OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.

March 25, 1993

Mr. Calvin W. Lutz
DaNite Sign Company
1640 Harmon Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43223

Dear Mr. Lutz:

This is in response to your June 23 request for a permanent variance from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard 29 CFR 1926.556(b)(2)(ix). I apologize for the delay in responding to your request.

It is the policy of OSHA not to comment on the conditions surrounding a citation under litigation. Likewise, it is not appropriate for the OSHA to entertain this request for variance until after the completion of the proceedings. In the meantime, your request has been referred to the Office of Variance Determination for evaluation and appropriate future action.

If we can be of any further assistance, please contact me or Mr. Dale Cavanaugh at (202) 219-8124.


Roy F. Gurnham, Esq., P.E.
Office of Construction and Maritime
Compliance Assistance

June 23, 1992

Assistant Secretary for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of
Labor, Washington D.C. 20210

Re: Application for permanent relief under section 6(c) Interim order of 1905.11 Variances and other relief


DaNite Sign Company 1640 Harmon Ave. Columbus, Ohio 43223

Job sites affected by application are varied throughout the state of Ohio.

Dear Assistant Secretary:

Along with this request we have submitted a request for relief from OSHA standard 1926.556(b)(2)(ix) Articulating boom and extendable boom platforms.

I would ask you to use the arguments for the variance as justification to granting an interim order until the case can have the proper review by your office.

The company has functioned under its current procedures for 30 plus years without incident. We were cited for the lack of controls in three of our trucks after an inspection of an accident. This accident was with one of the trucks that has remote controls. There was one function on the remote platform that couldn't be overridden from the ground station, this has since been corrected.

Our request is to allow us to continue to use our equipment to position personnel on work platforms that do not have upper controls.

The above citations are under discretionary review, OSHRC Docket No. 91-2123.

Respectfully submitted by: DaNite Sign Company

Calvin W. Lutz