454312.......................  Liquefied Petroleum Gas          1,881     2,001      11,711       4.22       1,333        56      651      0.05     1.16
                                (Bottled Gas) Dlrs.
482110.......................  Railroads...................        NA        NA          NA         NA          NA        NA       NA        NA       NA
486210.......................  Pipeline Transportation of          65        66         238      13.24       8,473     1,122      192      0.00     0.02
                                Natural Gas.
517110.......................  Wired Telecommunications         1,828     1,882       9,022       7.10       1,431       102       12      0.00     0.01
                                Carriers.
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Subtotal....................    33,969    11,734     139,941  .........  ..........  ........  .......  ........  .......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236115.......................  New Single family housing       29,962    29,962      95,670       4.67       1,192        56      455      0.04     0.82
                                construction.
236116.......................  New Multifamily housing          1,904     1,904       7,946       4.67       1,986        93      414      0.02     0.45
                                construction.
236117.......................  New housing operative           15,927    15,927      50,782       4.67       2,063        96      455      0.02     0.47
                                builders.
236118.......................  Residential Remodelers......     9,606     9,606      25,611       4.67         527        25      455      0.09     1.85
236210.......................  Industrial building              2,669     2,669      13,978       4.67       1,120        52      414      0.04     0.79
                                construction.
236220.......................  Commercial and Institutional    33,784    33,784     179,125       4.67       1,649        77      414      0.03     0.54
                                Bldg. Construction.
237110.......................  Water and Sewer Line Const..    11,306    11,306      59,055       5.22         841        44      414      0.05     0.94
237120.......................  Oil and gas pipeline             1,083     1,083       4,293       5.22         666        35      414      0.06     1.19
                                construction.
237130.......................  Power and communication line     2,149     2,149       8,580       5.22         630        33       67      0.01     0.20
                                const.
237210.......................  Land subdivision............         0         0           0      11.04           0         0        0      0.00     0.00
237310.......................  Highway, street and bridge         862       862       4,675       5.22         993        52      414      0.04     0.80
                                const.
237990.......................  Other heavy and civil engg..     2,295     2,295      10,166       5.22       1,261        66      414      0.03     0.63
238110.......................  Poured Concrete foundation      11,886    11,886      52,606       4.42         677        30      414      0.06     1.38
                                and struct.
238120.......................  Structural steel and precast     2,679     2,679      14,995       4.42         945        42      414      0.04     0.99
                                concrete.
238130.......................  Framing Contractors.........    13,043    13,043      48,914       4.42         345        15      414      0.12     2.72
238140.......................  Masonry Contractors.........     1,243     1,243       4,720       4.42         376        17      414      0.11     2.49
238150.......................  Glass & Glazing Contractors.       485       485       2,457       4.42         758        34      414      0.05     1.24
238160.......................  Roofing Contractors.........     1,722     1,722       7,015       4.42         637        28      414      0.07     1.47
238170.......................  Siding Contractors..........       506       506       1,627       4.42         359        16      414      0.12     2.61
238190.......................  Other foundation, structure,       237       237         909       4.42         290        13      414      0.14     3.24
                                building, ext.
238210.......................  Electrical Contractors......       691       691       2,953       4.32         434        19       67      0.02     0.36
238220.......................  Plumbing, Heating and Air-         872       872       3,855       3.86         551        21      414      0.08     1.95
                                conditioning Contractors.
238290.......................  Other building equipment           524       524       2,726       4.42         868        38      414      0.05     1.08
                                cont.
238310.......................  Drywall and insulation               0         0           0       4.42           0         0        0      0.00     0.00
                                contractors.
238320.......................  Painting and wall covering         392       392       1,267       4.42         326        14      414      0.13     2.87
                                contractors.
238330.......................  Flooring Contractors........         0         0           0       4.42           0         0        0      0.00     0.00
238340.......................  Tile and Terrazzo                    0         0           0       4.42           0         0        0      0.00     0.00
                                contractors.

238350.......................  Finish Carpentry contractors         0         0           0       4.42           0         0        0      0.00     0.00
238390.......................  Other building finishing             0         0           0       4.42           0         0        0      0.00     0.00
                                contractors.
238910.......................  Site Preparation............     3,579     3,579      13,406       4.56         561        26      414      0.07     1.62
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Subtotal....................   149,403   149,403     617,328  .........  ..........  ........  .......  ........  .......
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total....................   186,977   166,064     803,843  .........  ..........  ........  .......      0.08     1.69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ORA.
 U.S. Census Bureau data.
 Country Business Patterns, 2006; Statistics of U.S. Businesses 2006.
 Internal Revenue Service, Source Book, profit rates over 2000-2006.

2. A Succinct Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule
    The primary objective of the proposed standard is to provide an
increased degree of occupational safety for employees performing
construction work involving cranes/derricks. As stated above, an
estimated 157 injuries and 21 fatalities would be prevented annually
through compliance with this standard. Another objective of the
rulemaking is to provide employers and employees updated and more
complete safety standards for construction work involving cranes/
derricks.
    The legal basis for the rule is the Occupational Safety and Health
(OSH) Act of 1970. The OSH Act authorizes and obligates the Secretary
of Labor to promulgate mandatory occupational safety and health
standards as necessary ``to assure so far as possible every working man
and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to
preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 651(b).
3. Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in
Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Summary of
the Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any
Changes Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such Comments
    On August 18, 2006, OSHA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel (the Panel) for this rulemaking in accordance with the provisions
of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub.
L. 104-121), as codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The Panel consisted of
representatives of OSHA, the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget, and of the Office of
Advocacy within the U.S. Small Business Administration. The Panel
received oral and written comments on a draft proposal and a draft
economic analysis from small entities (businesses) that would
potentially be affected by the rule. The Panel, in turn, prepared a
written report which was delivered to the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health (which can be found in the docket for
this rulemaking). The report summarized the comments received from the
small entities, and included recommendations from the Panel to OSHA
regarding the proposal and the associated analysis of compliance costs.
OSHA sought comment on a variety of issues of particular interest to
small businesses as a result of the recommendations of the SBREFA
Panel. Table B-16 below summarizes the responses to these Panel
recommendations.

          Table B-16--Response to SBREFA Panel Recommendations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SBREFA panel recommendation                 OSHA response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Panel recommends that OSHA provide   OSHA has developed a full
 full documentation for how it            preliminary economic analysis
 estimated the number of affected small   (PEA) for the proposal which
 entities and all other calculations      explains all assumptions used
 and estimates provided in the PIRFA.     in estimating the costs and
                                          benefits of the proposed
                                          standard. The Final Economic
                                          Analysis (FEA) also explains
                                          the changes made to the
                                          analysis as a result of
                                          comments on the proposed rule,
                                          and OSHA's responses to these
                                          comments.
The Panel recommends that OSHA           OSHA included homebuilding
 reexamine its estimate of crane use in   industries in the ``Own but Do
 home building, the coverage of crane     Not Rent ``and ``Crane
 trucks used for loading and unloading,   Lessees'' industrial profile
 and the estimates of the number of       categories.
 jobs per crane. Changes in these        OSHA has also made a number of
 estimates should be incorporated into    additions to the industrial
 the estimates of costs and economic      profile to cover firms in
 impacts.                                 general industry that
                                          sometimes use cranes for
                                          construction work, and has
                                          added costs for these sectors.
The Panel recommends that OSHA review    OSHA sought comments on the
 its estimates for the direct costs of    estimates and methodology. As
 operator certification and seek          a result of these comments,
 comment on these cost estimates.         OSHA has increased its
                                          estimate of the unit costs of
                                          certification.

The Panel recommends that OSHA           OSHA sought public comment on
 carefully examine certain types of       all aspects (including
 impact that could result from an         economic impacts, wages,
 operator certification requirement,      number of operators, demand,
 including reports of substantial         etc.) of the operator
 increases in the wages of operators;     certification requirements,
 the possibility of increased market      specifically as it pertains to
 power for firms renting out cranes;      the State of California.
 and loss of jobs for existing           OSHA has included 2 hours of
 operators due to language, literacy,     travel time per operator into
 or knowledge problems; and seek          the unit costs for operator
 comment on these types of impacts. The   certification.
 Panel also recommends studying the      OSHA also increased the unit
 impacts of the implementation of         costs of operator
 operator certification in CA.            certification as a result of
                                          comments. However, based on
                                          comments, OSHA also reduced
                                          the OSHA percentage of crane
                                          operators still needing
                                          certification.
                                         The Agency reviewed data on
                                          wage rates for operators in
                                          California immediately before
                                          and after operator
                                          certification was required
                                          (Employment Development
                                          Department, Labor Market
                                          Information Division, State of
                                          California, 2007). The data
                                          did not show much change in
                                          operators' wages.
                                         OSHA also evaluated the changes
                                          in crane related fatality
                                          rates in California and found
                                          these had significantly
                                          declined after the California
                                          certification requirements
                                          were put into place.
The Panel recommends that OSHA           OSHA sought comment on the
 reexamine its estimates for the amount   methodology used to calculate
 of time required to assess ground        all of the costs in the PEA,
 conditions, the number of persons        which includes the costs for
 involved in the assessment, and the      assessing ground conditions.
 amount of coordination involved;        As a result of these comments,
 clarify the extent to which such         OSHA has added costs for
 assessments are currently being          examination of ground
 conducted and what OSHA estimates as     conditions. This addition of
 new costs for this rule represent; and   costs does not change OSHA's
 seek comments on OSHA's cost estimates.  conclusion that this standard
                                          is economically feasible.
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 former
 not normally conducted currently, such   standard at former Sec.
 as lowering and fully extending the      1926.550 required inspections
 boom before the crane can be used, and   each time the equipment is
 removing non-hinged inspection plates    used, as well as thorough
 during the shift inspection, estimate    annual inspections. In
 the costs of any such requirements,      addition, national consensus
 and seek comment on these issues.        standards that are
                                          incorporated by reference
                                          include additional inspection
                                          requirements. This final
                                          standard would list the
                                          inspection requirements in one
                                          place rather than rely on
                                          incorporated consensus
                                          standards. This final standard
                                          does not impose significant
                                          new requirements for
                                          inspections. OSHA received
                                          comments on the issue of
                                          lowering and fully extending
                                          the boom before the crane can
                                          be used. However, OSHA
                                          concludes that the comments
                                          were based on a general
                                          misunderstanding of the
                                          requirements. Section
                                          1926.1413(a) explicitly says
                                          that booming down is not
                                          required for shift (and
                                          therefore monthly)
                                          inspections.
                                         Similarly, OSHA stated in the
                                          proposed preamble (73 FR
                                          59770, Oct. 9, 2008) that it
                                          does not believe inspection of
                                          any of those items would
                                          require removal of non-hinged
                                          inspection plates. In the
                                          discussion of proposed Sec.
                                          1926.1412, OSHA requested
                                          public comment on this point.
                                          OSHA finalized Sec.
                                          1926.1412 as proposed because
                                          comments did not confirm that
                                          non-hinged plates needed to be
                                          removed to meet the
                                          requirements of a shift
                                          inspection.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  Previous subpart N, at former
 the costs of meeting the requirements    Sec.   1926.550(a)(2),
 for original load charts and full        required load charts; this is
 manuals, and solicit comments on such    not a new cost. Subpart N did
 costs.                                   not require manuals. OSHA
                                          concludes 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 determined that the
                                          cost of obtaining a copy of a
                                          manual should be modest and
                                          solicited comment on how many
                                          owners or operators do not
                                          have full manuals for their
                                          cranes or derricks. Few
                                          commenters saw this as a major
                                          problem.
The Panel recommends that OSHA provide   The Agency placed additional
 full documentation for its analysis of   materials in the rulemaking
 the benefits the proposed rule are       docket to aid in the
 expected to produce and assure that      reproduction of the benefits
 the benefits analysis is reproducible    analysis. The Agency also
 by others.                               developed a full benefits
                                          analysis (sec. 4 of the FEA)
                                          which includes the methodology
                                          and data sources for the
                                          calculations.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  In the discussion of proposed
 and solicit public comment on whether    Sec.   1926.1400(c)(8), OSHA
 the scope language should be clarified   requested public comment on
 to explicitly state whether forklifts    this issue.
 that are modified to perform tasks
 similar to equipment (cranes and
 derricks) modified in that manner
 would be covered.

The Panel recommends that there be a     OSHA explained in the
 full explanation in the preamble of      discussion 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 director
                                          share responsibility for
                                          ensuring adequate ground
                                          conditions. OSHA did not
                                          receive any significant
                                          comments on this issue and,
                                          therefore, considers this
                                          matter resolved.
The Panel recommends that OSHA restate   OSHA addressed 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 requested
 inspection section.                      public comment on the issue.
                                          Based on these comments, OSHA
                                          concludes that the
                                          requirements were clear as
                                          proposed, and repeating the
                                          provisions will create
                                          confusion. Therefore, OSHA did
                                          not restate the corrective
                                          actions in Sec.
                                          1926.1412(e).
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit   OSHA addressed 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 requested
 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 solicited comments on this
 public comment on whether to include     issue, but the Agency did not
 an exception for transportation          receive any significant
 systems in proposed Sec.                 comments supporting an
 1926.1412(a), which requires an          exception for transportation
 inspection of equipment that has had     systems. Based on the analysis
 modifications or additions that affect   of comments received about
 its safe operation, and, if so, what     Sec.   1926.1412(a), OSHA
 the appropriate terminology for such     concludes that the inspections
 an exception would be.                   of modifications as required
                                          by the final rule are
                                          sufficient to ensure that safe
                                          equipment is used. Therefore,
                                          OSHA did include the
                                          recommended exclusion in the
                                          final rule.
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 explained
 completed prior to each shift but may    that the shift inspection may
 be completed during the shift.           be completed during the shift.
                                          OSHA finalized Sec.
                                          1926.1412(d)(1) as proposed
                                          because the comments did not
                                          demonstrate how it was safer
                                          to deviate from the rule as
                                          proposed.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit   OSHA requested public comment
 public comment about whether it is       on this issue and revised the
 necessary to clarify the requirement     regulatory text of Sec.
 of proposed Sec.   1926.1412(d)(1)(xi)   1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) to provide
 that the equipment be inspected for      more clarity, in response to
 ``level position.''                      the comments the Agency
                                          received.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit   There is no requirement to
 comment on whether proposed Sec.         check the pressure ``at each
 1926.1412(f)(2)(xii)(D) should be        and every line.'' The
 changed to require that pressure be      provision simply states that
 inspected ``at the end of the line,''    relief valves should be
 as distinguished from ``at each and      checked for failure to reach
 every line,'' and if so, what the best   correct pressure. If this can
 terminology would be to meet this        be done at one point for the
 purpose. (An SER indicated that          entire system, then that would
 proposed Sec.                            satisfy the requirement.
 1926.1412(f)(2)(xiv)(D) should be
 modified to ``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   Section 1926.1412(f)(2)(xx) of
 public comment on whether proposed       the final rule does not
 Sec.   1926.1412(f)(2)(xx) should be     require the corrective action
 deleted because an SER believes that     to which the SER refers. If an
 it is not always appropriate to retain   inspection under Sec.
 originally-equipped steps and ladders,   1926.1412(f) reveals a
 such as in instances where they are      deficiency, a qualified person
 replaced with ``attaching dollies.''     must determine whether that
                                          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   In the discussion of proposed
 public comment on the extent of          Sec.   1926.1412(f)(7), OSHA
 documentation of monthly and annual/     requested public comment on
 comprehensive inspections the rule       this issue. OSHA finalized
 should require.                          Sec.   1926.1412(f)(7) as
                                          proposed because the comments
                                          did not demonstrate a need to
                                          modify the extent of required
                                          documentation.
The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit   In the discussion of proposed
 public comment on whether the            Sec.   1926.1412(e), OSHA
 provision for monthly inspections        requested public comment on
 should, like the provision for annual    this issue. In response to
 inspections, specify who must keep the   these comments, OSHA has
 documentation associated with monthly    explained in the final
 inspections.                             preamble that the employer who
                                          performs the inspection must
                                          maintain documentation. If
                                          another employer wants to rely
                                          on this inspection, but cannot
                                          ensure completion and
                                          documentation of the
                                          inspection, then that employer
                                          must conduct a monthly
                                          inspection.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  OSHA addressed 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 requested
 number for an operational aid for        public comment on the issue.
 older equipment and solicit public       The Agency did not receive any
 comment on the extent to which this is   significant comments.
 a problem.
The Panel recommends that the provision  Except for a minor change to
 on fall protection (proposed Sec.        Sec.   1926.1423(h), which was
 1926.1423) be finalized as written and   made for clarity purposes,
 that OSHA explain in the preamble how    OSHA has finalized Sec.
 and why the Committee arrived at this    1926.1423 as proposed. OSHA
 provision.                               explained the Committee's
                                          rationale in the proposed
                                          preamble discussion of Sec.
                                          1926.1423.

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  OSHA addressed 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 requested
 1926.1427 that would allow an operator   public comment on the issues
 to be certified on a particular model    raised by the Panel. Based on
 of crane; allow tests to be              these comments, OSHA is not
 administered by an accredited            permitting certification on a
 educational institution; and allow       particular crane model because
 employers to use manuals that have       the body of knowledge and
 been re-written to accommodate the       skills required to be
 literacy level and English proficiency   qualified/certified on a
 of operators.                            particular model of crane is
                                          not less than that needed to
                                          be qualified/certified for
                                          that model's type and
                                          capacity. OSHA is not allowing
                                          an institution accredited by
                                          the Department of Education
                                          (DOE) to certify crane
                                          operators solely on the basis
                                          of DOE accreditation; such
                                          institutions would, like other
                                          operator-certification
                                          entities used to fulfill
                                          Option (1), be accredited by a
                                          ``nationally recognized''
                                          accrediting body. Finally,
                                          OSHA is permitting employers
                                          to re-write manuals to
                                          accommodate the literacy level
                                          and English proficiency of
                                          operators.
The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify   In the discussion of proposed
 in the preamble how the proposed rule    Sec.   1926.1427(h), OSHA
 addresses an SER's concern that his      proposed to allow the oral
 crane operator would not be able to      administration of tests if two
 pass a written qualification/            prerequisites are met. None of
 certification exam because the           the comments explained why the
 operator has difficulty in taking        rule as proposed was not
 written exams.                           effective for evaluating the
                                          knowledge of the candidate.
The Panel recommends soliciting public   OSHA received public comments
 comment on whether the phrase            on this issue. In the final
 ``equipment capacity and type'' in       preamble discussion of Sec.
 proposed Sec.   1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B)   1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B), OSHA
 needs clarification, suggestions on      explains that the Agency added
 how to accomplish this, and whether      a definition of ``type'' in
 the categories represented in Figures    response to public comment.
 1 through 10 contained in ANSI B30.5-    The Agency also references
 2000 (i.e., commercial truck-mounted     ANSI crane categories to
 crane--telescoping boom; commercial      illustrate the meaning of
 truck-mounted crane--non-telescoping     ``type'' in this standard.
 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 addressed this
 public comment on whether the rule       recommendation in the
 needs to state more clearly that Sec.    discussion of proposed Sec.
  1926.1427(j)(1)(i) requires more        1926.1430(c), and explained
 limited training for operators of        that Sec.   1926.1427(j)(1)'s
 smaller capacity equipment used in       requirement for operator
 less complex operations as compared      training in ``the information
 with operators of higher capacity,       necessary for safe operation
 more complex equipment used in more      of the specific type of
 complex situations.                      equipment the individual will
                                          operate'' addressed the SERs'
                                          concern. However, the Agency
                                          sought public comment on this
                                          issue. OSHA finalized Sec.
                                          1926.1427(j)(1) as proposed
                                          because the comments failed to
                                          explain how the hazards
                                          related to the operation of
                                          smaller equipment differed
                                          from larger equipment. OSHA
                                          then concluded that the
                                          comments also were not
                                          persuasive as to why operators
                                          of smaller capacity equipment
                                          should be allowed limited
                                          training.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  OSHA addressed 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) requested public
 the capacity and type of equipment and   comment on the issue. The
 nature of operations.                    comments failed to explain how
                                          the hazards related to smaller
                                          equipment were any different
                                          from larger equipment. OSHA
                                          then concluded that the
                                          comments also were not
                                          persuasive as to why operators
                                          of smaller capacity equipment
                                          should be allowed limited
                                          training.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  OSHA addressed 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 requested
 qualification period (Sec.               public comment on the issue.
 1926.1427(f)) should have additional     In the proposed preamble, OSHA
 training beyond that required in the C-  stated that, where a
 DAC document at Sec.                     supervisor is not a certified
 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B).                 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.'' OSHA
                                          finalized this requirement
                                          without substantive change in
                                          Sec.   1926.1427(f)(3)(ii) as
                                          proposed because none of the
                                          comments demonstrated a need
                                          to require additional training
                                          for this qualified individual.
The Panel recommends OSHA solicit        In the discussion of proposed
 comment on whether there are qualified   Sec.   1926.1437(n)(2), OSHA
 persons in the field with the            requested public comment on
 necessary expertise to assess how the    this issue. Based on these
 rated capacity for land cranes and       comments, OSHA has concluded
 derricks used on barges and other        that there are qualified
 flotation devices needs to be modified   persons with dual expertise,
 as required by proposed Sec.             and that the requirement in
 1926.1437(n)(2).                         Sec.   1926.1437(n)(2) is
                                          necessary for safety when
                                          equipment is engaged in duty
                                          cycle work.
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  In the discussion of proposed
 and ask for comment on whether it        Sec.   1926.1440(a), OSHA
 would be appropriate to exempt from      requested public comment on
 the rule small sideboom cranes           this issue. These comments did
 incapable of lifting above the height    not provide any specific
 of a truck bed and with a capacity of    reason for exempting these
 not more than 6,000 pounds.              small sideboom cranes and,
                                          therefore, OSHA has not
                                          provided a small capacity
                                          sideboom crane exemption from
                                          this standard.

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. In the proposed
 to understand. (Several SERs believed    preamble Introduction, OSHA
 that the C-DAC document was so long      requested public comment on
 and complex that small businesses        this issue; however, the
 would have difficulty understanding it   Agency did not receive any
 and complying with it.)                  comments objecting to the
                                          length or clarity of the
                                          overall rule or offer any
                                          suggestions as to how it could
                                          be simplified.
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
                                          actions or conditions. OSHA
                                          notes that it cannot cite an
                                          employer for failing to have
                                          documentation not explicitly
                                          required by a standard. See
                                          also the discussion under
                                          proposed Sec.   1926.1402(e).
The Panel recommends soliciting public   In the discussion of proposed
 comment on whether the word ``days''     Sec.   1926.1416(d), OSHA
 as used in Sec.  Sec.   1926.1416(d)     requested public comment on
 and 1926.1416(e) should be clarified     this issue. As a clarification
 to mean calendar days or business days.  in response to the comments
                                          received, OSHA determines that
                                          the term ``days'' refers to
                                          calendar days.
The Panel recommends that OSHA           OSHA proposed a scope section,
 carefully discuss what is included and   Sec.   1926.1400, and
 excluded from the scope of this          discussed in detail the types
 standard.                                of machinery proposed to be
                                          included and excluded under
                                          this standard. OSHA received
                                          public comments on this
                                          proposed scope, analyzed the
                                          comments, and provided more
                                          discussion of the scope
                                          section in the final preamble.
The Panel recommends that OSHA gather    OSHA obtained and evaluated a
 data and analyze the effects of          study by the Construction
 already existing certification           Safety Association of Ontario
 requirements.                            showing that Ontario's
                                          certification requirement led
                                          to a substantial decrease in
                                          crane-related fatalities
                                          there. OSHA also examined both
                                          economic data of crane
                                          operator wage rates before and
                                          after the certification
                                          requirements, and fatality
                                          rates before and after the
                                          certification requirements.
                                         This data shows that costs
                                          disruptions were minimal, and
                                          that crane fatalities were
                                          significantly reduced as a
                                          result of the California
                                          certification standard.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  In the discussion of proposed
 excluding and soliciting comment on      Sec.   1926.1400(c), OSHA
 whether equipment used solely to         requested public comment on
 deliver materials to a construction      this issue. Based on the
 site by placing/stacking the materials   analysis of the comments
 on the ground should be explicitly       received, OSHA recognized an
 excluded from the proposed standard's    exclusion for delivery
 scope.                                   materials that should exclude
                                          most true deliveries, while
                                          avoiding creating a loophole
                                          to the standard that would
                                          allow materials-delivery firms
                                          to engage in extensive
                                          construction activities
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
 qualification/certification when         considered 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 addressed 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, and requested
 certified on a specific brand's model    public comment on the issue.
 of crane.                                Based on these comments, OSHA
                                          is not permitting
                                          certification on a particular
                                          crane model because the body
                                          of knowledge and skills
                                          required to be qualified/
                                          certified on a particular
                                          model of crane is not less
                                          than that needed to be
                                          qualified/certified for that
                                          model's type and capacity.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  OSHA addressed 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 requested
 an operator to be certified for a        public comment on this issue.
 specific, limited type of                Though several commenters were
 circumstance. Such a circumstance        in favor of this option, they
 would be defined by a set of             did not explain how these
 parameters that, taken together, would   lifts could objectively be
 describe an operation characterized by   distinguished from lifts
 simplicity and relatively low risk.      generally. Several other
 The Agency should consider and solicit   commenters indicated that the
 comment on whether such parameters       types of hazards present and
 could be identified in a way that        the knowledge needed to
 would result in a clear, easily          address those hazards,
 understood provision that could be       remained the same, regardless
 effectively enforced.                    of the capacity of the crane
                                          involved or the ``routine''
                                          nature of the lift (see
                                          discussion of Sec.
                                          1926.1427(a)). Based on these
                                          comments, the Agency has not
                                          promulgated such a provision.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider  OSHA addressed this
 and solicit public comment on allowing   recommendation in the
 the written and practical tests          discussion of proposed Sec.
 described in Option (1) to be            1926.1427(b)(3), and requested
 administered by an accredited            public comment on the issue.
 educational institution.                 Several comments were
                                          submitted in favor of allowing
                                          this option; however, they did
                                          not establish that Department
                                          of Education (DOE)
                                          accreditation would guarantee
                                          the same efficacy in
                                          certification as accreditation
                                          as a personnel certification
                                          entity.
                                         The hearing testimony of Dr.
                                          Roy Swift explained the
                                          difference in the types of
                                          accreditation and the reasons
                                          why DOE accreditation would
                                          not adequately address
                                          operator certification issues.
                                          Therefore, OSHA has finalized
                                          this provision as it was
                                          proposed.

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit   In the discussion of proposed
 public comment on making it clear        Sec.   1926.1427(h)(1), OSHA
 that: (1) An employer is permitted to    requested public comment on
 equip its cranes with manuals re-        this issue. Based on the
 written in a way that would allow an     analysis of the comments
 operator with a low literacy level to    received, OSHA concludes that
 understand the material (such as         these manuals may not be re-
 substituting some text with pictures     written as recommended because
 and illustrations), and (2) making it    it could cause information
 clear that, when the cranes are          important for safety to be
 equipped with such re-written manuals    omitted.
 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 the final rule is
 test does not need to be administered    issued, and will explain these
 in English but can be administered in    points 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these issues brought up by the SBREFA panel, SBA's
office of Advocacy provided a set of recommendations for OSHA to
consider. (ID-0147.) These recommendations and OSHA's responses to them
are summarized as follows:
    1. ``OSHA should consider eliminating the requirement for third-
party certification of crane operators--at least for some small cranes
or routine lifts.'' OSHA carefully examined this requirement. As noted
in the benefits sections, broadly speaking, such a requirement resulted
in major reductions in crane fatalities in both Ontario and California.
Further, as discussed in the preamble sections, there is no easy way,
beyond that already allowed, to eliminate third-party certification.
    2. ``OSHA should exempt equipment used solely to deliver materials
to a construction site by placing or staking the materials on the
ground.'' OSHA has clearly exempted such activities from the scope of
the final standard.
    3. ``OSHA should clarify the meaning of `construction'.'' As noted
above, OSHA has added material designed to aid in this distinction.
However, the definition of construction is not an issue in this
rulemaking, but is instead an issue for all construction rules.
    4. ``OSHA should further limit the `controlling entity' provisions
in the proposed rule.'' Advocacy was concerned that small businesses
may not be onsite, or may not have suitable expertise to meet the
requirements for controlling entities. However, the fact remains that
only the controlling entity can do what this section of the standard
requires: (1) Transfer any information they know of to the crane
operator; and (2) authorize action that will change ground conditions
to assure they are suitable for crane operations. The controlling
entity could, of course, authorize the crane operator to alter site
conditions as they wished to assure adequate safety--but it is the
controlling entity and not the crane operator that inevitably has
responsibility for site conditions.
    5. ``OSHA should not mandate that employers follow manufacturers'
recommendations.'' Advocacy's concern here was that manufacturers may
unduly limit crane operations out of liability concerns. However, only
the manufacturers know the limitations of the cranes they produce. As a
result, OSHA has retained these provisions. If Advocacy had provided
examples of clearly unnecessary provisions in manuals, their argument
might have been more convincing. In the absence of even a single
example, there seems no reason to reject this provision or provide
costs for it.
    6. ``OSHA should consider and document any `significant
alternatives' to the proposed rule.'' Advocacy was concerned that some
possible alternatives were not fully analyzed ``because OSHA had
committed to publishing the draft rule developed by C-DAC as the
proposed rule, [and did not give] full consideration [to] significant
alternatives that would specifically reduce the burden on small
businesses have not been documented in the proposed rule.'' OSHA
believes that reliance on the work of C-DAC was and remains,
appropriate. The two largest sources of costs in the rule are operator
certification and rules covering operations close to power lines. The
experience of Ontario and California shows that operator certification
can make a major difference to crane fatalities. Additional work done
for this final rule shows that construction crane fatalities also occur
in general industry sectors where construction work is performed. As a
result, and as more fully discussed in the scope and operator
certification sections of this preamble, OSHA continues to believe that
operator certification for cranes doing construction work is necessary
to prevent crane-related deaths and injury. OSHA also believes that the
power line rules developed through the expertise of C-DAC remain
necessary to address the largest single source of crane-related
construction fatalities--fatalities due to power line contact.
4. A Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Rule Will Apply
    OSHA completed an analysis of the economic impacts associated with
this final rule, including an analysis of the type and number of small
entities to which the rule would apply, as described above. To
determine the number of small entities potentially affected by this
rulemaking, OSHA used the definitions of small entities developed by
the Small Business Administration (SBA) for each industry.
    For the construction industry generally, SBA defines small
businesses using revenue-based criteria. For most of the affected
construction industries, including those industries that are mostly
comprised of general contractors, firms with annual revenues of less
than $31 million are classified as small businesses. For specialty
contractors, such as structural-steel erection contractors, firms with
annual revenues of less than $13 million are considered to be small
businesses. Based on the definitions of small entities developed by SBA
for each industry, the final rule is estimated to potentially affect a
total of 204,000 small entities, as shown in Tables B-13 and B-14.
Included in this number are an estimated 187,000

entities with fewer than 20 employees (Table B-15).
5. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the
Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement and
the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report
or Record
    The final rule addresses the work practices used, as well as other
requirements, for performing construction work involving cranes/
derricks. Employers are required to keep specified records associated
with inspections and operator certification/qualification.
    Other compliance requirements in the standard include the assembly
and disassembly requirements, encroachment-prevention precautions when
working near power lines, and ground condition and power line
assessments.
    The preamble to the standard provides a comprehensive description
of the standard's requirements. The final economic analysis located in
the preamble provides a description of the types of business entities
subject to these requirements, and the types of professional skills
necessary to comply with the requirements.
Regulatory Alternatives
    The Agency considered alternatives to the many provisions in the
proposed standard, and these are presented and discussed in the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis below, as well as throughout the
Preamble. Crane operator certification was one of the main issues in
the rulemaking, and the Agency concludes that provisions for
certification offer the most prominent way to consider both a more
stringent standard (requiring certification of inspectors, riggers, and
signal persons in addition to crane operators) as well as less
stringent option of dropping the requirement of crane operator
certification altogether.
    The Agency has estimated the additional annualized costs for crane
operator certification to be about $51 million annually--about one-
third of the estimated total costs of the final standard. Dropping this
requirement would reduce costs and impacts by that amount, roughly.
Without a Federal regulatory requirement, the level of operator
certification would be uncertain. A substantial percentage of operators
have already been certified. The Agency is convinced that certification
significantly improves the safe practices of crane operators, and that
increased protection has been the experience in several venues where
certification has been required. Liability insurers have reduced the
premium rates on employers who use certified operators. Some states and
cities also currently require crane operators to be certified. It is
likely that crane services in construction work would be divided into
two separate worlds without a Federal regulatory requirement: One with
certified operators, perhaps slightly more expensive but safer, and one
where operators are not certified but employers still have a
requirement to adequately train them. As it is difficult to predict
what the relative size of the market would be, it is not possible to
predict or estimate what the effect would be in terms of future crane
safety. The Agency did have substantial evidence in the record that
operator certification, although costly, sharply reduces crane
accidents, and did not adopt this alternative of dropping the operator
certification requirement.
    Several commenters in the rulemaking recommended that riggers,
crane inspectors, and signal persons also be certified. The final
standard requires riggers who perform tasks such as assembly/
disassembly be qualified, as defined in the construction standards'
definitions. The annualized cost of certifying a crane operator is
about $400 (spread over 5 years, 7 percent discount rate). The Agency
estimates that certifying a rigger would cost much less, about $100 per
year; a signal person, on average, $50 per year; and inspectors as much
as a crane operator. The Agency estimates that there needs to be, at
most, on average, one certified rigger per crane; one signal person for
every 3 cranes; and about 1,000 certified inspectors to conduct annual
inspections of all the estimated 123,000 construction cranes. The
Agency estimates that certification will annually cost about $100 for a
rigger, $50 for a signal person, and $400 for an inspector (as much as
a for a crane operator). The Agency estimates the total annual cost of
certifying will be $14.5 million ($12.3 million for riggers, $2 million
for signal persons, and $0.4 million for inspectors). The cost of crane
inspection is likely to increase since many employers will no longer be
able to have an employee perform an inspection, but the Agency is not
estimating that increased cost.
    Riggers are injured and killed more frequently than workers in any
other occupation during construction crane activities. They are injured
when cranes tip over or booms fall, by falling loads, by electrical
shock from power line contact, and through falls. The Negotiated
Rulemaking Committee focused on the safety of the crane itself
(capacity or loading limits, for example), crane movement or
operations, assembly/disassembly, and power line risk rather than risks
faced by riggers and signal persons who work with them. The Agency
concludes that more training and certification for riggers could
provide greater safety for them, but information in IMIS did not permit
a separate analysis of the role of riggers in crane safety. No
commenter who advocated certification for riggers provided more than a
qualitative assertion that increased crane safety would result. There
was similarly no information in the record that inspection failures had
resulted in accidents, save for one accident in New York City that
resulted from an inadequate repair to a tower crane part. The Agency
did not have enough information in the record to recommend or support
this alternative of requiring certification for riggers, signal
persons, or inspectors.

C. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The final Cranes and Derricks Standard contains collection of
information requirements (paperwork) that are subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In accordance with the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)), the proposed regulation solicited comments on the
information collection included in the proposal. The Department also
submitted an information collection request (ICR), titled ``Cranes and
Derricks in Construction (29 CFR part 1926 subpart CC),'' to OMB for
review in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) on the date the proposed
regulation was published. On January 8, 2009, OMB informed the
Department of Labor to use OMB control number 1218-0261 in future
submissions involving this rulemaking. OMB also commented, ``This OMB
action is not an approval to conduct or sponsor an information
collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.''
    OSHA received no public comments that addressed specifically the
paperwork burden analysis of the information collections. A number of
comments, described earlier in this preamble, contained information
relevant to the costs and burden hours attendant to the non-paperwork
provisions of the proposal, which OSHA considered when it developed the
revised burden analysis for the ICR associated with this final rule.

    Prior to publishing this final rulemaking, the Department of Labor
submitted the Cranes and Derricks ICR to OMB for OMB approval. OSHA
will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register that will
announce the results of that review and include any applicable OMB
control number. That notice also will include a summary of the
information collection requirements and burdens imposed by the new
standard. A copy of the ICR is available as an exhibit at http://
www.regulations.gov. The Department of Labor notes that a Federal
agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it
is approved by OMB under the PRA, and displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Also, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
employer shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information if the collection of information does not
display a currently valid OMB control number.
    The final Cranes and Derricks standard imposes new information-
collection requirements for purposes of PRA-95. These provisions are
necessary to protect the health and safety of employees who work with
equipment at construction worksites. The paperwork requirements impose
on employers a duty to produce and maintain records when they implement
controls and take other measures to protect workers from hazards
related to cranes and derricks used in construction. For example, each
construction business that has workers who operate or are in the
vicinity of cranes and derricks must have, as applicable, the following
documents on file and available at the job site: Equipment ratings,
employee training records, written authorizations from qualified
individuals, and qualification program audits. During an inspection,
OSHA must have access to these records to determine compliance under
conditions specified by the final standard. An employer's failure to
generate and disclose the information required by this standard will
have a substantial affect on the Agency's effort to control and reduce
injuries and fatalities related to the use of cranes and derricks in
construction.

D. Federalism

    The Agency reviewed this final rule according to the most recent
Executive Order (``E.O.'') on Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43225, Aug.
10, 1994). This E.O. requires that Federal agencies, to the extent
possible, refrain from limiting State or local policy options, consult
with States before taking actions that restrict State or local policy
options, and take such actions only when clear constitutional authority
exists, and the problem is national in scope. The E.O. allows Federal
agencies to preempt State and local law only with the expressed consent
of Congress. In such cases, Federal agencies must limit preemption of
State and local law to the extent possible.
    Under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(``OSH Act''; 29 U.S.C. 667), Congress expressly provides that States
may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; States that
obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as ``State-Plan
States.'' (29 U.S.C. 667.) Occupational safety and health standards
developed by State-Plan States must be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the
Federal standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are
free to develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for
occupational safety and health standards.
    OSHA has authority under E.O. 13132 to promulgate the final rule in
29 CFR part 1926 because the employee exposures related to cranes and
derricks used in construction addressed by the requirements of the
final standard are national in scope. The Agency concludes that the
requirements in this final rule will provide employers in every State
with critical information to use when protecting their employees from
the hazards presented when working with cranes and derricks.
    A number of commenters were concerned with the preemptive effect of
the final rule in jurisdictions not covered by an approved State plan.
Representatives of New York City urged OSHA to make clear that the new
standard will not preempt the City's ordinances governing the erection,
dismantling, and operation of cranes, including crane operator
licensing requirements, that protect the public in general. (ID-0342; -
0404.1.) \142\ The Allied Building Metal Industries Association, on the
other hand, stated that preemption of local crane laws is not only
preferable, but is mandated by the OSH Act. (ID-0344.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ The City of Chicago Department of Buildings submitted a
late comment expressing the same concerns as those of New York City.
(ID-0348.1.) The concerns expressed by Chicago are mainly the same
as those of New York, and are addressed in the discussion of the New
York laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OSH Act does not contain an express preemption provision.\143\
However, in accordance with ordinary conflict preemption principles,
preemption may be implied where the State law conflicts with Federal
law or is an impediment to full accomplishment of the Federal purpose.
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88, 100
(1992). The determination whether, under Gade, a State or local law is
impliedly preempted by a Federal occupational safety or health standard
involves a detailed examination of the specific provisions and purposes
of the law. The Secretary previously examined New York City's crane
ordinances and concluded that they were not preempted by the prior
crane standard. OSHA has placed the Secretary's amicus brief in Steel
Institute of New York v. The City of New York, No. 09-CV-6539 (CM)
(JCF) on the record. (ID-0419.1.) This brief presents the agency's
interpretation of the preemptive effect of the prior rule on New York
City's crane ordinances. For the same reasons set forth in the amicus
brief--which are summarized below--New York City's crane ordinances are
not preempted by this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ The proposed rule incorrectly stated that sec. 18 of the
Act expressly provides OSHA with authority to preempt State
occupational safety and health standards to the extent that the
Agency promulgates a permanent Federal standard (73 FR 59913, Oct.
9, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Steel Institute case, the Secretary concluded that the OSH
Act does not preempt municipal building codes like New York City's
crane ordinances, which are designed to protect the public and
neighboring structures from the hazards of cranes and do not conflict
with OSHA standards. In Gade, a plurality read the provisions of sec.
18 of the Act to preempt supplementary State laws that are not part of
an approved State plan. 505 U.S. at 100-108. However, sec. 18 refers to
states, not localities, and does not evince a clear intention to
preempt local building codes. The Gade decision did not address local
building codes, and the plurality's rationale for concluding that State
laws may be preempted does not apply with equal measure to municipal
building codes. The plurality relied chiefly on the availability of
sec. 18's State plan mechanism for states that wish to supplement
Federal requirements, and Congress's intent to encourage states to
assume full responsibility for safety and health through the State plan
process. (ID-0419.1.) Cities and localities, however, have no authority
under the Act to submit a State plan. Only a State

itself may submit a plan and that plan must apply throughout the State.
(ID-0419.1.) There was no majority consensus in Gade as to the
preemptive effect of an OSHA standard on supplementary laws not
addressed by sec. 18.
    A variety of factors support the view that building codes are not
the type of laws Congress intended to preempt in enacting sec. 18.
There is legislative history supporting this conclusion. Representative
Steiger, a primary sponsor of the Act, indicated that the Act would not
be preemptive in the event of an overlap between an OSHA standard and a
local building code. (ID-0419.1.) The Secretary has interpreted the Act
as not preempting laws such as building codes and OSHA rulemaking has
long proceeded on the assumption that local building codes exist in
parallel to OSHA regulations and are not preempted by them. For
example, in the preamble to the final rule on Exit Routes, Emergency
Action Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans, OSHA commended the
effectiveness of building codes while declining to recognize compliance
with building codes as compliance with the OSHA standard (67 FR 67950,
67954, Nov. 7, 2002). Strong policy considerations bolster this
understanding. Work practices and conditions pose a variety of serious
hazards to the public, and local jurisdictions have enacted a network
of industrial codes, such as building and electrical codes, that touch
on issues for which there are OSHA standards. If New York City's crane
ordinances are preempted because of their incidental impact on worker
safety, building and electrical codes, and many other types of local
regulation will also be in jeopardy. The text and history of the Act
give no indication that Congress intended such a sweeping preemptive
effect. (ID-0419.1.)
    A separate reason for concluding that New York City's crane laws
are not preempted is that they are laws of general applicability. The
Gade plurality stated that laws of general applicability, such as
traffic or fire safety laws, that regulate the conduct of workers and
nonworkers as members of the general public would not be preempted
regardless of their substantial effect on worker safety. 505 U.S. at
107.
    The New York City crane ordinances are not designed to protect
workers as a class; they regulate crane operations only to the extent
they pose a hazard to the public. The effect of the ordinances is to
protect a group far larger than employees on a construction site.
Cranes operate in some of the most densely populated areas of the city.
(ID-0404.1; -0342.) This density makes it generally impossible to
locate a crane or derrick so that it will not operate over or adjacent
to crowded streets, sidewalks and occupied buildings. Id. For the same
reason, mobile cranes, which can have booms hundreds of feet in length,
must park on and operate from, the street. Id. On any given day, more
than 300 cranes, including 30-40 tower cranes, operate in New York
City.\144\ Id. A recent study concluded that a tower crane operating in
NYC poses a risk to 12 to 15 surrounding buildings, several streets,
and 1,000-1,500 people. Id. A crane accident on March 15, 2008 killed a
woman in a brownstone one block away, destroyed eighteen buildings and
damaged many more within a several-block radius, and forced hundreds of
people from their homes. Id. Twelve members of the public were injured
in crane accidents between 2006 and 2008. Id. Although compliance with
the City's ordinances will unquestionably protect workers, such
protection is incidental to protection of all persons in the vicinity
regardless of their status as employees or non-employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ This means that tower cranes pose a risk to upwards of
60,000 people on any given day (40 x 1,500 = 60,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The City's crane laws are analogous to fire and safety laws in that
they comprehensively address a public hazard by imposing obligations on
a wide variety of persons without regard to the existence of an
employment relationship. Many of these duties are imposed on
manufacturers, owners, engineers, designated representatives and others
who need not be employers or employees. By contrast, this final rule,
like the prior crane rule, applies only to construction work as defined
in OSHA regulations, which relates to the performance of physical trade
labor on site and does not generally include engineers, who are the
subject of several of the City's ordinances.
    Comparison of the City's crane ordinances to fire safety laws--a
category of laws expressly recognized in Gade as being ``generally
applicable''--further bolsters the argument that the City's laws are
not preempted. 505 U.S. at 107. Fire safety laws impose requirements
that directly and substantially regulate workplace conduct to protect
the public and property from fire. (ID-0419.1.) For example, both the
International Fire Code, on which many local codes are based, and the
New York City Fire Code, contain provisions applicable to specific
workplaces, such as Aviation Facilities and Operations, and
Semiconductor Fabrication Facilities, and specific work operations,
such as Combustible Dust-Producing Operations and Welding and Other Hot
Work. Id. The New York and International Fire Codes also contain
requirements applicable during the construction of buildings, including
requirements for daily disposal of waste and limitations on the use of
portable oxygen containers and internal-combustion-powered equipment at
the construction site. Id. Like the City's crane safety laws, these
work-related fire safety laws include training, certification and
recordkeeping requirements. Id. The fact that New York City's crane
ordinances similarly regulate workplace conduct is therefore fully
consistent with the City ordinances being laws of general
applicability.
    Although the interpretation outlined above was developed based on
consideration of the specific provisions of New York City's crane
ordinances, the preemption principles set forth are generally
applicable. The agency does not believe that this final rule preempts
any non-conflicting local or municipal building code designed to
protect the public from the hazards of cranes.

E. State-Plan States

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, the 27 States and U.S. Territories
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans
(``State-Plan States'') must amend their standards to reflect the new
standard or amendment, or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary,
e.g., because an existing State standard covering this area is ``at
least as effective'' as the new Federal standard or amendment. 29 CFR
1953.5(a). The State standard must be at least as effective as the
final Federal rule, must be applicable to both the private and public
(State and local government employees) sectors, and must be completed
within six months of the promulgation date of the final Federal rule.
When OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose
additional or more stringent requirements than an existing standard,
State-Plan States are not required to amend their standards, although
the Agency may encourage them to do so. The 27 States and U.S.
Territories with OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans
are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,

Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming; Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey,
New York, and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that
apply to State and local government employees only.
    This final rule results in more stringent requirements for the work
it covers. Therefore, States and Territories with approved State Plans
must adopt comparable amendments to their standards within six months
of the promulgation date of this rule unless they demonstrate that such
amendments are not necessary because their existing standards are at
least as effective in protecting workers as this final rule.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    OSHA reviewed this final rule according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA''; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive
Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, Oct. 28, 1993). As discussed above in section
V.B of this preamble (``Summary of the Final Economic Analysis, and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis''), the Agency estimates that
compliance with this rule will require private-sector employers to
expend about $154.1 million each year. However, while this rule
establishes a Federal mandate in the private sector, the Agency's
standards do not apply to State, local, or Tribal governments except in
States that have elected voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved by
the Agency. Consequently, this final rule does not meet the definition
of a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' (see sec. 421(5) of the UMRA
(2 U.S.C. 658(5))). However, the rule imposes costs of over $100
million per year on the private sector, and is thus subject to the
requirement under UMRA for review of private sector costs. That
requirement is met in section V.B. of the preamble.

G. Applicability of Existing Consensus Standards

    Some of the types of equipment subject to this final standard are
addressed by current national consensus standards in the ASME B30
series, including: ASME B30.5-2004, ``Mobile and Locomotive Cranes'';
ASME B30.6-2003, ``Derricks''; ASME B30.8-2004, ``Floating Cranes and
Floating Derricks''; ASME B30.3-2004, ``Construction Tower Cranes'';
ASME B30.14-2004, ``Side Boom Tractors''; and ASME B30.2-2001,
``Overhead and Gantry Cranes.'' In addition, ASME B30.7-2005, ``Base-
Mounted Drum Hoists,'' addresses a type of equipment that is often a
component of derricks, and ASME B30.23-2005, ``Personnel Lifting
Systems,'' addresses issues that are covered by Sec.  1926.1431,
Hoisting personnel.
    The Committee consulted these ASME standards (or the most current
versions available at the time) and other resources in developing its
proposal. In most instances, the ASME standards that the Committee
consulted were entered into the docket, including: ASME B30.5-2000
(OSHA-S030-2006-0663-0334); ASME B30.5a-2002 Addenda (OSHA-S030-2006-
0663-0335); ASME B30.6-2003 (OSHA-S030-2006-0663-0337); ASME B30.17-
2003 (OSHA-S030-2006-0663-0338); ASME B30.3-1996 (OSHA-S030-2006-0663-
0353); and ASME B30.23-1998 (OSHA-S030-2006-0663-0354). When newer
versions of the ASME standards were issued after the Committee finished
its work, OSHA examined the updated standards to determine if the
provisions of the updated standards deviated in a significant way from
provisions on which the Committee relied. OSHA entered the updated
standards into the record of this rulemaking. For the most part, OSHA
did not find significant deviations between the updated versions and
the versions reviewed by the Committee. In the few instances in which
deviations occurred, OSHA identified those deviations and asked for
public comment on any issues raised.
    As discussed in detail in the Summary and Explanation of the
standard, a number of provisions in this final rule contain concepts
that are similar to the concepts underlying the various ASME standards.
However, the Committee determined that, in most instances, the wording
of the provisions in these ASME standards needed revision to improve
the enforceability, clarity, and ease of use.
    For some issues, the ASME standards do not address issues covered
by this final rule, or the Committee determined that a different
approach was necessary. For example, in the provisions on inspections
(Sec. Sec.  1926.1412 and 1926.1413), the Committee concluded that
shift, monthly, and annual inspection intervals are most appropriate,
in contrast to the ASME approach, which uses ``frequent'' and
``periodic'' intervals. In the provisions addressing assembly/
disassembly (Sec. Sec.  1926.1403 through 1926.1406) and the
encroachment-prevention provisions for power lines (Sec. Sec.
1926.1407 through 1926.1411), the Committee adopted approaches with no
comparable counterparts in the ASME standards.
    In some instances, the Committee determined that it was appropriate
to incorporate ASME standards by reference, in whole or in part. For
example, in Sec.  1926.1433 (Design, construction and testing), the
rule incorporates by reference ANSI B30.5-1968, safety code for
``Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes,'' PCSA Std. No. 2 (1968), for
crawler, truck and locomotive cranes manufactured prior to the
effective date of this final rule, and incorporates portions of ASME
B30.5a-2004, ``Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,'' for mobile cranes
(including crawler and truck cranes) and locomotive cranes manufactured
on or after the effective date of this final rule.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926

    Construction industry, Incorporation by reference, Occupational
safety and health, Safety.

VI. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation
of this notice. The Agency is issuing this final rule under the
following authorities: Sections 4, 6(b), 8(c), and 8(g) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657);
Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 3701 et seq.); Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159, Jun.
5, 2007); and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 16, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

VII. Amendments to Standards

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble of this final rule, the Agency
is amending 29 CFR part 1926 to read as follows:

PART 1926--[AMENDED]

Subpart A--General

0
1. The authority citation for subpart A of 29 CFR part 1926 is retained
as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 3704, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160) as applicable; and
29 CFR part 1911.

0
2. Section 1926.6 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.6  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The standards of agencies of the U.S. Government, and
organizations which are not agencies of the U.S. Government which are
incorporated by reference in this part, have the same force and effect
as other standards in this part. Only the mandatory provisions (i.e.,
provisions containing the word ``shall'' or other mandatory language)
of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as standards under
the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The locations where these
standards may be examined are as follows:
    (1) Offices of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, Washington, DC
20210.
    (2) The Regional and Field Offices of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, which are listed in the U.S. Government Manual.
    (b) The materials listed in paragraphs (g) through (ff) of this
section are incorporated by reference in the corresponding sections
noted as they exist on the date of the approval, and a notice of any
change in these materials will be published in the Federal Register.
These incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (c) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by
private standards organizations are available for purchase from the
issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact
information listed below for these private standards organizations. In
addition, these standards are available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of these standards at NARA, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, the standards are available for
inspection at any Regional Office of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), or at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY number:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    (d) [Reserved.]
    (e) [Reserved.]
    (f) [Reserved.]
    (g) The following material is available for purchase from the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1330
Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: http://
www.acgih.org:
    (1) Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants for 1970, 1970,
IBR approved for Sec.  1926.55(a) and Appendix A of Sec.  1926.55.
    (h) The following material is available for purchase from the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street,
Fourth Floor, New York, NY 10036; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 212-
302-1286; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: http://www.ansi.org/.
    (1) ANSI A10.3-1970, Safety Requirements for Explosive-Actuated
Fastening Tools, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.302(e).
    (2) ANSI A10.4-1963, Safety Requirements for Workmen's Hoists, IBR
approved for Sec.  1926.552(c).
    (3) ANSI A10.5-1969, Safety Requirements for Material Hoists, IBR
approved for Sec.  1926.552(b).
    (4) ANSI A11.1-1965 (R1970), Practice for Industrial Lighting, IBR
approved for Sec.  1926.56(b).
    (5) ANSI A17.1-1965, Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators, and Moving
Walks, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.552(d).
    (6) ANSI A17.1a-1967, Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators, and
Moving Walks Supplement, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.552(d).
    (7) ANSI A17.1b-1968, Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators, and
Moving Walks Supplement, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.552(d).
    (8) ANSI A17.1c-1969, Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators, and
Moving Walks Supplement, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.552(d).
    (9) ANSI A17.1d-1970, Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators, and
Moving Walks Supplement, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.552(d).
    (10) ANSI A17.2-1960, Practice for the Inspection of Elevators
(Inspector's Manual), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.552(d).
    (11) ANSI A17.2a-1965, Practice for the Inspection of Elevators
(Inspector's Manual) Supplement, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.552(d).
    (12) ANSI A17.2b-1967, Practice for the Inspection of Elevators
(Inspector's Manual) Supplement, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.552(d).
    (13) ANSI A92.2-1969, Vehicle Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work
Platforms, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1926.453(a) and 1926.453(b).
    (14) ANSI B7.1-1970, Safety Code for the Use, Care, and Protection
of Abrasive Wheels, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1926.57(g),
1926.303(b), 1926.303(c), and 1926.303(d).
    (15) ANSI B20.1-1957, Safety Code for Conveyors, Cableways, and
Related Equipment, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.555(a).
    (16) ANSI B56.1-1969, Safety Standards for Powered Industrial
Trucks, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(c).
    (17) ANSI J6.1-1950 (R1971), Rubber Insulating Line Hose, IBR
approved for Sec.  1926.951(a).
    (18) ANSI J6.2-1950 (R1971), Rubber Insulating Hoods, IBR approved
for Sec.  1926.951(a).
    (19) ANSI J6.4-1971, Rubber Insulating Blankets, IBR approved for
Sec.  1926.951(a).
    (20) ANSI J6.5-1971, Rubber Insulating Sleeves, IBR approved for
Sec.  1926.951(a).
    (21) ANSI J6.6-1971, Rubber Insulating Gloves, IBR approved for
Sec.  1926.951(a).
    (22) ANSI J6.7-1935 (R1971), Rubber Matting for Use Around Electric
Apparatus, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.951(a).
    (23) ANSI O1.1-1961, Safety Code for Woodworking Machinery, IBR
approved for Sec.  1926.304(f).
    (24) ANSI Z35.1-1968, Specifications for Accident Prevention Signs,
IBR approved for Sec.  1926.200(i).
    (25) ANSI Z35.2-1968, Specifications for Accident Prevention Tags,
IBR approved for Sec.  1926.200(i).
    (26) ANSI Z49.1-1967, Safety in Welding and Cutting, IBR approved
for Sec.  1926.350(j).
    (27) ANSI Z87.1-1968, Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye
and Face Protection, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.102(a).
    (28) ANSI Z89.1-1969, Safety Requirements for Industrial Head
Protection, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.100(b).
    (29) ANSI Z89.2-1971, Industrial Protective Helmets for Electrical
Workers, Class B, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1926.100(c) and
1926.951(a).
    (i) [Reserved.]
    (j) The following material is available for purchase from the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), ASTM International,
100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Web site: http://www.astm.org/:
    (1) ASTM A370-1968, Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing
and Steel Products, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(f).
    (2) ASTM B117-1964, 50 Hour Test, IBR approved for Sec.
1926.959(a).
    (3) ASTM D56-1969, Standard Method of Test for Flash Point by the
Tag Closed Tester, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.155(i).
    (4) ASTM D93-1969, Standard Method of Test for Flash Point by the

Pensky Martens Closed Tester, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.155(i).
    (5) ASTM D323-1958 (R1968), Standard Method of Test for Vapor
Pressure of Petroleum Products (Reid Method), IBR approved for Sec.
1926.155(m).
    (k) The following material is available for purchase from the
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), 2950
Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 269-
429-3852; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: http://www.asabe.org/:
    (1) ASAE R313.1-1971, Soil Cone Penetrometer, reaffirmed 1975, IBR
approved for Sec.  1926.1002(e).
    (l) The following material is available for purchase from the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016; telephone: 1-800-843-2763; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: http://www.asme.org/:
    (1) ASME B30.2-2005, Overhead and Gantry Cranes (Top Running
Bridge, Single or Multiple Girder, Top Running Trolley Hoist), issued
Dec. 30, 2005 (``ASME B30.2-2005''), IBR approved for Sec.
1926.1438(b).
    (2) ASME B30.5-2004, Mobile and Locomotive Cranes, issued Sept. 27,
2004 (``ASME B30.5-2004''), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1926.1414(b);
1926.1414(e); 1926.1433(b).
    (3) ASME B30.7-2001, Base-Mounted Drum Hoists, issued Jan. 21, 2002
(``ASME B30.7-2001''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1436(e).
    (4) ASME B30.14-2004, Side Boom Tractors, issued Sept. 20, 2004
(``ASME B30.14-2004''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1440(c).
    (5) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, 1968, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec.  1926.152(i), 1926.306(a), and 1926.603(a).
    (6) ASME Power Boilers, Section I, 1968, IBR approved for Sec.
1926.603(a).
    (m) The following material is available for purchase from the
American Welding Society (AWS), 550 N.W. LeJeune Road, Miami, Florida
33126; telephone: 1-800-443-9353; Web site: http://www.aws.org/:
    (1) AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2002, Structural Welding Code--Steel, 18th ed.,
ANSI approved Aug. 31, 2001 (``AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2002''), IBR approved for
Sec.  1926.1436(c).
    (2) ANSI/AWS D14.3-94, Specification for Welding Earthmoving and
Construction Equipment, ANSI approved Jun. 11, 1993 (``ANSI/AWS D14.3-
94''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1436(c).
    (n) The following material is available for purchase from the
British Standards Institution (BSI), 389 Chiswick High Road, London, W4
4AL, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 20 8996 9001; fax: +44 20 8996
7001; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: http://
www.bsigroup.com/:
    (1) BS EN 13000:2004, Cranes--Mobile Cranes, published Jan. 4, 2006
(``BS EN 13000:2004''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1433(c).
    (2) BS EN 14439:2006, Cranes--Safety--Tower Cranes, published Jan.
31, 2007 (``BS EN 14439:2006''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1433(c).
    (o) The following material is available for purchase from the
Bureau of Reclamation, United States Department of the Interior, 1849 C
Street, NW., Washington DC 20240; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site:
http://www.usbr.gov/:
    (1) Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, Part II, Sept.
1971, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1000(f).
    (p) The following material is available for purchase from the
California Department of Industrial Relations, 455 Golden Gate Avenue,
San Francisco CA 94102; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: http://www.dir.ca.gov/:
    (1) Construction Safety Orders, IBR approved for Sec.
1926.1000(f).
    (q) [Reserved.]
    (r) [Reserved.]
    (s) [Reserved.]
    (t) [Reserved.]
    (u) The following material is available for purchase from the
Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/:
    (1) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Millennium Edition,
Dec. 2000, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1926.200(g), 1926.201(a), and
1926.202.
    (v) The following material is available for purchase from the
General Services Administration (GSA), 1800 F Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20405; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site: http://www.gsa.gov/:
    (1) QQ-P-416, Federal Specification Plating Cadmium
(Electrodeposited), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.104(e).
    (w) The following material is available for purchase from the
Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), 1120 19th Street, NW., Suite
310, Washington, DC 20036; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: http://www.ime.org/:
    (1) IME Pub. No. 2, American Table of Distances for Storage of
Explosives, Jun. 5, 1964, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.914(a).
    (2) IME Pub. No. 20, Radio Frequency Energy--A Potential Hazard in
the Use of Electric Blasting Caps, Mar. 1968, IBR approved for Sec.
1926.900(k).
    (x) The following material is available for purchase from the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. de la
Voie-Creuse, Case postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland;
telephone: +41 22 749 01 11; fax: +41 22 733 34 30; Web site: http://
www.iso.org/:
    (1) ISO 11660-1:2008(E), Cranes--Access, guards and restraints--
Part 1: General, 2d ed., Feb. 15, 2008 (``ISO 11660-1:2008(E)''), IBR
approved for Sec.  1926.1423(c).
    (2) ISO 11660-2:1994(E), Cranes--Access, guards and restraints--
Part 2: Mobile cranes, 1994 (``ISO 11660-2:1994(E)''), IBR approved for
Sec.  1926.1423(c).
    (3) ISO 11660-3:2008(E), Cranes--Access, guards and restraints--
Part 3: Tower cranes, 2d ed., Feb. 15, 2008 (``ISO 11660-3:2008(E)''),
IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1423(c).
    (y) The following material is available for purchase from the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02169; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site:
http://www.nfpa.org/:
    (1) NFPA 10A-1970, Maintenance and Use of Portable Fire
Extinguishers, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.150(c).
    (2) NFPA 13-1969, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler
Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.152(d).
    (3) NFPA 30-1969, The Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, IBR
approved for Sec.  1926.152(c).
    (4) NFPA 80-1970, Standard for Fire Doors and Windows, Class E or F
Openings, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.152(b).
    (5) NFPA 251-1969, Standard Methods of Fire Test of Building
Construction and Material, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1926.152(b) and
1926.155(f).
    (6) NFPA 385-1966, Standard for Tank Vehicles for Flammable and
Combustible Liquids, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.152(g).
    (z) [Reserved.]
    (aa) The following material is available for purchase from the
Power Crane and Shovel Association (PCSA), 6737 W. Washington Street,
Suite 2400, Milwaukee, WI 53214; telephone: 1-800-369-2310; fax: 414-
272-1170; Web site: http://www.aem.org/CBC/ProdSpec/PCSA/:
    (1) PCSA Std. No. 1, Mobile Crane and Excavator Standards, 1968,
IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(b).
    (2) PCSA Std. No. 2, Mobile Hydraulic Crane Standards, 1968 (``PCSA
Std. No. 2 (1968)''), IBR approved for

Sec. Sec.  1926.602(b), 1926.1433(a), and 1926.1501(a).
    (3) PCSA Std. No. 3, Mobile Hydraulic Excavator Standards, 1969,
IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(b).
    (bb) [Reserved.]
    (cc) [Reserved.]
    (dd) The following material is available for purchase from the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 400 Commonwealth Drive,
Warrendale, PA 15096; telephone: 1-877-606-7323; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web
site: http://www.sae.org/:
    (1) SAE 1970 Handbook, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(b).
    (2) SAE 1971 Handbook, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(h).
    (3) SAE J166-1971, Trucks and Wagons, IBR approved for Sec.
1926.602(a).
    (4) SAE J168-1970, Protective Enclosures--Test Procedures and
Performance Requirements, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1002(a).
    (5) SAE J185 (reaf. May 2003), Access Systems for Off-Road
Machines, reaffirmed May 2003 (``SAE J185 (May 1993)''), IBR approved
for Sec.  1926.1423(c).
    (6) SAE J236-1971, Self-Propelled Graders, IBR approved for Sec.
1926.602(a).
    (7) SAE J237-1971, Front End Loaders and Dozers, IBR approved for
Sec.  126.602(a).
    (8) SAE J319b-1971, Self-Propelled Scrapers, IBR approved for Sec.
1926.602(a).
    (9) SAE J320a-1971, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired, Self-Propelled Scrapers, IBR
approved for Sec.  1926.1001(h).
    (10) SAE J321a-1970, Fenders for Pneumatic-Tired Earthmoving
Haulage Equipment, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(a).
    (11) SAE J333a-1970, Operator Protection for Agricultural and Light
Industrial Tractors, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.602(a).
    (11) SAE J386-1969, Seat Belts for Construction Equipment, IBR
approved for Sec.  1926.602(a).
    (12) SAE J394-1971, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Rubber-Tired Front End Loaders and Robber-
Tired Dozers, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1001(h).
    (13) SAE J395-1971, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Crawler Tractors and Crawler-Type Loaders, IBR
approved for Sec.  1926.1001(h).
    (14) SAE J396-1971, Minimum Performance Criteria for Roll-Over
Protective Structure for Motor Graders, IBR approved for Sec.
1926.1001(h).
    (15) SAE J397-1969, Critical Zone Characteristics and Dimensions
for Operators of Construction and Industrial Machinery, IBR approved
for Sec.  1926.1001(f).
    (16) SAE J743a-1964, Tractor Mounted Side Boom, 1964 (``SAE J743a-
1964''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1501(a).
    (17) SAE J959-1966, Lifting Crane Wire-Rope Strength Factors, 1966
(``SAE J959-1966''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1501(a).
    (18) SAE J987 (rev. Jun. 2003), Lattice Boom Cranes--Method of
Test, revised Jun. 2003 (``SAE J987 (Jun. 2003)''), IBR approved for
Sec.  1926.1433(c).
    (19) SAE J1063 (rev. Nov. 1993), Cantilevered Boom Crane
Structures--Method of Test, revised Nov. 1993 (``SAE J1063 (Nov.
1993)''), IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1433(c).
    (ee) The following material is available for purchase from the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20314; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail: hq-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: http://www.usace.army.mil/:
    (1) EM-385-1-1, General Safety Requirements, Mar. 1967, IBR
approved for Sec.  1926.1000(f).
    (ff) The following material is available for purchase from
standards resellers such as the Document Center Inc., 111 Industrial
Road, Suite 9, Belmont, CA 94002; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 650-
591-7617; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: http://
www.document-center.com/:
    (1) ANSI B15.1-1953 (R1958), Safety Code for Mechanical Power-
Transmission Apparatus, revised 1958, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
1926.300(b)(2) and 1926.1501(a).
    (2) ANSI B30.2.0-1967, Safety Code for Overhead and Gantry Cranes,
approved May 4, 1967, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1501(d).
    (3) ANSI B30.5-1968, Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes,
approved Dec. 16, 1968, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1926.1433(a),
1926.1501(a), and 1926.1501(b).
    (4) ANSI B30.6-1969, Safety Code for Derricks, approved Dec. 18,
1967, IBR approved for Sec.  1926.1501(e).

Subpart C--General Safety and Health Provisions

0
3. The authority citation for subpart C of 29 CFR part 1926 is retained
as follows:

    Authority:  Sec. 3704, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160) as applicable; and
29 CFR part 1911.

Sec.  1926.31  [Reserved.]

0
4. Section 1926.31 is removed and reserved.

Subpart L--Scaffolds

0
5. The authority citation for subpart L of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised
to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (Construction Safety Act)(40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6,
8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 1-90 (55 FR 9033) and 5-2007
(72 FR 31159); and 29 CFR part 1911.

0
6. Section 1926.450 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  1926.450  Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this
subpart.

    (a) Scope and application. This subpart applies to all scaffolds
used in workplaces covered by this part. It does not apply to crane or
derrick suspended personnel platforms. The criteria for aerial lifts
are set out exclusively in Sec.  1926.453.
* * * * *

Subpart M--Fall Protection

0
7. The authority citation for subpart M of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised
to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 3701); Sections
4, 6 and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 1-90 (55 FR
9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), and 5-2007 (72 FR
31159); and 29 CFR part 1911.

0
8. Section 1926.500 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding
paragraph (a)(3)(v), and revising paragraph (a)(4), to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.500  Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this
subpart.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working
on cranes and derricks are provided in subpart CC of this part.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (v) Criteria for steps, handholds, ladders, and grabrails/
guardrails/railings required by subpart CC are provided in subpart CC.
Sections 1926.502(a), (c) through (e), and (i) apply to activities
covered under subpart CC unless otherwise stated in subpart CC. No
other paragraphs of Sec.  1926.502 apply to subpart CC.
* * * * *

    (4) Section 1926.503 sets forth requirements for training in the
installation and use of fall protection systems, except in relation to
steel erection activities and the use of equipment covered by subpart
CC.

Subpart DD--Cranes and Derricks Used in Demolition and Underground
Construction

0
9. New subpart DD, consisting of Sec.  1926.1500 is added to read as
follows:

Subpart DD--Cranes and Derricks Used in Demolition and Underground
Construction

    Authority:  Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41
FR 25059), or 9-83 (49 FR 35736), and 5-2007 (72 FR 31159).

Sec.  1926.1500  Scope.

    This subpart applies only to employers engaged in demolition work
covered by Sec.  1926.856 and Sec.  1926.858, and underground
construction work covered by Sec.  1926.800. This subpart applies in
lieu of Sec.  1926 subpart CC.

Subpart N--Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors

0
10. The authority citation for subpart N of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised
to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41
FR 25059), or 9-83 (49 FR 35736), and 5-2007 (72 FR 31159).

0
11. The heading to subpart N of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised to read as
follows:

Subpart N--Helicopters, Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors

* * * * *

Sec.  1926.550  [Redesignated as Sec.  1926.1501]

0
12. Section 1926.550 is redesignated as Sec.  1926.1501 in subpart DD.

Sec.  1926.550  [Reserved]

0
13. Section 1926.550 is reserved.

0
14. Section 1926.553 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  1926.553  Base-mounted drum hoists.

* * * * *
    (c) This section does not apply to base-mounted drum hoists used in
conjunction with derricks. Base-mounted drum hoists used in conjunction
with derricks must conform to Sec.  1926.1436(e).

Subpart O--Motorized Vehicles, Mechanical Equipment, and Marine
Operations

0
15. The authority citation for subpart O of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised
to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 107, Construction Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6,
8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or
5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable. Section 1926.602 also issued
under 29 CFR part 1911.

0
16. Section 1926.600 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(6) to read as
follows:

Sec.  1926.600  Equipment.

    (a) General Requirements. * * *
    (6) All equipment covered by this subpart shall comply with the
following requirements when working or being moved in the vicinity of
power lines or energized transmitters, except where electrical
distribution and transmission lines have been deenergized and visibly
grounded at point of work or where insulating barriers, not a part of
or an attachment to the equipment or machinery, have been erected to
prevent physical contact with the lines:
    (i) For lines rated 50 kV or below, minimum clearance between the
lines and any part of the crane or load shall be 10 feet;
    (ii) For lines rated over 50 kV, minimum clearance between the
lines and any part of the crane or load shall be 10 feet plus 0.4 inch
for each 1 kV over 50 kV, or twice the length of the line insulator,
but never less than 10 feet;
    (iii) In transit with no load and boom lowered, the equipment
clearance shall be a minimum of 4 feet for voltages less than 50 kV,
and 10 feet for voltages over 50 kV, up to and including 345 kV, and 16
feet for voltages up to and including 750 kV;
    (iv) A person shall be designated to observe clearance of the
equipment and give timely warning for all operations where it is
difficult for the operator to maintain the desired clearance by visual
means;
    (v) Cage-type boom guards, insulating links, or proximity warning
devices may be used on cranes, but the use of such devices shall not
alter the requirements of any other regulation of this part even if
such device is required by law or regulation;
    (vi) Any overhead wire shall be considered to be an energized line
unless and until the person owning such line or the electrical utility
authorities indicate that it is not an energized line and it has been
visibly grounded;
    (vii) Prior to work near transmitter towers where an electrical
charge can be induced in the equipment or materials being handled, the
transmitter shall be de-energized or tests shall be made to determine
if electrical charge is induced on the crane. The following precautions
shall be taken when necessary to dissipate induced voltages:
    (A) The equipment shall be provided with an electrical ground
directly to the upper rotating structure supporting the boom; and
    (B) Ground jumper cables shall be attached to materials being
handled by boom equipment when electrical charge is induced while
working near energized transmitters. Crews shall be provided with
nonconductive poles having large alligator clips or other similar
protection to attach the ground cable to the load.
    (C) Combustible and flammable materials shall be removed from the
immediate area prior to operations.

Subpart R--Steel Erection

0
17. The authority citation for subpart R of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised
to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002
(67 FR 65008), and 5-2007 (72 FR 31159); and 29 CFR part 1911.

0
18. Section 1926.753 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(4)
to read as follows:

Sec.  1926.753  Hoisting and rigging.

    (a) All the provisions of subpart CC apply to hoisting and rigging
with the exception of Sec.  1926.1431(a).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Cranes or derricks may be used to hoist employees on a
personnel platform when work under this subpart is being conducted,
provided that all provisions of Sec.  1926.1431 (except for Sec.
1926.1431(a)) are met.
* * * * *

Subpart S--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams, and
Compressed Air

0
19. The authority citation for subpart S of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised
to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of
Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159)
as applicable.

0
20. Section 1926.800 is amended by revising paragraph (t) to read as
follows:

Sec.  1926.800  Underground construction.

* * * * *
    (t) Hoisting unique to underground construction. Employers must
comply with Sec.  1926.1501(g) of Sec.  1926 subpart DD. Except as
modified by this paragraph (t), the following provisions of subpart N
of this part apply: Requirements for material hoists are found in
Sec. Sec.  1926.552(a) and (b) of this part. Requirements for personnel
hoists are found in the personnel hoists requirements of Sec. Sec.
1926.552(a) and (c) of this part and in the elevator requirement of
Sec. Sec.  1926.552(a) and (d) of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart T--Demolition

0
21. The authority citation for subpart S of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised
to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of
Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159)
as applicable.

0
22. Section 1926.856 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  1926.856  Removal of walls, floors, and material with equipment.

* * * * *
    (c) Mechanical equipment used shall meet the requirements specified
in subparts N and O and Sec.  1926.1501 of Sec.  1926 subpart DD.

0
23. Section 1926.858 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  1926.858  Removal of walls, floors, and material with equipment.

* * * * *
    (b) Cranes, derricks, and other hoisting equipment used shall meet
the requirements specified in Sec.  1926.1501 of Sec.  1926 subpart DD.

Subpart V--Power Transmission and Distribution

0
24. The authority citation for subpart V of part 1926 is revised to
read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701); Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754); 8-76 (41
FR 25059); 9-83 (48 FR 35736, 1-90 (55 FR 9033), and 5-2007 (72 FR
31159). Section 1926.951 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

0
25. Section 1926.952 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  1926.952  Mechanical equipment.

* * * * *
    (c) Cranes and other lifting equipment.
    (1) All equipment shall comply with subparts CC and O of this part,
as applicable.
    (2) Digger derricks used for augering holes for poles carrying
electric lines, placing and removing poles, or for handling associated
materials to be installed or removed from the poles must comply with 29
CFR 1910.269.
    (3) 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.
    Note to paragraph (c)(3): In accordance with 29 CFR
1926.1400(g), compliance with 29 CFR 1910.269(p) will be deemed
compliance with Sec. Sec.  1926.1407 through 1926.1411, including
Sec.  1926.1410.

Subpart X--Stairways and Ladders

0
26. The authority citation for subpart X of 29 CFR part 1926 is amended
by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (Construction Safety Act](40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6,
8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 5-2007 (72
FR 31159); and 29 CFR part 1911.

0
27. Section 1926.1050 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  1926.1050  Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this
subpart.

    (a) Scope and application. This subpart applies to all stairways
and ladders used in construction, alteration, repair (including
painting and decorating), and demolition workplaces covered under 29
CFR part 1926, and also sets forth, in specified circumstances, when
ladders and stairways are required to be provided. Additional
requirements for ladders used on or with scaffolds are contained in
subpart L--Scaffolds. This subpart does not apply to integral
components of equipment covered by subpart CC. Subpart CC exclusively
sets forth the circumstances when ladders and stairways must be
provided on equipment covered by subpart CC.
* * * * *

Appendix A to Part 1926--Designations for General Industry Standards
Incorporated into Body of Construction Standards

0
28. Appendix A to part 1926 is amended by removing the row containing
``1926.550(a)(19)'' and ``1910.184(c)(9)'' from the table ``1926
DESIGNATIONS FOR APPLICABLE 1910 STANDARDS.''

Subparts AA and BB--[Reserved]

0
29. Subparts AA and BB are reserved and subpart CC is added to read as
follows:
Subpart CC--Cranes and Derricks in Construction
Sec.
1926.1400 Scope.
1926.1401 Definitions.
1926.1402 Ground conditions.
1926.1403 Assembly/Disassembly--selection of manufacturer or
employer procedures.
1926.1404 Assembly/Disassembly--general requirements (applies to all
assembly and disassembly operations).
1926.1405 Disassembly--additional requirements for dismantling of
booms and jibs (applies to both the use of manufacturer procedures
and employer procedures).
1926.1406 Assembly/Disassembly--employer procedures--general
requirements.
1926.1407 Power line safety (up to 350 kV)--assembly and
disassembly.
1926.1408 Power line safety (up to 350 kV)--equipment operations.
1926.1409 Power line safety (over 350 kV).
1926.1410 Power line safety (all voltages)--equipment operations
closer than the Table A zone.
1926.1411 Power line safety--while traveling.
1926.1412 Inspections.
1926.1413 Wire rope--inspection.
1926.1414 Wire rope--selection and installation criteria.
1926.1415 Safety devices.
1926.1416 Operational aids.
1926.1417 Operation.
1926.1418 Authority to stop operation.
1926.1419 Signals--general requirements.

1926.1420 Signals--radio, telephone or other electronic transmission
of signals.
1926.1421 Signals--voice signals--additional requirements.
1926.1422 Signals--hand signal chart.
1926.1423 Fall protection.
1926.1424 Work area control.
1926.1425 Keeping clear of the load.
1926.1426 Free fall and controlled load lowering.
1926.1427 Operator qualification and certification.
1926.1428 Signal person qualifications.
1926.1429 Qualifications of maintenance & repair employees.
1926.1430 Training.
1926.1431 Hoisting personnel.
1926.1432 Multiple-crane/derrick lifts--supplemental requirements.
1926.1433 Design, construction and testing.
1926.1434 Equipment modifications.
1926.1435 Tower cranes.
1926.1436 Derricks.
1926.1437 Floating cranes/derricks and land cranes/derricks on
barges.
1926.1438 Overhead & gantry cranes.
1926.1439 Dedicated pile drivers.
1926.1440 Sideboom cranes.
1926.1441 Equipment with a rated hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000
pounds or less.
1926.1442 Severability.
Appendix A to Subpart CC of part 1926--Standard Hand Signals
Appendix B to Subpart CC of part 1926--Assembly/Disassembly--Sample
Procedures for Minimizing the Risk of Unintended Dangerous Boom
Movement
Appendix C to Subpart CC of part 1926--Operator Certification--
Written Examination--Technical Knowledge Criteria

Subpart CC--Cranes and Derricks in Construction

    Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159); and 29
CFR part 1911.

Sec.  1926.1400  Scope.

    (a) This standard applies to power-operated equipment, when used in
construction, that can hoist, lower and horizontally move a suspended
load. Such equipment includes, but is not limited to: Articulating
cranes (such as knuckle-boom cranes); crawler cranes; floating cranes;
cranes on barges; locomotive cranes; mobile cranes (such as wheel-
mounted, rough-terrain, all-terrain, commercial truck-mounted, and boom
truck cranes); multi-purpose machines when configured to hoist and
lower (by means of a winch or hook) and horizontally move a suspended
load; industrial cranes (such as carry-deck cranes); dedicated pile
drivers; service/mechanic trucks with a hoisting device; a crane on a
monorail; tower cranes (such as a fixed jib, i.e., ``hammerhead
boom''), luffing boom and self-erecting); pedestal cranes; portal
cranes; overhead and gantry cranes; straddle cranes; sideboom cranes;
derricks; and variations of such equipment. However, items listed in
paragraph (c) of this section are excluded from the scope of this
standard.
    (b) Attachments. This standard applies to equipment included in
paragraph (a) of this section when used with attachments. Such
attachments, whether crane-attached or suspended include, but are not
limited to: Hooks, magnets, grapples, clamshell buckets, orange peel
buckets, concrete buckets, drag lines, personnel platforms, augers or
drills and pile driving equipment.
    (c) Exclusions. This subpart does not cover:
    (1) Machinery included in paragraph (a) of this section while it
has been converted or adapted for a non-hoisting/lifting use. Such