation into this standard. Therefore, rather than incorporating
all of section 5-1.3.2(c) by reference, OSHA is proposing to
incorporate only the first sentence, which reads: "When provided, a
power-controlled lowering system shall be capable of handling rated
loads and speeds as specified by the manufacturer." With these
changes, proposed Sec. 1926.1433(b)(5) reads as follows:
(5) In section 5-1.3.2 ("Load Hoist Mechanism"), paragraphs
(a)(2)-(a)(4) (including subparagraphs), (b) (including
subparagraphs), (c) (first sentence only), and (d).
Finally, due to renumbering, section 5-1.9.12 of the older ASME
standard is section 5-1.9.11 in the 2004 version. The proposed rule
reflects this change.
Paragraph 1433(c)
Proposed (c), Prototype testing, would require that prototype
mobile (including crawler and truck) and locomotive cranes manufactured
on or after the effective date of this standard meet the prototype
testing requirements in Sec. 1926.1433(c)(1), Test Option A or Sec.
1926.1433(c)(2), Test Option B of this proposed section. As discussed
in greater detail below, Test Option A continues the prototype testing
methodology that has been required under Subpart N for crawler,
locomotive, and truck cranes through the incorporation of ANSI B30.5-
1968. Test Option B would permit, as an alternative, the use of
computer modeling technology for prototype evaluation.
Test Option A--Physical Testing
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i), Test Option A, would state that the
following applies to equipment with cantilevered booms (such as
hydraulic boom cranes): all the tests listed in SAE J1063, Table 1,
shall be performed to load all critical structural elements to their
respective limits; and all the strength margins listed in SAE J1063,
Table 2 shall be met. As mentioned in previous paragraphs of this
proposed standard, C-DAC recognized the abundance of hydraulic cranes
now in production and believed OSHA needs to ensure that prototypes are
tested to the most applicable standards. C-DAC identified current SAE
standards as being most protective and applicable to the majority of
cantilevered-boom cranes that are manufactured in the United States. In
addition, they believed that most U.S. manufacturers already adhere to
the SAE standards.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1433(c)(1)(ii) states that the following
applies to equipment with pendant supported lattice booms: all the
tests listed in SAE J987, Table 1, shall be performed to load all
critical structural elements to their respective limits; and all the
strength margins listed in SAE J987 Table 2 shall be met. C-DAC
recommended that OSHA include the minimum testing criteria specified in
the referenced SAE standard to ensure that prototype cranes with
pendant supported booms were safe to operate on construction sites.
The testing involved in the SAE tables under Option A uses
empirical measurements of the prototype; in other words, "physical
testing," using equipment such as strain gauges, is done to determine
if the prototype is within the requisite limits.
Test Option B--Computer Modeling With Methodology Verification
In contrast to the physical testing required under Test Option A,
under proposed Sec. 1926.1433(c)(2), Test Option B, the testing and
verification requirements of CEN's EN 13000 (2004), which permits tests
to be conducted using computer modeling, would apply. In using the CEN
(Comite Europe en de Normalisation, or European Committee for
Standardization) standard, the additional requirements specified in
proposed Sec. 1926.1433(c)(2)(i) through (iii), which impose
conditions that must be met if computer modeling is used, would also
have to be met.
During the C-DAC meetings, there was considerable discussion about
whether computer modeling is a sufficient substitute for physical
testing. A German crane manufacturer gave a presentation to C-DAC in
which they described successful experience with the use of computer
modeling, which convinced some members of C-DAC that computer modeling
should be allowed to be used to comply with this proposed section.
Other C-DAC members were not convinced that computer modeling was
sufficient to ensure that prototype cranes were safe for operation
because the tested areas of those cranes were not strain gauged. Others
believed that data was available which indicated that, when CEN testing
standards were met, imported cranes were as safe as those tested using
the strain gauging methods specified in Sec. 1926.1433(c)(1).
Ultimately, C-DAC agreed to allow testing under the CEN standard but to
mandate that the requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.1433(c)(2),
discussed below, are met to ensure the reliability of the computer
modeling.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1433(c)(2)(i) would require that the analysis
methodology (computer modeling) demonstrate that all load cases listed
in SAE J1063 meet the strength margins listed in SAE J1063 Table 2 for
equipment with cantilevered booms (such as hydraulic boom cranes). C-
DAC determined that it is necessary that the computer modeling
demonstrate that the prototype meets the same minimum strength criteria
used in Test Option A (see proposed Sec. 1926.1433(c)(1)(i), Test
Option A, above).
Proposed Sec. 1926.1433(c)(2)(ii) would require that the analysis
methodology (computer modeling) demonstrate that all load cases listed
in SAE J987 meet the strength margins listed in SAE J987 Table 2 for
equipment with pendant supported lattice booms. This proposed provision
was included for the same reason as explained in the discussion of
proposed Sec. 1926.1433(c)(2)(i) above.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1433(c)(2)(iii), Analysis verification, is
designed to ensure that computer modeling would not be used as a
substitute for physical testing unless its accuracy and reliability is
verified. Some C-DAC members raised objections to reliance on computer
modeling because it may not accurately account for some aspects of a
design, or may not be reliable for other reasons. Their concern was
that if the analysis methodology did not accurately or reliably account
for some aspect of the design, such error might not be known until
there had been a failure of the crane when in use.
To address this concern, under this proposed provision, computer
modeling may only be used as a substitute for strain gauge testing if
the reliability of the computer modeling is verified by a history of
strain gauge testing, or strain gauge testing combined with other
physical testing. This does not mean that each computer modeling
assessment of a particular prototype must be verified with strain gauge
testing of that prototype. Rather, it means that strain gauge testing,
or strain gauge testing combined with other physical testing, has been
used to confirm the results of the computer modeling in enough relevant
instances, which are documented, to demonstrate that the modeling is
accurate and reliable.
Some members of C-DAC were concerned that small employers would not
have the resources to determine if the computer modeling used to test
its crane met the specified SAE standards. This concern is addressed by
proposed paragraph (e), which allows employers to rely on manufacturer
documentation to show that the testing requirements of this proposed
standard have been met.
The C-DAC draft included a Sec. 1926.1433(c) that would have
required that prototype testing of crawler, locomotive, and truck
cranes meet the applicable requirements for prototype testing
prescribed in ANSI B30.5-1968. Upon reviewing that provision, OSHA
notes that it is included in the requirement of proposed Sec.
1926.1433(a) that such cranes meet the applicable testing requirements
of ANSI B30.5-1968. To avoid any confusion that such duplication may
cause, OSHA is deleting C-DAC's proposed Sec. 1926.1433(c) and has
redesignated the paragraphs that followed it. However, to make clear
that this deletion does not alter the substantive requirement for
prototype testing in the C-DAC document, OSHA is adding a note at the
end of paragraph (c) that states that prototype testing of crawler,
locomotive and truck cranes manufactured prior to the effective date of
the standard must conform to paragraph (a).
OSHA notes that neither proposed Sec. 1926.1433(c) nor any other
proposed provisions would apply prototype testing requirements to tower
cranes. It appears to the Agency that this was an oversight on the part
of C-DAC. OSHA requests public comment on whether there should be
prototype testing requirements for tower cranes, and, if so, what
requirements should apply.
Paragraph 1433(d)
Proposed paragraph (d) would mandate that all equipment covered by
this Subpart meet the requirements listed in Sec. 1926.1433(d)(1)
through (d)(13) of this proposed section. As noted above, the issues
addressed by paragraph (d) are addressed by ASME B30.5-2004. However,
instead of making those requirements apply solely to mobile and
locomotive cranes, C-DAC believed that all equipment covered by this
proposal presents similar issues and drafted this paragraph to apply to
all covered equipment.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1433(d)(1), Load capacity/ratings and related
information, would require the employer to ensure that the information
available in the cab (see Sec. 1926.1417(c)) regarding load capacity/
ratings and related information include the data listed in Sec.
1926.1433(d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(xvi). This proposed paragraph
essentially tracks section 5-1.1.3 of ASME B30.5-2004 but uses wording
that makes the provisions of the ASME standard applicable to all
equipment subject to this standard. Some of this information is already
required for mobile and locomotive cranes by Subpart N's incorporation
of ANSI B30.5-1968. C-DAC believed that these equipment specifications
need to be made available for the operator to reference in the cab so
that the operator has immediate access to information needed to ensure
safe operation.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1433(d)(2), (3), and (4) are comparable to
requirements in section 5-1.7.6 of ASME B30.5-2004. Proposed Sec.
1926.1433(d)(2) would require that load hooks (including latched and
unlatched types), ball assemblies and load blocks be of sufficient
weight to overhaul the line from the highest hook position for boom or
boom and jib lengths and the number of parts of the line in use. C-DAC
explained that due to the various lengths of booms possible and the
weight of varying lengths of cable along the entire lengths of those
booms, selection of sufficiently weighted ball assemblies and load
blocks is crucial to safe hoisting operations. C-DAC believed that this
proposed requirement is necessary to prevent any incidents that would
occur when ball assemblies, load blocks, and load hooks are of
insufficient weight to keep the load line from being unintentionally
pulled up the boom due to the weight of the load line itself.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1433(d)(3) would require that hook and ball
assemblies and load blocks be marked with their rated capacity and
weight. C-DAC believed that marking this equipment with their rated
capacities is needed to help ensure that they are not overloaded, which
could lead to loss of the load. Marking them with their weight is necessary
to help enable employers to comply with proposed Sec. 1926.1433(d)(2)
(discussed above).
Proposed Sec. 1926.1433(d)(4), Latching hooks, would require that
hooks meet the requirements in Sec. 1926.1433(d)(4)(i)-(iii) of this
proposed section. C-DAC believed that these proposed requirements would
help employers reduce or eliminate the number of incidents related to
the unintentional disengaging of loads from their load line hooks.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1433(d)(4)(i) would require that hooks be
equipped with latches, except where the requirements of Sec.
1926.1433(d)(4)(ii) are met. C-DAC believed that the use of hooks with
latches is an industry recognized practice but also recognized that
there are some circumstances where the use of a hook with a latch
presents a greater hazard. For example, if an employee would have to
climb up or out onto an unsecured, elevated member to unhook the load
after its placement, the employee would be exposed to a fall hazard.
To accommodate such greater hazard scenarios, proposed Sec.
1926.1433(d)(4)(ii) would require that hooks without latches, or with
latches removed or disabled, not be used unless two criteria are met.
First, a qualified person must determine that it is safer to hoist and
place the load without latches (or with the latches removed/tied-back).
Second, routes for the loads must be pre-planned to ensure that no
employee is required to work in the fall zone except for employees
necessary for the hooking or unhooking of the load.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1433(d)(4)(iii) would require that the latch
close the throat opening and be designed to retain slings or other
lifting devices/accessories in the hook when the rigging apparatus is
slack. This requirement was included to ensure that the rigging will
not be unintentionally dislodged from the hook when the rigging
apparatus is slack. C-DAC members described scenarios where loads had
become caught on structures or objects and created a slack condition.
This caused the rigging to become dislodged and resulted in the load
falling.
Proposed Sec. 1926.1433(d)(5), Posted warnings, states that posted
warnings required by this subpart as well as those originally supplied
with the equipment by the manufacturer shall be maintained in legible
condition. Compliance with this proposed requirement would increase the
likelihood that employees will recognize the hazard identified on the
posted warning and avoid or protect themselves from that hazard.
Proposed Sec. 1926.14
