[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49741-49749]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20170]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1926

[Docket ID-OSHA-2007-0066]
RIN 1218-AC61

Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Demolition and Underground
Construction

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On August 9, 2010, OSHA issued a final standard updating the
requirements for cranes and derricks used in construction work. For
most construction work, the final rule replaced a prior cranes and
derricks standard. However, the prior standard continues to apply to
demolition and underground construction work. Through this proposed
rule, OSHA is proposing to apply the updated requirements to that work.
With this proposed rule, OSHA also is proposing to correct inadvertent
errors made to the demolition and underground construction standards
when it issued the final rule for cranes and derricks in construction.

DATES: Submit comments to this proposed rule, including comments to the
information-collection (paperwork) determination (described under the
section titled AGENCY DETERMINATIONS), hearing requests, and other
information by September 17, 2012. All submissions must bear a postmark
or provide other evidence of the submission date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, hearing requests, and other material,
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2007-0066, by any of the following
methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments, as well as hearing
requests and other information, electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions online for submitting comments. Please note that this
docket may include several different Federal Register notices involving
active rulemakings, so selecting the correct notice or its ID number
when submitting

comments for this rulemaking is extremely important. After accessing
the docket (OSHA-2007-0066), look for the name of this rulemaking
(Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Demolition and Underground
Construction) in the column labeled ``Title.''
    Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments that are
10 pages or fewer in length (including attachments). Fax these
documents to the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>. OSHA does not
require hard copies of these documents. Instead of transmitting
facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these documents (e.g.,
studies, journal articles), commenters must submit these attachments to
the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210.
These attachments must clearly identify the sender's name, the date,
subject, the title of the rulemaking (Cranes and Derricks in
Construction: Demolition and Underground Construction) and the docket
number (OSHA-2007-0066) so that the Docket Office can attach them to
the appropriate document.
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery, and
messenger service: Submit comments and any additional material to the
OSHA Docket Office, RIN No. 1218-AC61, Technical Data Center, Room N-
2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. (OSHA's TTY number is
(877) 889-5627). Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express
delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service. The Docket Office will
accept deliveries (express delivery, hand delivery, messenger service)
during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45
p.m., E.T.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency's name, the
title of the rulemaking (Cranes and Derricks in Construction:
Demolition and Underground Construction), and the docket number (i.e.,
OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2007-0066). OSHA will place comments and other
material, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and the comments and other material will be available
online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions
commenters about submitting statements they do not want made available
to the public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office
at the above address. The electronic docket for this proposed rule
established at http://www.regulations.gov lists most of the documents
in the docket. However, some information (e.g., copyrighted material)
is not available publicly to read or download through this Web site.
All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office
for assistance in locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General information and press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA
Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
1999.
    Technical inquiries: Mr. Garvin Branch, Directorate of
Construction, Room N-3468, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
2020; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of this Federal Register notice and news releases:
Electronic copies of these documents are available at OSHA's Web page
at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Request for Comment
II. Direct Final Rulemaking
III. Discussion of Amendments
    A. Background
    B. Demolition Work
    C. Underground Construction
    D. Rationale for Extending Subpart CC to Demolition and
Underground Construction
IV. Agency Determinations
    A. Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    C. Federalism
    D. State Plan States
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Legal Considerations
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926
Authority and Signature
Amendments to Standards

I. Request for Comment

    OSHA requests comment on all issues related to the proposed rule,
including economic, paperwork, or other regulatory impacts of this rule
on the regulated community. If OSHA receives no significant adverse
comment to either this proposal or the companion direct final rule,
OSHA will publish a Federal Register document confirming the effective
date of the direct final rule and withdrawing this companion proposed
rule. Such confirmation may include minor stylistic or technical
changes to the document. For the purpose of judicial review, OSHA
considers the date of confirmation of the effective date of the direct
final rule as the date of promulgation.

II. Direct Final Rulemaking

    In direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a direct final rule
in the Federal Register with a statement that the rule will become
effective unless the agency receives significant adverse comment within
a specified period. The agency may publish an identical proposed rule
at the same time. If the agency receives no significant adverse comment
in response to the direct final rule, the agency typically confirms the
effective date of a direct final rule through a separate Federal
Register notice. If the agency receives a significant adverse comment,
the agency withdraws the direct final rule and treats such comment as a
response to the proposed rule. An agency uses direct final rulemaking
when it anticipates that a rule will not be controversial.
    OSHA is publishing a companion direct final rule along with this
proposed rule in the ``Final Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register. For purposes of this proposed rule and the companion direct
final rule, a significant adverse comment is one that explains why the
amendments to OSHA's underground construction and demolition standards
would be inappropriate. In determining whether a comment necessitates
withdrawal of the direct final rule, OSHA will consider whether the
comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive
response in a notice-and-comment process. OSHA will not consider a
comment recommending an additional amendment to be a significant
adverse comment unless the comment states why the direct final rule
would be ineffective without the addition.
    The comment period for the direct final rule runs concurrently with
that of this proposed rule. OSHA will treat comments received on the
companion direct final rule as comments regarding the proposed rule.
OSHA also will consider significant adverse comment submitted to this
proposed rule as comment to the companion direct final rule. If OSHA
receives a significant adverse comment on either the direct final rule
or this proposed rule, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the

companion direct final rule and proceed with this proposed rule. In the
event OSHA withdraws the direct final rule because of significant
adverse comment, OSHA will consider all timely comments received in
response to the direct final rule when it continues with the proposed
rule. After carefully considering all comments to the direct final rule
and the proposal, OSHA will decide whether to publish a new final rule.
    OSHA determined that the subject of this rulemaking is suitable for
direct final rulemaking. Under the final rule for cranes and derricks
in construction, most construction work involving cranes and derricks
falls under new subpart CC of 29 CFR 1926, but underground construction
and demolition remain covered under the former rule (i.e., Sec.
1926.550). These proposed amendments will result in the new subpart CC
covering all construction operations, thereby improving worker safety
because the new rule provides better protection to workers than the
former rule. Moreover, these proposed amendments will facilitate
employer compliance by having all construction operations involving
cranes and derricks subject to a single rule rather than by having a
few operations subject to a different rule. In addition, this proposed
(and the direct final) rule corrects inadvertent errors made to the
standards for underground construction and demolition when OSHA issued
the final cranes rule. Therefore, OSHA does not expect objections from
the public to this rulemaking action. Accordingly, the Agency believes
the regulated community will welcome this effort to harmonize the
requirements regulating crane and derrick operations in underground
construction and demolition, and to remove errors that hinder
interpretation and proper application of existing standards.

III. Discussion of Amendments

A. Background

    OSHA designed the final rule for cranes and derricks in
construction, codified at 29 CFR part 1926, subpart CC, to replace the
earlier rule (Sec.  1926.550) for all construction work.\1\ In
proposing the new cranes and derricks rule, OSHA explained that the
rule's purpose was ``to protect employees from the hazards associated
with hoisting equipment when used to perform construction activities''
(73 FR 59714). Because OSHA developed the new rule to supplant the
former rule entirely, OSHA proposed to remove and reserve Sec.
1926.550 (73 FR 59915). When other OSHA construction standards referred
to Sec.  1926.550 directly, or indirectly, as part of subpart N, OSHA
proposed to amend those provisions to refer instead to the new
requirements in subpart CC (73 FR 59914-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ OSHA published the final rule at 75 FR 47906 (Aug. 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposed rule for cranes and derricks in construction, OSHA
inadvertently did not propose to amend three provisions that referred
to subpart N and encompassed the requirements of Sec.  1926.550. These
provisions included two provisions applicable to demolition work (Sec.
1926.856(c) and Sec.  1926.858(b)), and one provision applicable to
underground construction work (Sec.  1926.800(t)). When it issued the
final rule, OSHA noted concerns about potentially inadequate notice to
the public regarding any effort to amend these provisions in the final
rule; consequently, OSHA decided not to amend these provisions in the
final rule. OSHA instead stated that it would revisit the issue later
(75 FR 47920-21).
    Having removed the requirements of Sec.  1926.550 in the final
rule, OSHA had to reestablish the substance of the demolition and
underground construction provisions in a new subpart DD in the final
rule, redesignate Sec.  1926.550 as Sec.  1926.1501 of subpart DD, and
amend the demolition and underground construction provisions that
previously referred to subpart N to refer instead to the new subpart
DD. OSHA provided in Sec.  1926.1500 of subpart DD that ``[t]his
subpart applies in lieu of Sec.  1926 subpart CC.'' However, in making
these revisions, OSHA inadvertently made changes to the demolition and
underground construction provisions that modified the meaning of these
provisions. In addition, the Code of Federal Regulations eliminated all
of the subparagraphs of Sec.  1926.800(t), except for the introductory
paragraph, because of a technical error in the draft regulatory
language.
    This proposed rule, therefore, will accomplish two goals. First, it
will bring all crane and derrick use in construction work under new
subpart CC. Second, it will correct the errors in the final rule that
substantively altered the demolition and underground construction
provisions, and replace subparagraphs Sec.  1926.800(t)(1) through (4).
Below, OSHA describes the amendments to the demolition and underground
construction standards that OSHA made in the final rule for cranes and
derricks in construction (including inadvertent errors), as well as the
revisions and corrections to these standards that OSHA proposes.

B. Demolition Work

    Before OSHA issued the final rule for cranes and derricks in
construction, Sec.  1926.856(c) stated, ``Mechanical equipment used
shall meet the requirements specified in subparts N and O of this
part,'' and Sec.  1926.858(b) read, ``Cranes, derricks, and other
hoisting equipment used shall meet the requirements specified in
subpart N of this part.'' In the final rule for cranes and derricks in
construction, OSHA established a new subpart DD, redesignated the prior
cranes and derricks rule (Sec.  1926.550) as Sec.  1926.1501 of subpart
DD, and amended Sec.  1926.856(c) to require compliance with the new
subpart DD, in addition to the remaining requirements of subparts N and
O. OSHA also amended Sec.  1926.858(b) to require compliance with new
subpart DD instead of subpart N.
    It was OSHA's expressed purpose not to make substantive revisions
to the requirements of these two sections in the final rule.\2\
Nevertheless, OSHA made an inadvertent substantive change to Sec.
1926.858(b).\3\ That section originally incorporated all requirements
of subpart N for ``cranes, derricks, and other hoisting equipment,''
not just the requirements of subpart N's cranes and derricks standard
at Sec.  1926.550. However, the final rule did not reference other
requirements of subpart N that pertain to demolition work, which
include the requirements of Sec.  1926.552 (Material hoists, personnel
hoists, and elevators) and Sec.  1926.554 (Overhead hoists). As a
result, the amendment had the effect of deleting the requirement for
employers engaged in demolition work to comply with Sec. Sec.  1926.552
and 1926.554. Therefore, to cover all construction work under subpart
CC, and to correct these errors, OSHA is proposing to amend Sec. Sec.
1926.856(c) and 1926.858(b) by replacing the requirements to comply
with subpart DD with requirements to comply with subpart CC, and is
proposing to amend Sec.  1926.858(b) by

reinstating the requirement to comply with subpart N as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ OSHA explained in the preamble to the final rule that the
``redesignation of Sec.  1926.550 and the replacement of references
[to subpart N] do not alter any of the substantive requirements of
Sec. Sec.  1926.856(c) and 1926.858(b)'' (75 FR 47921).
    \3\ OSHA also inadvertently listed the heading of Sec.  1926.858
as ``Removal of walls, floors and materials with equipment'' (the
same heading as Sec.  1926.856), instead of ``Removal of steel
construction,'' but this erroneous heading did not appear in the
subsequent edition of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Therefore, OSHA finds no need to address this error in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Underground Construction

    Section 1926.800(t) contains requirements for hoisting that are
unique to underground construction. Before OSHA issued the final rule
for cranes and derricks in construction, the previous version of Sec.
1926.800(t) contained an introductory paragraph that cross-referenced
other OSHA standards that apply to hoisting in underground
construction; these cross-references consisted of the requirements of
the prior cranes and derricks rule at Sec.  1926.550, including most of
Sec.  1926.550(g) (the provision of the prior rule that applied to
hoisting personnel), and requirements for material hoists, personnel
hoists, and elevators at Sec.  1926.552(a) through (d). Previous Sec.
1926.800(t) included one substantive modification to the requirements
of prior Sec.  1926.550(g)(2): employers could use cranes to hoist
employees for routine access to underground worksites via a shaft
without showing that conventional means would be more hazardous, or not
possible, for this purpose due to structural design or worksite
conditions.\4\ When it issued the underground construction rule, OSHA
included this modification because hoisting personnel for routine
access to the underground worksites via a shaft occurs under more
controlled, and less hazardous, conditions than hoisting personnel in
general (54 FR 23824, 23845). Previous Sec.  1926.800(t)(1) through (4)
contained additional requirements for hoisting unique to underground
construction. Language at the beginning of the introductory paragraph
of Sec.  1926.800(t), ``Except as modified by this paragraph (t),''
clarified that the requirements and exceptions in 1926.800(t)(1)
through (4) take precedence over the cross-referenced requirements,
including the former cranes standard under Sec.  1926.550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Prior Sec.  1926.550(g)(2) required employers to show,
before using cranes to hoist personnel to a worksite, that
conventional means would be more hazardous than cranes, or not
possible, due to structural design or worksite conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final cranes rule, OSHA redesignated the prior cranes and
derricks rule as Sec.  1926.1501 of subpart DD. It was OSHA's expressed
purpose to preserve the existing crane requirements for underground
construction by changing references in the introductory paragraph of
Sec.  1926.800(t) from Sec.  1926.550 and Sec.  1926.500(g)(2) to Sec.
1926.1501 and Sec.  1926.1501(g)(2), respectively. OSHA clarified this
purpose in the preamble to the final rule by stating that the revisions
to Sec.  1926.800(t) ``do not alter any of the substantive requirements
of Sec.  1926.800(t)'' (75 FR 47920). However, OSHA inadvertently
changed Sec.  1926.800(t) by amending the introductory paragraph to
require employers engaged in underground construction to comply only
with new Sec.  1926.1501(g) (which duplicated Sec.  1926.550(g)),
instead of preserving the former routine-access exemption by requiring
compliance with Sec.  1926.1501 in its entirety, and modifying the
requirements of Sec.  1926.1501(g)(2) (which duplicated former Sec.
1926.550(g)(2)).\5\ Additionally, OSHA inadvertently moved the language
``Except as modified by paragraph (t)'' to the beginning of the second
sentence of the introductory paragraph so that it no longer applied to
the cross-referenced Sec.  1926.1501 requirements, but instead only
applied to the cross-referenced requirements in Sec.  1926.552(a)
through (d). Finally, although OSHA did not plan to alter any of the
(then remaining) requirements and exemptions of Sec.  1926.800(t)(1)
through (4), but only to amend the introductory paragraph, a technical
error in the instructions to the Federal Register resulted in the
deletion of subparagraphs Sec.  1926.800(t)(1) through (4). The
deletion was not mentioned in the preamble to the final cranes rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OSHA stated in the final rule that it was including the
reference to Sec.  1926.1501(g) to avoid any potential notice
problem that may arise if OSHA substituted a reference to subpart CC
in place of the prior reference to Sec.  1926.550(g) (75 FR 47920).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As amended by the final cranes rule, Sec.  1926.800(t) presents
four problems. First, the prior version of Sec.  1926.800(t)
incorporated all of Sec.  1926.550, not just Sec.  1926.550(g).
However, the amended version of Sec.  1926.800(t) refers only to Sec.
1926.1501(g), the successor to Sec.  1926.550(g). Therefore, as now
written, Sec.  1926.800(t) does not explicitly require employers to
comply with either the final cranes rule or the prior rule at Sec.
1926.550, except for Sec.  1926.1501(g), the prior rule's provision on
hoisting personnel. Second, the exception from Sec.  1926.550(g)(2),
specified in the former version of Sec.  1926.800(t), provided that
employers could use cranes to hoist personnel for routine access to
underground worksites via a shaft without showing that other means of
access are more hazardous or impossible. OSHA did not include this
exception in the new version of Sec.  1926.800(t). This inadvertent
error places an additional and unnecessary burden on employers that use
cranes for this purpose. Third, moving the text ``Except as modified by
paragraph (t)'' to the beginning of the second sentence of the
introductory paragraph of Sec.  1926.800(t) results in ambiguity as to
the relationship between incorporated crane requirements and the
provisions in Sec.  1926.800(t)(1) through (4). Finally, the
inadvertent elimination of Sec.  1926.800(t)(1) through (4) from the
Code of Federal Regulations resulted in eliminating requirements that
OSHA adopted in a 1989 rulemaking (54 FR 23843) to ensure that
employees engaged in underground construction receive adequate
protection from hazards unique to hoisting in this setting.
    In this proposed rule, OSHA is proposing to amend Sec.  1926.800(t)
to extend subpart CC to underground construction, and to resolve the
technical errors set forth in this section. OSHA is proposing to amend
the introductory paragraph of Sec.  1926.800(t) to restore the
provision allowing employers to use cranes to hoist personnel for
routine access to the underground worksites via a shaft without the
need to show that conventional means of access are more hazardous or
impossible for this purpose. This amendment excepts routine access of
employees to an underground worksite via a shaft from the requirements
of Sec.  1926.1431(a). The requirements of Sec.  1926.1431(a) are
virtually identical to the requirements of Sec.  1926.550(g)(2). In
addition, OSHA is proposing to amend Sec.  1926.800(t) by restoring the
clause ``Except as modified by this paragraph (t)'' to the beginning of
the introductory paragraph, and restoring Sec.  1926.800(t)(1) through
(4). OSHA is also proposing to revise the language in the introductory
paragraph for clarity, and is proposing to correct three minor
grammatical errors that appeared in the text of paragraphs Sec.
1926.800(t)(3)(vi), (t)(4)(iii), and (t)(4)(iv), as previously
published in the Code of Federal Regulations.

D. Rationale for Extending Subpart CC to Demolition and Underground
Construction

    The revisions made by this proposed rule will enable OSHA to cover
all cranes and derricks used in construction under subpart CC. These
revisions implement the original purpose of the rule and will benefit
both employees and employers. These revisions would ensure that the
significant benefits of subpart CC, which include saving 22 lives per
year and preventing 175 non-fatal injuries per year compared to prior
Sec.  1926.550 (75 FR 48079), extend to demolition and underground
construction. Accordingly, applying subpart CC to demolition and

underground construction will ensure that construction workers in those
sectors receive the same safety protections from new subpart CC as
other construction workers.
    The revisions also will benefit construction contractors that
engage in underground construction or demolition work, in addition to
other types of construction work, because these contractors will now be
subject to a single standard rather than having some of their
activities covered under subpart CC and other work covered by subpart
DD. This action will avoid the confusion that would result if new
subpart CC covers part of a project and revised Sec.  1926.800(t)
covers another part of the project. For example, in a cut-and-cover
tunneling project, the underground construction standard applies only
after covering the excavation in such a manner as to establish
conditions characteristic of underground construction. 29 CFR
1926.800(a). Therefore, under the current requirements, subpart CC
would apply to the work while the excavation is open, but after
covering the excavation, subpart DD would apply, thereby resulting in
the same crane or derrick being subject to different standards during
different phases of the project. Finally, this action will facilitate
employer compliance because demolition and underground construction
contractors will no longer be subject to the outdated requirements in
prior Sec.  1926.550, which relied heavily on pre-1970 consensus
standards.

IV. Agency Determinations

A. Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    When it issued the final cranes rule, OSHA prepared a final
economic analysis (FEA) as required by the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) and Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735). OSHA also published a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601-612). OSHA's approach to estimating costs and economic impacts in
these analyses began by estimating, for all construction sectors, the
total number of cranes and whether they were owned and rented; owned
without rental; or leased. As a result, both analyses covered all
cranes engaged in construction activities, including cranes engaged in
underground construction and cranes engaged in construction work
involving demolition. The FEA for the final cranes standard, which
included all cranes, crane operations, and industry sectors subject to
this proposed rule, found that the requirements of the rule were
technologically and economically feasible.
    Because the FEA drew these conclusions from calculations
encompassing all of the underground construction and demolition crane
operations covered by this proposed rule, the conclusions in the
earlier FEA are valid for this proposed rule. The reference to the FEA
for the final cranes rule, therefore, establishes that this proposed
rule is technologically and economically feasible, addresses
significant risks, and reduces those risks significantly. The FEA,
which OMB reviewed, meets the requirements of Executive Orders 12866
and Executive Order 13563 with respect to the operations covered by
this proposed rule; OSHA included these operations in the FEA for the
final cranes standard. Therefore, OSHA believes that this proposed rule
also complies with Executive Orders 12866 and Executive Order 13563.
    To determine if this proposed rule has annual costs of greater than
$100 million, or would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small firms, OSHA examined the sectors most
affected by this proposed rule. This proposed rule affects two
construction sectors: NAICS 237990 (Other Heavy and Civil Engineering
Construction), which includes all establishments engaged in underground
construction, and NAICS 238910 (Site Preparation Contractors), which
includes all establishments engaged in demolition. This analysis,
therefore, reviews the results for these two sectors reported in the
final crane standard's FEA, which the Federal Register published on
August 9, 2010.
    That FEA simply considered all cranes and crane operations in these
sectors, and did not analyze separately those operations involving
underground construction or demolitions because OSHA planned to apply
subpart CC to these operations. OSHA will report here the results for
these entire sectors, which will inevitably involve greater costs and
impacts than for the activities addressed in this proposed rule because
both sectors have many cranes and crane jobs that do not involve
underground construction or demolition activities. Table B-9 of the FEA
showed that NAICS 237990, which includes all crane operations involved
in underground construction operations, had annualized compliance costs
of $1,903,569 for firms that own and rent cranes, $205,532 for firms
that own but do not rent cranes, and $1,151,759 for firms that lease
cranes, for total annualized costs of $3,260,860 (75 FR 48102-48105).
Table B-9 also showed that NAICS 238910, which contains all crane
operations involving demolitions, had annualized compliance costs of
$1,232,974 for firms that own and rent cranes, $292,601 for firms that
own but do not rent cranes, and $1,626,463 for firms that lease cranes,
for total annualized compliance costs of $3,152,038. The total
annualized compliance costs for both sectors are $6,412,898. Because
these two NAICS sectors include operations not involved in underground
construction or demolition, the total estimated annualized compliance
costs of $6,412,898 for these two sectors will be greater than the
actual costs of this proposed rule. Based on these costs, OSHA
concludes that this proposed rule is not a significant rule under
either E.O. 12866 or the Unfunded Mandates Act.
    With respect to technological feasibility, the earlier FEA, which
included consideration of both underground construction and demolition
operations, noted:

    In accordance with the OSH Act, OSHA is required to demonstrate
that occupational safety and health standards promulgated by the
Agency are technologically feasible. Accordingly, OSHA reviewed the
requirements that would be imposed by the final regulation, and
assessed their technological feasibility. As a result of this
review, OSHA has determined that compliance with the requirements of
the final standard is technologically feasible for all affected
industries. The standard would require employers to perform crane
inspections, utilize qualified or certified crane operators, address
ground conditions, maintain safe distances from power lines using
the encroachment prevention precautions, and to fulfill other
obligations under the standard. Compliance with all of these
requirements can be achieved with readily and widely available
technologies. Some businesses in the affected industries already
implement the requirements of the standard to varying degrees (some
states have requirements), as noted during the SBREFA Panel. OSHA
believes that there are no technological constraints in complying
with any of the proposed requirements, and received no comments that
suggested that these standards were technologically infeasible.

(75 FR 48095).

    In Table B-12 of the FEA for the final cranes rule, OSHA examined
the costs as a percentage of revenues and as a percentage of profits in
these two sectors. This table shows that, for both sectors, the
greatest potential impacts were on establishments that own and rent
cranes with operators. This table showed that for NAICS 237990, which

includes all underground construction operations, costs were 0.18
percent (less than 1 percent) of revenues and 3.54 percent of profits.
This table also showed that for NAICS 238910, including all demolition
operations involving cranes, costs were 0.18 percent of revenues and
4.05 percent of profits. (Table B-12 and the FEA as a whole provide the
full calculations and derivations.) The FEA from the final cranes
standard stated:

    The Agency concludes that the final standard is economically
feasible for the affected industries. As described above, a standard
is economically feasible if there is a reasonable likelihood that
the estimated costs of compliance ``will not threaten the existence
or competitive structure of an industry, even if it does portend
disaster for some marginal firms.'' United Steelworkers of America
v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The potential
impacts on employer costs associated with achieving compliance with
the final standard fall well within the bounds of economic
feasibility in each industry sector. Costs of 0.2 percent of
revenues and 4 percent of profits will not threaten the existence of
the construction industry, affected general industry sectors, or the
use of cranes in affected industry sectors. OSHA does not expect
compliance with the requirements of the final standard to threaten
the viability of employers or the competitive structure of any of
the affected industry sectors. When viewed in the larger context of
the construction sector, an increase in costs of $148.2 million a
year is effectively negligible, and will have no noticeable effect
on the demand for construction services. Even when viewed as an
increase in the costs of using cranes, an increase in the cost of
rentals services of 0.2 percent will not cause the construction
industry to forego the use of cranes and, thus, put crane leasing
firms out of business.

(75 FR 48112). Because the earlier FEA drew this conclusion with
respect to costs that included the costs of this proposed rule, as well
as other costs that made the impacts greater than those of this
proposed rule, OSHA concludes that the FEA for the cranes and derricks
final rule demonstrates that this proposed rule is economically
feasible.

    Tables B-14 and B-15 of the FEA for the cranes and derricks final
rule examined the costs as a percentage of revenues and as a percentage
of profits in these two sectors for small firms as defined by SBA, and
very small entities with less than 20 employees, respectively. Because
so many firms owning cranes are small, there is no appreciable
difference between the impacts on small and very small firms versus the
impacts for all firms already discussed. Comparison of the two tables
shows that, for NAICS 237990, the impacts for very small firms were
equal to or greater than those for small firms. Table B-15 shows that,
for NAICS 237990, costs were 0.18 percent of revenues and 3.54 percent
of profits. This table also shows that, for NAICS 238910, including all
demolition operations involving cranes, there were no very small
entities that owned and rented cranes, with the result that the
greatest impacts are for small entities that own and rent crane where
costs are 0.18 percent of revenues and 4.05 percent of profits.
    In its regulatory flexibility analysis, OSHA generally defines a
significant economic impact on small entities as one with costs in
excess of one percent of revenues or five percent of profits. The
possible costs of this proposed rule clearly are well below these
thresholds. OSHA, therefore, certifies that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    When OSHA issued the final rule on August 9, 2010, it submitted an
Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) titled Cranes and Derricks in Construction (29 CFR Part
1926, Subpart CC). This ICR \6\ covered all establishments in the
construction industry, including all of the establishments in NAICS
237990 and NAICS 238910. On November 1, 2010, OMB approved the ICR
under OMB control number 1218-0261, with an expiration date of November
30, 2013. Subsequently, in December 2010, OSHA discontinued the Cranes
and Derricks Standard for Construction (29 CFR 1926.550) ICR (OMB
Control Number 1218-0113) because the new ICR superseded the existing
ICR. In addition, OSHA retitled the new ICR to Cranes and Derricks in
Construction (29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart CC and Subpart DD).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The ICR is part of Exhibit 0425 in the docket for the final
rule on cranes and derricks in construction (OSHA-2007-0066). It is
available at www.regulations.gov and at www.reginfo.gov (OMB Control
Number 1218-0261).
    \7\ The request and OMB approval for discontinuing the previous
Cranes and Derricks in Construction ICR (OMB Control Number 1218-
0113) and the retitling of the ICR are available at www.reginfo.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule requires no additional collection of
information.\8\ OMB's approval of OSHA's ICR under Control Number 1218-
0261 already covers all collections of information required by this
proposed rule, and OSHA does not believe it is necessary to submit a
new ICR to OMB seeking to collect additional information under this
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Although the final rule for cranes and derricks in
construction did not require employers covered by subpart DD to meet
the information-exchange requirements of subpart CC, OSHA did not
subtract these employers from its analysis of the burden and costs
for these requirements in the paperwork analysis for subpart CC.
Therefore, this approach inflated the burden and costs estimates of
the ICR approved by OMB for subpart CC; however, the burden and
costs estimates are accurate now that OSHA is applying subpart CC to
underground construction and demolition work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties who comment on OSHA's determination that this
proposal contains no additional paperwork requirements must send their
written comments to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: OMB Desk
Officer for OSHA, Room 10235, 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC
20503. OSHA also encourages commenters to submit their comments on this
paperwork determination to it, along with their other comments on the
proposed rule.
    OSHA notes that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless OMB approves it under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and the agency displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The public need not respond to a
collection of information requirement unless the agency displays a
currently valid OMB control number, and, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing
to comply with a collection of information requirement if the
requirement does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

C. Federalism

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Executive
Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible,
refrain from limiting state policy options, consult with states prior
to taking any actions that would restrict state policy options, and
take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and
the problem is national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for
preemption of state law only with the expressed consent of Congress.
Federal agencies must limit any such preemption to the extent possible.
    Under Section 18 of the OSH Act, 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.'' 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. 29 U.S.C. 667. Subject to these requirements,
State Plan States are free to develop and enforce under state law their
own requirements for safety and health standards.
    OSHA previously concluded from its analysis that promulgation of
subpart CC complies with Executive Order 13132. 75 FR 48128-29. That
analysis applies to the extension of subpart CC to establishments
engaged in demolition work and underground construction; therefore,
this proposed rule complies with Executive Order 13132. In states
without an OSHA-approved State Plan, any standard developed from this
proposed rule would limit state policy options in the same manner as
every standard promulgated by OSHA. In states with OSHA-approved State
Plans, this rulemaking does not significantly limit state policy
options.

D. State Plan States

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, 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. State Plan States must
adopt the Federal standard or complete their own standard 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 OSHA 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.
    The amendments in this proposed rule will result in more stringent
requirements for cranes and derricks used in demolition and underground
construction work. Therefore, when OSHA promulgates a new final rule,
states and territories with approved State Plans must adopt comparable
amendments to their standards for cranes and derricks used in
demolition and underground construction within six months of OSHA's
promulgation of the final rule (i.e., the date OSHA publishes
confirmation of the effective date) unless they demonstrate that such a
change is not necessary because their existing standards are already
the same, or at least as effective, as OSHA's new final rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    When OSHA issued the final rule for cranes and derricks in
construction, it reviewed the rule according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. (58 FR 58093)), and
Executive Order 12875 (75 FR 48130). OSHA concluded that the final rule
did not meet the definition of a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate''
under the UMRA because OSHA standards do not apply to state or local
governments except in states that have voluntarily adopted State Plans.
OSHA further noted that the rule imposed costs of over $100 million per
year on the private sector and, therefore, required review under the
UMRA for those costs, but that its final economic analysis met that
requirement.
    As discussed above in Section IV.A (Final Economic Analysis and
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis) of this preamble, this proposed
rule does not impose any costs on private-sector employers beyond those
costs already taken into account in the final rule for cranes and
derricks in construction. Because OSHA reviewed the total costs of this
final rule under the UMRA, no further review of those costs is
necessary. Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, OSHA certifies that
this proposed rule does not mandate that state, local, or tribal
governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or increase
expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million in any
year.

F. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249) and determined that it does not have ``tribal
implications'' as defined in that order. As proposed, the rule does not
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.

G. Legal Considerations

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is ``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). To achieve this goal,
Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate and enforce
occupational safety and health standards. 29 U.S.C. 654(b), 655(b). A
safety or health standard is a standard ``which requires conditions, or
the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment or places of employment.'' 29
U.S.C. 652(8). A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within
the meaning of Section 652(8) when a significant risk of material harm
exists in the workplace and the standard would substantially reduce or
eliminate that workplace risk. See Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO
v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980). In the cranes and
derricks final rule, OSHA made such a determination with respect to the
use of cranes and derricks in construction at the same time that it
noted that the Agency would apply subpart CC to the activities
addressed in this proposed rule (75 FR 47913, 47920-21).
    This proposed rule will not reduce the employee protections put
into place by the standard OSHA is updating under this rulemaking.
Instead, this rulemaking likely will enhance employee safety by
ensuring that the construction workers involved in demolition and
underground construction receive the same safety protections from
recently published subpart CC as other construction workers. The
revisions also will benefit construction contractors that engage in
underground construction or demolition work in addition to other types
of construction work, because these contractors will now be subject to
a single standard rather than having some of their construction work
under subpart CC, and other work covered by existing subpart DD. This
action, therefore, will clarify employer obligations by avoiding the
confusion that would result if subpart CC covers part of a project and
existing subpart DD covers another part of the project. Accordingly, it
is unnecessary to make a separate determination of significant risk, or
the extent to which this rule would reduce that risk, as typically

required by Industrial Union Department.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926

    Construction industry, Demolition, Occupational safety and health,
Safety, Underground construction.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation
of this notice. OSHA is issuing this proposed rule under the following
authorities: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 5 U.S.C.
553; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012);
and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 8, 2012.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Amendments to Standards

    For the reasons stated in the preamble of this proposed rule, OSHA
proposes to amend 29 CFR part 1926 as follows:

PART 1926--[AMENDED]

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

    1. Revise the authority citation for subpart S of 29 CFR part 1926
to read as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and
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), 5-2007 (72
FR 31159), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable.

    2. Amend Sec.  1926.800 by revising paragraph (t) to read as
follows:

Sec.  1926.800  Underground construction.

* * * * *
    (t) Hoisting unique to underground construction. Except as modified
by this paragraph (t), employers must: comply with the requirements of
subpart CC of this part, except that the limitation in Sec.
1926.1431(a) does not apply to the routine access of employees to an
underground worksite via a shaft; ensure that material hoists comply
with Sec.  1926.552(a) and (b) of this part; and ensure that personnel
hoists comply with the personnel-hoists requirements of Sec.
1926.552(a) and (c) of this part and the elevator requirements of Sec.
1926.552(a) and (d) of this part.
    (1) General requirements for cranes and hoists. (i) Materials,
tools, and supplies being raised or lowered, whether within a cage or
otherwise, shall be secured or stacked in a manner to prevent the load
from shifting, snagging or falling into the shaft.
    (ii) A warning light suitably located to warn employees at the
shaft bottom and subsurface shaft entrances shall flash whenever a load
is above the shaft bottom or subsurface entrances, or the load is being
moved in the shaft. This paragraph does not apply to fully enclosed
hoistways.
    (iii) Whenever a hoistway is not fully enclosed and employees are
at the shaft bottom, conveyances or equipment shall be stopped at least
15 feet (4.57 m) above the bottom of the shaft and held there until the
signalman at the bottom of the shaft directs the operator to continue
lowering the load, except that the load may be lowered without stopping
if the load or conveyance is within full view of a bottom signalman who
is in constant voice communication with the operator.
    (iv)(A) Before maintenance, repairs, or other work is commenced in
the shaft served by a cage, skip, or bucket, the operator and other
employees in the area shall be informed and given suitable
instructions.
    (B) A sign warning that work is being done in the shaft shall be
installed at the shaft collar, at the operator's station, and at each
underground landing.
    (v) Any connection between the hoisting rope and the cage or skip
shall be compatible with the type of wire rope used for hoisting.
    (vi) Spin-type connections, where used, shall be maintained in a
clean condition and protected from foreign matter that could affect
their operation.
    (vii) Cage, skip, and load connections to the hoist rope shall be
made so that the force of the hoist pull, vibration, misalignment,
release of lift force, or impact will not disengage the connection.
Moused or latched open-throat hooks do not meet this requirement.
    (viii) When using wire rope wedge sockets, means shall be provided
to prevent wedge escapement and to ensure that the wedge is properly
seated.
    (2) Additional requirements for cranes. Cranes shall be equipped
with a limit switch to prevent overtravel at the boom tip. Limit
switches are to be used only to limit travel of loads when operational
controls malfunction and shall not be used as a substitute for other
operational controls.
    (3) Additional requirements for hoists. (i) Hoists shall be
designed so that the load hoist drum is powered in both directions of
rotation, and so that brakes are automatically applied upon power
release or failure.
    (ii) Control levers shall be of the ``deadman type'' which return
automatically to their center (neutral) position upon release.
    (iii) When a hoist is used for both personnel hoisting and material
hoisting, load and speed ratings for personnel and for materials shall
be assigned to the equipment.
    (iv) Material hoisting may be performed at speeds higher than the
rated speed for personnel hoisting if the hoist and components have
been designed for such higher speeds and if shaft conditions permit.
    (v) Employees shall not ride on top of any cage, skip or bucket
except when necessary to perform inspection or maintenance of the
hoisting system, in which case they shall be protected by a body belt/
harness system to prevent falling.
    (vi) Personnel and materials (other than small tools and supplies
secured in a manner that will not create a hazard to employees) shall
not be hoisted together in the same conveyance. However, if the
operator is protected from the shifting of materials, then the operator
may ride with materials in cages or skips which are designed to be
controlled by an operator within the cage or skip.
    (vii) Line speed shall not exceed the design limitations of the
systems.
    (viii) Hoists shall be equipped with landing level indicators at
the operator's station. Marking the hoist rope does not satisfy this
requirement.
    (ix) Whenever glazing is used in the hoist house, it shall be
safety glass, or its equivalent, and be free of distortions and
obstructions.
    (x) A fire extinguisher that is rated at least 2A:10B:C (multi-
purpose, dry chemical) shall be mounted in each hoist house.
    (xi) Hoist controls shall be arranged so that the operator can
perform all operating cycle functions and reach the emergency power
cutoff without having to reach beyond the operator's normal operating
position.
    (xii) Hoists shall be equipped with limit switches to prevent
overtravel at the top and bottom of the hoistway.
    (xiii) Limit switches are to be used only to limit travel of loads
when operational controls malfunction and shall not be used as a
substitute for other operational controls.
    (xiv) Hoist operators shall be provided with a closed-circuit voice
communication system to each landing station, with speaker microphones
so located that the operator can

communicate with individual landing stations during hoist use.
    (xv) When sinking shafts 75 feet (22.86 m) or less in depth, cages,
skips, and buckets that may swing, bump, or snag against shaft sides or
other structural protrusions shall be guided by fenders, rails, ropes,
or a combination of those means.
    (xvi) When sinking shafts more than 75 feet (22.86 m) in depth, all
cages, skips, and buckets shall be rope or rail guided to within a rail
length from the sinking operation.
    (xvii) Cages, skips, and buckets in all completed shafts, or in all
shafts being used as completed shafts, shall be rope or rail-guided for
the full length of their travel.
    (xviii) Wire rope used in load lines of material hoists shall be
capable of supporting, without failure, at least five times the maximum
intended load or the factor recommended by the rope manufacturer,
whichever is greater. Refer to Sec.  1926.552(c)(14)(iii) of this part
for design factors for wire rope used in personnel hoists. The design
factor shall be calculated by dividing the breaking strength of wire
rope, as reported in the manufacturer's rating tables, by the total
static load, including the weight of the wire rope in the shaft when
fully extended.
    (xix) A competent person shall visually check all hoisting
machinery, equipment, anchorages, and hoisting rope at the beginning of
each shift and during hoist use, as necessary.
    (xx) Each safety device shall be checked by a competent person at
least weekly during hoist use to ensure suitable operation and safe
condition.
    (xxi) In order to ensure suitable operation and safe condition of
all functions and safety devices, each hoist assembly shall be
inspected and load-tested to 100 percent of its rated capacity: at the
time of installation; after any repairs or alterations affecting its
structural integrity; after the operation of any safety device; and
annually when in use. The employer shall prepare a certification record
which includes the date each inspection and load-test was performed;
the signature of the person who performed the inspection and test; and
a serial number or other identifier for the hoist that was inspected
and tested. The most recent certification record shall be maintained on
file until completion of the project.
    (xxii) Before hoisting personnel or material, the operator shall
perform a test run of any cage or skip whenever it has been out of
service for one complete shift, and whenever the assembly or components
have been repaired or adjusted.
    (xxiii) Unsafe conditions shall be corrected before using the
equipment.
    (4) Additional requirements for personnel hoists. (i) Hoist drum
systems shall be equipped with at least two means of stopping the load,
each of which shall be capable of stopping and holding 150 percent of
the hoist's rated line pull. A broken-rope safety, safety catch, or
arrestment device is not a permissible means of stopping under this
paragraph.
    (ii) The operator shall remain within sight and sound of the
signals at the operator's station.
    (iii) All sides of personnel cages shall be enclosed by one-half
inch (12.70 mm) wire mesh (not less than No. 14 gauge or equivalent) to
a height of not less than 6 feet (1.83 m). However, when the cage or
skip is being used as a work platform, its sides may be reduced in
height to 42 inches (1.07 m) when the conveyance is not in motion.
    (iv) All personnel cages shall be provided with a positive locking
door that does not open outward.
    (v) All personnel cages shall be provided with a protective canopy.
The canopy shall be made of steel plate, at least \3/16\-inch (4.763
mm) in thickness, or material of equivalent strength and impact
resistance. The canopy shall be sloped to the outside, and so designed
that a section may be readily pushed upward to afford emergency egress.
The canopy shall cover the top in such a manner as to protect those
inside from objects falling in the shaft.
    (vi) Personnel platforms operating on guide rails or guide ropes
shall be equipped with broken-rope safety devices, safety catches or
arrestment devices that will stop and hold 150 percent of the weight of
the personnel platform and its maximum rated load.
    (vii) During sinking operations in shafts where guides and safeties
are not yet used, the travel speed of the personnel platform shall not
exceed 200 feet (60.96 m) per minute. Governor controls set for 200
feet (60.96 m) per minute shall be installed in the control system and
shall be used during personnel hoisting.
    (viii) The personnel platform may travel over the controlled length
of the hoistway at rated speeds up to 600 feet (182.88 m) per minute
during sinking operations in shafts where guides and safeties are used.
    (ix) The personnel platform may travel at rated speeds greater than
600 feet (182.88 m) per minute in completed shafts.
* * * * *

Subpart T--Demolition

    3. Revise the authority citation for subpart T of 29 CFR part 1926
to read as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and
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), 5-2007 (72
FR 31159), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable.

    4. Amend Sec.  1926.856 by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (c) Cranes, derricks, and other mechanical equipment used must meet
the requirements specified in subparts N, O, and CC of this part.
    5. Amend Sec.  1926.858 by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  1926.858  Removal of steel construction.

* * * * *
    (b) Cranes, derricks, and other hoisting equipment used must meet
the requirements specified in subparts N and CC of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart DD--[Removed]

    6. Remove subpart DD.

[FR Doc. 2012-20170 Filed 8-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 66797-66798]
[DOCID:fr29oc10-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0012]

National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health
(NACOSH), Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of the NACOSH charter.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Labor has renewed the charter of the National
Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) for two
years.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Crawford, OSHA Directorate
of Evaluation and Analysis, Room N-3641, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1932.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) has renewed the NACOSH charter.
The charter will expire two years from today.
    NACOSH was established by Section 7(a) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, 656) to advise,
consult with,

and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Secretary of Health
and Human Services on matters relating to the administration of the OSH
Act. Under the OSH Act, Congress intended NACOSH to be a continuing
advisory committee of indefinite duration.
    NACOSH operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and OSHA's regulations on NACOSH (29 CFR
part 1912a). Pursuant to FACA and its implementing regulations (41 CFR
102-3), the NACOSH charter must be renewed every two years. The charter
expires two years from the date it is signed and filed.
    To read or download a copy of the new NACOSH charter, go to Docket
No. OSHA-2010-0012 at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. The charter also is available on the NACOSH page on
OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov and at the OSHA Docket Office,
N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. In addition, the
charter may be viewed or downloaded at the Federal Advisory Committees
Database at http://www.fido.gov.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice
under the authority granted by Sections 6(b) and 7(a) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656), the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), 29 CFR part 1912a, 41
CFR 102-3, and Secretary of Labor's Order 4--2010 (75 FR 55355 (9/10/
2010)).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on October 26, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-27439 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 47955]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-2595-000]

SR Rattlesnake, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
SR Rattlesnake, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 24, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 3, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17319 Filed 8-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


February 7, 2004 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COKE OVEN ENVIRONMENTAL TASK FORCE ( COETF) FOR DOCKET ID NUMBER OGC 2004 0004 I. Purpose The purpose of this note is to summarize discussions between the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and COETF that were held in December 2004 for final resolution of issues associated with the proposed settlement agreement ( 69 FR 31372, June 3, 2004).

II. Dates Conference calls were held on December 7, 2004; December 15, 2004; and December 22, 2004.

III. Attendees Dave Ailor, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute Steve Brakefield, ABC Coke Marvin Branscome, Research Triangle Institute Nick Buchko, Shenango, Inc. Steve Fruh, EPA, Emissions Standards Division Jeff Knight, Shaw Pittman Wade Kohlman, Citizens Gas & Coke Utility Bill Kubiak, U. S. Steel Josh Levin, Department of Justice Bob Mason, ABC Coke Mark Poling, ABC Coke Steve Silverman, EPA, Office of General Counsel Tishie Woodwell, U. S. Steel IV. Discussion ° The EPA explained that one adverse comment had been received on the direct final amendments published on October 13, 2004 ( 69 FR 60813). These amendments were published to resolve concerns raised by COETF in their petition for review challenging the final standards.

° The direct final amendments will be partially withdrawn to address the adverse comment ( 70 FR 1670, January 10, 2005). Those amendments not affected by the comment will not be withdrawn and will become effective on January 11, 2005. The adverse comment will be addressed and a final amendment will be issued for that part of the amendments that was withdrawn. 2 ° The commenter objected to the proposed requirement that would have allowed the owner or operator an additional 30 days ( a total of 60 days) to repair a defect in the capture system applied to pushing emissions. If more than 60 days are needed, the owner or operator would have to request approval from the permitting authority.

° The industry representatives indicated that repairs times exceeding 30 days would be very rare. The capture system for pushing emissions that uses a moveable hood is very complex in design and operation, and it is exposed to extremes of mechanical wear and high temperatures. In some cases, additional time may be need to evaluate unpredictable structural or mechanical problems, schedule the repair at a time that it can be done safely, and obtain a contractor to make the repair.

° The industry representatives were also concerned that if a request was submitted to the permitting authority and was not approved within a reasonable time, the owner or operator could be subject to a violation for the entire period that the request was being considered by the permitting authority.

° The EPA suggested that since most repairs could be made within 30 days, the owner or operator should request approval from the permitting authority for those rare cases when additional time was needed.