support system lowered sufficiently so that the clearances specified in
Table T are maintained.
    In addition to maintaining the Table T minimum clearance distances,
proposed Sec.  1926. Sec.  1926.1411(b)(3) would require the employer
to ensure that the effects of speed and terrain are considered so that
those effects do not cause the minimum clearance distances specified in
Table T to be breached. OSHA is modifying the C-DAC language as follows
to clarify this requirement.

    (b)(3) The effects of speed and terrain on equipment movement
(including movement of the boom/mast) are considered so that those
effects do not cause the minimum clearance distances specified in
Table T of this section to be breached.

    Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would require the employer to use a
dedicated spotter if any part of the equipment while traveling will get
closer than 20 feet to a power line. This provision would also require
that the dedicated spotter be in continuous contact with the crane
operator; be positioned to effectively gauge the clearance distance;
where necessary, use equipment that enables the spotter to communicate
directly with the crane operator; and give timely information to the
crane operator so that the required clearance distance can be
maintained. The Committee believed that each of these measures is
necessary for the spotter to be effective.
    In reviewing proposed Sec.  1926.1411(b)(4), OSHA noted that the
language ``crane operator'' was used rather than ``driver.'' For
example, proposed Sec.  1926.1411(b)(4) reads:

    (4) Dedicated spotter. If any part of the equipment while
traveling will get within 20 feet of the power line, the employer
shall ensure that a dedicated spotter who is in continuous contact
with the crane operator is used * * *

    Because proposed Sec.  1926.1411 deals with power line safety while
equipment is traveling without a load, OSHA recognizes that the
language ``crane operator'' may not be appropriate in all situations.
In some cases a crane operator may not be the driver of such equipment
on the construction site. Therefore, OSHA is soliciting comments on
whether the language ``crane operator'' used in proposed Sec.
1926.1411(b)(4) should be changed to ``driver'' or ``driver/operator.''
    The Committee members were also concerned about equipment traveling
underneath power lines in low visibility situations, such as at night,
in the rain or fog. The electrical hazards posed by power lines are
exacerbated when the driver's ability to see the power line is reduced.
The Committee believed that additional precautions are necessary in
light of this heightened danger. Therefore, proposed Sec.
1926.1411(b)(5) would require the employer to ensure the power lines
are either illuminated or another means of identifying them is used and
a safe path of travel is identified.
    In reviewing the C-DAC draft of this provision, OSHA recognized
that Sec.  1926.1411(b)(5)(ii) did not clearly state the Committee's
intentions. The committee intended for employers to both identify a
safe path of travel and also use the identified safe path of travel.
However, the C-DAC draft stated only that a safe path be
``identified,'' which only implicitly means that it be used. Therefore
OSHA has revised the language in Sec.  1926.1411(b)(5)(ii) from:

    (ii) A safe path of travel is identified.

    to read:

    (ii) A safe path of travel is identified and used.

    The proposed requirements of this section are similar to section 5-
<IP_ADDRESS> of ASME B30.5-2004. The values in proposed Table T of proposed
Sec.  1926.1411, which provides the minimum clearance distances while
traveling with no load and a lowered boom, are substantially similar to
the values used by ASME. The distinction between these proposed
requirements and those requirements in ASME are that the proposed
requirements govern equipment while traveling under a power line and
the ASME provisions govern mobile cranes while in transit. ASME defined
``transit'' as the moving or transporting of a crane from one jobsite
to another.
    The Agency notes that ASME B30.5-2004 calls for equipment in
transit to maintain a specific clearance distance to power lines in
accordance with Table 1 of ASME B30.5. While proposed Sec.  1926.1411
governs equipment traveling without a load directly under power lines,
it does not otherwise address the potential hazards associated with
equipment traveling without a load near power lines. Further, as stated
earlier, equipment traveling with a load, whether or not under a power
line, would be considered ``operations'' and employers would have to
comply with the proposed requirements in Sec.  1926.1408, 1926.1409, or
1926.1410 in such instances.
    However, equipment traveling without a load is not covered by
either proposed Sec.  1926.1410 (operations) or Sec.  1926.1411
(traveling under power lines). Therefore, OSHA requests public comment
on whether it is necessary to establish requirements for equipment
traveling on a construction site without a load near power lines.

Additional Changes to the Regulatory Text In Proposed Sec. Sec.
1926.1407-1411

    In the C-DAC draft of provisions dealing with the ``trigger''
distance for further action, the draft referred to situations in which
the crane, load or load line could get ``within'' the trigger distance.
Because of the potential for confusion as to whether ``within'' means
breaching or not breaching that

distance, the Agency has changed ``within'' to ``closer than.'' For
example, the C-DAC draft of 1926.1407(a) read:

    Before assembling or disassembling a crane, the employer must
determine if any part of the crane, load line or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in the direction or area
of assembly, within 20 feet of a power line during the assembly/
disassembly process. If so, the employer must meet the requirements
in Option (1), Option (2), or Option (3) of, as follows: * * *

    This provision now reads:

    Before assembling or disassembling a crane, the employer must
determine if any part of the crane, load line or load (including
rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in the direction or area
of assembly, closer than 20 feet to a power line during the
assembly/disassembly process. If so, the employer must meet the
requirements in Option (1), Option (2), or Option (3) of Sec.
1926.1407(a), as follows:

Section 1412 Inspections

    The purpose of this proposed section is to prevent injuries and
fatalities caused by equipment failures. A key method of accomplishing
this goal is through the use of an inspection process that identifies
and addresses safety concerns.
    Currently, Subpart N requires the employer to designate a competent
person to inspect all machinery and equipment prior to each use, and
during use, to make sure it is in safe operating condition. Any
deficiencies shall be repaired, or defective parts replaced, before
continued use. 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(5). In addition, Subpart N requires a
thorough annual inspection of the hoisting machinery by a competent
person or by a government or private agency recognized by the U.S.
Department of Labor. 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(6).
    Subpart N also contains inspection requirements for specific types
of equipment that incorporate national consensus standards or
manufacturer recommendations by reference. Section 1926.550(b)(2)
requires crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes to meet the inspection
requirements of ANSI B30.5-1968, ``Crawler, Locomotive and Truck
Cranes'' (with a modified version of the ANSI standard's monthly
inspection documentation requirement). Overhead and gantry cranes,
under Sec.  1926.550(d)(4), must be inspected pursuant to ANSI B30.2.0-
1967, ``Overhead and Gantry Cranes.'' For derricks, Sec.  1926.550(e)
requires compliance with the inspection requirements of ANSI B30.6-
1969, ``Derricks.'' Hammerhead tower cranes must be inspected (Sec.
1926.550(c)(5)) and floating cranes and derricks must be tested (Sec.
1926.550(f)(2)(iii)) in accordance with manufacturer specifications.
    The Committee believed it would avoid confusion and promote
compliance to establish, as far as possible, uniform inspection
schedules and requirements applicable to all types of equipment. At the
same time, it recognized that the wide variety of equipment covered by
this proposed standard necessitated some equipment-specific inspection
provisions. Thus, proposed paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section
would set inspection requirements for all covered equipment that would
be supplemented by other sections of this proposed standard relative to
specific equipment. The proposed section is structured so that the
inspection requirements would be triggered by activity (e.g., equipment
modification, repair/adjustment, assembly, severe service or equipment
not in regular use) and the passage of time (e.g., shift, monthly and
annual/comprehensive).
    Note that for each of these inspections, as discussed in detail
below, this proposed standard specifies a requisite level of
qualification of the person conducting the inspection (for certain
inspections, a competent person; for others a qualified person).
However, like Subpart N, the proposed rule does not include a testing/
evaluation requirement for such employees for assessing their ability
to conduct the inspections.
    Since the C-DAC document was completed, crane accidents have
occurred that have raised concerns regarding the level of expertise
needed by those who inspect the equipment covered by this proposed
standard. In Sec.  1926.1428, this proposed rule specifies a protocol
for ensuring that signal persons have adequate expertise to perform
their duties. The Agency requests public comment on whether a similar
approach is needed for those who inspect equipment as required by this
proposed standard.
Paragraph 1412(a) Modified Equipment
    Proposed paragraph (a) would require an inspection (that includes
functional testing) to be performed by a qualified person for equipment
that has been modified or has additions that affect the safe operation
of the equipment prior to initial use after that modification/addition.
In essence, the proposed provision would require assurance that such
modifications or additions are performed in accordance with the
approval obtained in proposed Sec.  1926.1434, Equipment modifications.
Proposed Sec.  1926.1412(a)(2) would prohibit the use of the equipment
until that requirement was met. The purpose is to prevent modification-
related equipment failure.
    This proposed paragraph is generally similar to consensus and
government standards, including ANSI B30.5-1968, ASME B30.5-2004, COE
(Corps of Engineers)--EM 385-1-1 (3-Nov-03), and DOE (Department of
Energy)--STD-1090-2004 in that each require an inspection and some
degree of functional testing prior to using equipment that has been
modified/altered. However, the inspection in the proposed paragraph
differs from these in that it is limited to equipment that has
modifications/additions that affect the safe operation of the equipment
and is limited to confirming compliance with modifications or additions
that are approved by the manufacturer or a registered professional
engineer pursuant to Sec.  1434. Further, this proposed paragraph does
not contain a documentation requirement.
    The Committee was of the view that many changes made to equipment
do not implicate safe operation, and application of an inspection
requirement to such changes would be unnecessary and unduly burdensome.
The proposed paragraph reflects this concern and is tailored to require
this inspection only when the modification is of the type that could
affect safety. As such, the inspection would only be required for
modifications that affect ``safe operation'' as illustrated by a non-
exclusive list of examples (``modifications or additions involving a
safety device or operator aid, critical part of a control system, power
plant, braking system, load sustaining structural components, load
hook, or in-use operating mechanisms'').
    The first criterion to be used in conducting the inspection
(proposed Sec.  1926.1412(a)(1)(i)) is the modification approval
obtained under proposed Sec.  1926.1434. This would ensure that the
modification was accomplished as intended under that approval.
    The second criterion (proposed Sec.  1926.1412(a)(1)(ii)) is
functional testing. This reflects the Committee's view that functional
testing is essential to ensuring that the modification was completed
correctly. Such testing can reveal faults that often would not
otherwise be apparent.
    As drafted, Sec.  1926.1412(a)(1)(ii) would not limit the
functional testing requirement to only those components that are or may
be affected by the modification or addition but would require testing
of the entire equipment. OSHA requests public comment on

whether the provision should be modified to limit the functional
testing requirement to those components that are or may be affected by
the modification or addition.
    During the SBREFA process, a Small Entity Representative suggested
adding an exception to proposed Sec.  1926.1412(a) for ``transportation
systems,'' by which the SER meant any system dispersing the weight of
the crane for movement on the highways. The Panel recommended that OSHA
solicit public comment on whether to include such an exception and, if
so, what the appropriate terminology for such an exception would be.
OSHA welcomes public comment on whether an explicit exception for such
transportation systems should be included in Sec.  1926.1412(a).
Paragraph 1412(b) Repaired/Adjusted Equipment
    Proposed paragraph (b) provides that equipment that has had a
repair or adjustment that affects the safe operation of the equipment
must be inspected (including functional testing) by a qualified person
prior to initial use after the repair/adjustment. In summary, the
qualified person would be required to determine if such repairs and
adjustments have been performed in accordance with manufacturer
equipment criteria.
    As defined in Sec.  1926.1401, ``equipment criteria'' include
``instructions, recommendations, limitations and specifications.'' This
definition is included to make clear that ``equipment criteria'' is to
be broadly construed to include the full range of information regarding
the equipment's functions and operation provided by the manufacturer.
If those criteria were unavailable or inapplicable, the qualified
person would be required to determine whether a registered professional
engineer (RPE) is needed to develop criteria. If an RPE were not
needed, a qualified person would be required to develop them. Use of
the equipment would be prohibited until the inspection demonstrates
that the repairs and adjustments met the criteria. The purpose of this
provision is to avoid the failure of equipment due to improper repairs
and adjustments.
    The Committee was of the view that many repairs and adjustments
made to equipment do not implicate safe operation, and application of
an inspection requirement to all repairs and adjustments would be
unnecessary and unduly burdensome. The proposed paragraph reflects this
concern by limiting this proposed inspection requirement to those
repairs and adjustments that are of the type that could affect safety.
A non-exclusive list of examples of repairs and adjustments that would
trigger the inspection is included in the provision.
    The Committee believed that functional testing is essential to
ensuring that a repair or adjustment has been completed correctly. Such
testing can reveal faults that may not otherwise be apparent.
    As discussed above in relation to proposed Sec.
1926.1412(a)(1)(ii), the functional testing requirement is not limited
to those components that are or may be affected by the repair or
adjustment. OSHA requests public comment on whether the provision
should be modified to add such a limitation.
    The Agency believes that this inspection provision is needed to
prevent injuries and fatalities from accidents caused by faulty repairs
and adjustments. As evidenced by similar provisions in other standards
(see COE--EM 385-1-1 (3-Nov-03), and DOE--STD-1090-2004; see also the
consensus standard ASME B30.5-2004), the industry has recognized the
hazards associated with improperly repaired and adjusted equipment and
the importance of this type of inspection.
Paragraph 1412(c) Post-Assembly
    Proposed paragraph (c) would require a post-assembly inspection of
equipment by a qualified person prior to its use. In sum, the provision
would require the qualified person to assure that the equipment is
configured in accordance with the manufacturer's equipment criteria.
Where those criteria are unavailable, the equipment would have to meet
criteria developed by either the qualified person or an RPE familiar
with the equipment (if the qualified person decides that an RPE is
needed). Equipment use would be prohibited until the inspection
demonstrates that the criteria have been met.
    ANSI B30.5-1968, and ASME B30.5-2004 do not call for this type of
inspection. COE in EM 385-1-1 (3 Nov 03), Appendix H, does include a
post-assembly inspection.
    The Committee was of the view that a post-assembly inspection is
needed because of the dangers associated with incorrectly assembled
equipment. For example, the equipment's load chart may overstate the
equipment's capacity if the equipment has been incorrectly assembled.
Also, a component may be stressed beyond its design capacity if
incorrectly assembled.
    The Committee considered whether to recommend requiring that this
inspection be conducted by a person who is not only qualified but is
also a ``competent person,'' i.e., a person with the authority to take
corrective action. The Committee ultimately decided that this would not
be necessary because proposed Sec.  1926.1412(c)(3) would prohibit the
use of equipment until the post-assembly inspection demonstrates that
the equipment is configured in accordance with the applicable criteria.
Therefore, if the qualified person were to find that the equipment was
incorrectly assembled, it could not be used until the error was
corrected.
    Also discussed was whether a registered professional engineer
(RPE), as opposed to a qualified person, is needed to develop the
criteria for the equipment configuration where the manufacturer
criteria are unavailable. The Committee agreed that an RPE would
typically not be needed for, as one member stated, ``a basic machine
that goes together in a basic manner,'' but that an RPE would be needed
for some of the more complex types of equipment. As a result, the
Committee found that it would be appropriate to have the qualified
person determine if an RPE were needed to develop the criteria.
Paragraph 1412(d) Each Shift
    Proposed paragraph (d) would require a shift inspection, the first
of three regularly scheduled equipment inspections that would be
required. Specifically, 1926.1412(d)(1) sets forth the frequency of
this inspection, the degree of scrutiny required and the level of
expertise required of the person performing this inspection. The
proposed paragraph lists the items that would be required to be
included in this inspection and specifies the corrective action that
would be required. The purpose of this provision is to identify and
address safety hazards before they cause accidents.
    This inspection (which would begin prior to each shift and be
completed before or during that shift) is broadly similar to the
current requirement in 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(5) of Subpart N to conduct an
inspection ``prior to each use, and during use * * *'' Similarly,
several other current standards, including 29 CFR part 1926 subpart R
(Steel Erection) and COE--EM 385-1-1 (3-Nov-03) require some type of
shift inspection for cranes. In contrast, ANSI B30.5-1968 as well as
the more current ASME B30.5-2004, call for a ``Frequent Inspection'' at
``daily to monthly'' intervals. The ``Frequent Inspection'' in the
ANSI/ASME standards, though, includes a reference to ``observation
during operation.''

    The ``each shift'' inspection in the proposed rule is designed to
ensure that the equipment will be removed from service if there is a
visually apparent deficiency that constitutes a safety hazard. The
Committee considered adopting the ``daily to monthly'' inspection
interval that is in the ANSI/ASME B30.5 consensus standard, but
determined that that approach was too vague for use as a mandatory OSHA
requirement. Instead, the Committee found that, in accordance with
long-standing, common industry practice, an inspection of the items
listed in the proposed paragraph each shift is an appropriate means of
ensuring that the equipment's condition will be sufficient for safe
operation.
    The Committee also discussed whether the shift inspection should be
required to be completed before a shift's crane operations begin. It
determined that it is not necessary to complete the inspection in that
short of a time frame. The Agency believes that this determination is
reasonable for several reasons. First, this would be an inspection that
would be done for every shift, and therefore would be done quite
frequently. This would substantially diminish the likelihood that a
critical problem would suddenly occur, since symptoms of such a problem
developing would likely have been detected in prior shift inspections.
    Second, as discussed below, one of the purposes of the annual/
comprehensive inspection is to detect developing deficiencies that,
while not yet safety hazards, need to be monitored. In such cases the
employer under the annual/comprehensive requirements in proposed Sec.
1926.1412(f)(4) would be required to monitor them in the monthly
inspections. Finally, the competent person that conducts the shift
inspection would be required to reassess his or her determinations in
light of observations made during the equipment's operation. The
Committee designed these proposed requirements to work together, and in
light of that combined approach, the Agency believes that it would be
sufficient for the shift inspection to be completed during the shift.
    The Committee also discussed the degree of scrutiny that would be
required during the shift inspection. Specifically, it considered
whether the shift inspection should involve any disassembly of the
equipment. It determined that disassembly should not normally be needed
for this type of inspection since its purpose is not to duplicate the
annual/comprehensive inspection (which is where the equipment would be
subjected to a level of scrutiny that would necessarily involve
disassembly). Instead, disassembly would only be required where ``the
results of the visual inspection or trial operation indicate that
further inspection necessitating disassembly is needed.''
    Finally, a competent person would be required to perform the shift
inspection. The Committee believed that a person that meets the
definition of a competent person (see the definition discussion above)
is needed to perform the shift inspection for two reasons. First, such
a person would have the capability to identify apparent deficiencies,
determine if any disassembly was needed, and determine if the
deficiency constitutes a safety hazard. Second, a competent person
would have the authority necessary to take corrective action in the
event a deficiency was such a hazard.
    OSHA anticipates that the equipment operator will often be used by
the employer as the competent person who conducts the shift inspection.
The operator will be at the site and, in most cases, by virtue of his
or her qualification or certification under proposed Sec. Sec.
1926.1427 and 1926.1430 and experience and familiarity with the
equipment, would meet the requirements for a competent person. However,
the employer would have the flexibility to use someone else to conduct
the shift inspection as long as that person met the definition of
competent person.
    Proposed paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (xiv) sets forth the list of
items that, at a minimum, would be required to be inspected each shift.
The Committee believes that this is an appropriate list for ensuring
safety and builds on well established industry practice in terms of
what needs to be inspected in this type of inspection. For example, the
list is similar to the one for pre-shift inspections in 29 CFR Part
1926 subpart R, the list in ASME B30.5-2004 for its Frequent
Inspection, and with the exception of a few additional items, to the
list for Frequent Inspections in ANSI B30.5-1968.
    Overall, except as noted below in the discussion of the particular
items on this list, the concerns of C-DAC members relative to this list
focused on whether items not listed as ``daily'' inspection items but
included instead in the ``Frequent Inspection'' list in ASME B30.5a-
2002 (which are identical to those in the more recent ASME B30.5-2004
standard) should be inspected each shift. A concern was raised in the
Committee meetings about the nature of the visual inspection and
whether including all of the listed items in ANSI/ASME would be too
burdensome. To address this concern, the Committee decided to include
these items (and a few others) but to also include the language
discussed above limiting the circumstances in which disassembly would
be required.
    The following discussion addresses only those items for which the
Committee recommended inspection descriptions that vary in some
significant way from past or current consensus standards (apart from
their being designated for inspection each shift).
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) lists ``[c]ontrol and drive
mechanisms for apparent excessive wear of components and contamination
by lubricants, water or other foreign matter.'' Though similar to the
requirement in ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004 (on the ``Frequent''
list), and in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart R, this provision reflects some
differences. For example, unlike the ANSI/ASME standards (but similar
to Subpart R), it adds ``drive'' mechanisms, which the Committee
believed more accurately reflects the type of mechanisms that need to
be inspected. In addition, ``excessive'' was added to account for the
fact that some wear in these mechanisms is normal and not unsafe. The
extent of wear needed to trigger further evaluation of the item is that
which is apparently excessive.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) addresses ``[a]ir, hydraulic, and
other pressurized lines for deterioration or leakage, particularly
those which flex in normal operation.'' This paragraph is similar to an
item listed in ANSI B30.5--1968 and in ASME B30.5-2004, with the
difference being the reference to ``air'' and ``other pressurized
lines.'' These additions reflect the Committee's belief that it is
necessary to check all types of pressurized lines.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(v) lists ``[h]ooks and latches for
deformation, cracks, excessive wear, or damage such as from chemicals
or heat.'' This substantially mirrors Subpart R, and is similar to ANSI
B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004, but also differs in certain ways.
First, the Committee believed that latches can be damaged by causes
other than the examples listed. The proposed paragraph therefore adds
the words ``such as'' so that the examples listed would be a non-
exclusive list. Second, the Committee believed that ``heat'' should be
added as another example of a cause of damage to highlight this as an
area of concern (since, for example, welding is sometimes done near a
hook or latch). Finally, the proposed

provision would require the competent person to inspect for ``excessive
wear,'' as opposed to ``wear.'' This change was made because the
Committee believed that hooks and latches are designed to withstand a
degree of wear, and it is only when the wear is excessive that it is of
concern.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(vii) lists ``[w]ire rope, in accordance
with Sec.  1926.1413(a).'' This item references the Shift Inspection
provision of Sec.  1926.1413, Wire rope--inspection, which specifies
how the wire rope would be required to be inspected in the shift
inspection. As discussed below in the section of this Preamble on that
proposed provision, the timing, degree of scrutiny, and level of
expertise required of the person conducting the wire rope inspection
essentially mirror those for proposed Sec.  1926.1412(d)(1). This was
done to ensure consistency with the wire rope inspections and the other
general items inspected each shift.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(viii) lists ``[e]lectrical apparatus for
malfunctioning signs of apparent excessive deterioration, dirt or
moisture accumulation.'' This essentially mirrors provisions in ANSI
B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004 (for Frequent Inspection) and Subpart R
except for the insertion of the word ``apparent.'' That word was added
to be consistent with proposed Sec.  1926.1412(d)(1)'s reference to
``apparent deficiencies.''
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ix) lists ``[t]ires (when in use) for
proper inflation and condition.'' ASME B30.5-2004 calls for tires be
checked for ``inflation pressure'' and Subpart R contains a similar
provision, although it does not contain the ``when in use'' limitation.
The Committee believed that it is unnecessary to check tires for proper
inflation on equipment that is not in use. In addition, it decided to
not include the word ``pressure'' because it believed that checking
pressure each shift with a gauge is unnecessary and inconsistent with
the visual nature of the shift inspection.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(x) lists ``[g]round conditions around the
equipment for proper support, including ground settling under and
around outriggers and supporting foundations, ground water
accumulation, or similar conditions.'' This item is new, in that it is
not included in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N or the ANSI/ASME standards.
The Committee believed that ground conditions can change from shift to
shift, and in light of the critical importance of sufficient ground
support, included this item in the C-DAC document.
    A nearly identical provision is included in 29 CFR part 1926
subpart R. However, the C-DAC provision differs from the Subpart R
provision in that the language ``and supporting foundations'' was added
by C-DAC to reflect that some cranes (particularly towers cranes) are
set on surfaces other than ``ground'' (e.g., concrete) and that ground
settling could occur ``under and around'' those foundations. As such,
the Agency believes that the C-DAC language is appropriate in the
proposed rule. It should also be noted that a separate provision, Sec.
1926.1402, Ground conditions, is included in this proposed rule, which
more specifically addresses responsibility for and adequacy of ground
conditions.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xi) lists ``[t]he equipment for level
position, both shift and after each move and setup.'' This item is not
included in the ANSI/ASME standards; however, it mirrors the language
of the similar pre-shift inspection in Subpart R. The Committee found
that, as with ground conditions, maintaining the equipment's level
position is essential for its safe operation. Since factors affecting
the equipment's angle of inclination can change from shift to shift
(such as compression of dunnage, ground settling from freeze/thaw
conditions and ground compression), the Committee believed that it is
necessary to include this in the shift inspection.
    The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public comment about
whether it is necessary to clarify the requirement of proposed Sec.
1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) that the equipment be inspected for ``level
position'' by clarifying the amount of tolerance that would be allowed
for the equipment to be considered ``level.'' The Agency requests
public comment on this issue.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xii) lists ``[o]perator cab windows for
significant cracks, breaks, or other deficiencies that would hamper the
operator's view.'' \32\ The purpose of this proposed provision is to
ensure adequate visibility. The Committee believed that it is important
to ensure that the windows' condition does not hamper the operator's
view. Since a significant crack, break or other defect hampering the
operator's view may occur during a shift, it believed that this item
needs to be included in the shift inspection. The inclusion of the
words ``significant'' and ``hamper the operator's view'' were to
clarify that minor deficiencies that do not materially impair the
operator's view are not considered safety hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Currently, 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart N contains a
requirement specifying that the type of glazing in cabs must not
cause ``a visible distortion.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xiii) lists ``[r]ails, rail stops, rail
clamps and supporting surfaces when the equipment has rail traveling.''
This item is not specifically listed as an inspection item in the pre-
shift inspections of Subpart R or in the Frequent Inspections of the
1968 or 2004 ANSI/ASME B30.5 standards. However, they are included
because of the essential role they play in the holding and emergency
stopping of rail mounted equipment. Their importance to safe operation
is similarly recognized by their inclusion in proposed Sec.  1926.1415,
Safety Devices, as safety devices that must be working properly for
crane operations to continue.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xiv) lists ``[s]afety devices and
operational aids for proper operation.'' Subpart N, through its
incorporation by reference of ANSI B30.5-1968, includes a daily
inspection of safety devices for malfunction for the equipment it
covers, while ASME B30.5-2004 requires a daily inspection of
operational aids for malfunction. Finally, Subpart R includes a
nonexclusive list of safety devices in its pre-shift inspection. The
equipment's safety devices and operational aids would be included
because of their important role in assisting the operator in the safe
operation of equipment.
    Concern was raised in Committee about including this item because
the industry did not have clear, consistent definitions for terms
``safety devices'' and ``operational aids.'' This concern was addressed
by referencing the lists of devices for each of these terms in proposed
Sec.  1926.1415, Safety devices and Sec.  1926.1416, Operational aids.
    The language also reflects the Committee's view that the inspection
of these devices and aids is more accurately described as an inspection
for ``proper operation'' rather than for ``malfunction.'' The Committee
considered this a more accurate description because the person
conducting the inspection does so by checking the safety device or
operational aid for proper operation. If it is found to be working
properly, the inspection is finished.
    Another concern was including both safety devices and operational
aids in this provision, since many members were of the view that these
two categories of devices necessitate different levels and types of
action when a deficiency is found. That concern was addressed by
specifying in proposed Sec.  1926.1412(d)(3) that if a deficiency is
found, the action that

would be required in response would be the actions delineated in
proposed Sec.  1926.1415, Safety devices and Sec.  1926.1416,
Operational aids, which address these two categories differently. See
additional discussions of these procedures in Sec. Sec.  1926.1415 and
1926.1416 of this explanation of the rule.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would establish the follow-up actions to
the identification of apparent deficiencies during the shift inspection
that would be required. Specifically, under proposed 1926.1412(d)(2),
immediately following the discovery of any deficiency identified
pursuant to proposed Sec.  1926.1412(d)(1)(i) through (xiii), or
pursuant to other equipment-specific inspections (e.g., see proposed
Sec.  1926.1436(p) (inspection of derricks), the competent person must
determine whether the deficiency is a safety hazard. If so, equipment
operations must cease until it has been corrected. The correction
procedure described in proposed Sec.  1926.1412(d)(2) is similar to
that in ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004 for their Frequent
Inspections.
    This approach reflects the Committee's determination that not all
deficiencies constitute safety hazards. The proposed language in Sec.
1926.1412(d)(2) reflects that approach by linking the requirement for
removing the equipment from service to deficiencies that constitute
safety hazards. The provision is designed to ensure that this
determination is made appropriately by requiring that it be made by a
competent person. The competent person would have the capability
necessary to make an accurate determination. In addition, requiring a
competent person to make the determination would ensure that his or her
findings were implemented; i.e., the competent person would have the
authority to order the equipment out of service if the deficiency
constituted a hazard. The Agency believes that this would be an
appropriate means of protecting employees from equipment with
deficiencies that constitute safety hazards.
    The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public comment on
whether, and under what circumstances, booming down should be
specifically excluded as a part of the shift inspection, and whether
the removal of non-hinged inspection plates should be required during
the shift inspection. Proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(1), discussed below,
explicitly states that booming down is not required as part of the
shift inspection for wire rope. It is the Agency's understanding that
C-DAC did not include a similar provision in the general shift
inspection provision in proposed Sec.  1926.1412(d) because booming
down would not be required to observe a deficiency in any of the items
requiring inspection under that paragraph. Similarly, OSHA does not
believe that inspection for a deficiency in any of those items would
require removal of non-hinged inspection plates. However, OSHA welcomes
public comment on these points.
Paragraph 1412(e) Monthly
    Proposed paragraph (e) would require a monthly inspection of the
equipment, the second of the three regularly scheduled general
inspections that would be required by this proposed standard. The
monthly inspection is identical in coverage and manner to the shift
inspection required by proposed Sec.  1926.1412(d), with one addition
discussed below. Thus, the monthly inspection would be a visual
inspection of the items listed in the shift inspection for apparent
deficiencies, conducted by a competent person. However, unlike a shift
inspection, a written record of the monthly inspection is proposed to
be kept and retained for at least 3 months.
    In addition, under the annual/comprehensive inspection in proposed
Sec.  1926.1412(f)(4), the employer would be required to identify
developing deficiencies that, while not yet safety hazards, need to be
monitored. In such cases the employer under proposed Sec.
1926.1412(f)(4) and (f)(6) would be required to monitor them in the
monthly inspections.
    This provision differs in some ways from the current requirement in
29 CFR part 1926 Subpart N that incorporates by reference ANSI B30.5-
1968 and from ASME B30.5-2004. For example, rather than a monthly
inspection, these industry standards call for a ``Frequent'' inspection
to be done at ``daily to monthly'' intervals. The Committee believed
that the proposed approach is an improvement over the ANSI/ASME
approach by eliminating ambiguity over the frequency of inspections.
Also, the consensus standards do not call for the monitoring of
developing deficiencies, a change the Committee believed would lead to
the elimination of hazards before they develop. However, many of the
items listed in those consensus standards for frequent inspections are
similar to those listed in the shift and monthly inspections of the
proposed rule (See discussion of items inspected under proposed
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (xiv) for comparison).
    Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would establish a documentation
requirement for this monthly inspection. Specifically, proposed Sec.
1926.1412(e)(3)(i) would require that the inspection ``be documented by
the employer that conducts the inspection'' and indicate the items
checked with results, the name and signature of the person of the
inspector, and the date. In these respects this proposed requirement is
similar to that currently in effect under Sec.  1926.550(b)(2) of 29
CFR part 1926 Subpart N for crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes.
Proposed Sec.  1926.1412(e)(3)(ii) would establish a minimum three-
month retention period for the monthly inspection documentation.
    These two proposed provisions have several purposes. The Committee
believed that, on a monthly basis, it is necessary to record the items
checked and the results of an inspection that for the most part
parallels a shift inspection. It believed that the documentation of
this inspection, signed by the person who conducted the inspection and
retained for three months, would have several effects. First, it would
increase the likelihood that more employers would implement systems for
conducting and responding to inspections. The failure to do so would be
more readily apparent if a record were not made, and the signature of
the person who conducted the inspection would be an inducement to that
person to ensure that the inspection was done correctly. Second, it
would create a record that the employer could use to help track
developing problems so that they could be corrected in time to assure
continued safe operation of the equipment.
    The Agency notes that the proposed three month retention period
also reflects a desire of the Committee to have a retention period that
is consistent with Department of Transportation (``DOT'') truck
inspection documentation requirements. Also, proposed Sec.
1926.1412(e)(3) parallels the monthly inspection for wire rope in
proposed paragraph 1413(b) in terms of timing, level of scrutiny,
expertise of the inspector, and documentation.
    The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public comment on
whether the provision for monthly inspections should, like the
provision for annual inspections, specify who must keep the
documentation associated with monthly inspections. (The provision for
annual inspections states that the documentation must be ``maintained
by the employer who conducts the inspection.'') OSHA requests public
comment on the issue raised by the Panel's recommendation.

    The SBREFA Panel also recommended that OSHA restate the corrective
action provisions from the shift inspection (proposed Sec.
1926.1412(d)(2) and (3)) in proposed Sec.  1926.1412(e). Under proposed
Sec.  1926.1412(e)(1), the monthly inspection must be conducted in
accordance with proposed Sec.  1926.1412(d) on shift inspections, and
this means that the corrective action provisions in proposed Sec.
1926.1412(d)(2) and (3) must also be followed in the monthly
inspections. OSHA requests comment on whether the language in proposed
Sec.  1926.1412(d)(2) and (3) should be repeated under proposed Sec.
1926.1412(e).
Paragraph (f) Annual/Comprehensive
    Proposed paragraph (f) would require an annual (i.e., once every
twelve months), general inspection of the equipment, the third of the
three regularly scheduled general inspections that would be required by
this proposed standard. It would promote safety by ensuring that a
thorough, comprehensive inspection of the equipment is performed to
detect and address deficiencies that might not be detected in the
proposed shift and monthly inspections.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would require that a qualified person
inspect the equipment, at least every 12 months, in accordance with
Sec.  1926.1412(d) (shift inspections). The Committee's intent was to
have the items specified in the shift inspection examined more
thoroughly, by a qualified person, on an annual basis. This would
ensure that deficiencies necessitating a greater degree of scrutiny
than what would be required in the shift inspection (such as a
deficiency that is not apparent in a visual inspection but is
detectable through disassembly), and a greater degree of expertise to
detect, would be discovered.
    The Committee believed that, in light of this need for greater
scrutiny, a higher level of expertise is needed of the person
conducting the inspection than is currently required for the annual
inspection in 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart N (Subpart N, at Sec.
1926.550(a)(6), requires that it be conducted by a competent person).
The Committee's view is similar to that reflected in COE-EM 385-1-1 (3
Nov 03) and ASME B30.5-2004, both of which call for a qualified person
to perform those standards' ``periodic'' inspections. The Agency
believes that, to effectuate the purpose of the proposed annual/
comprehensive inspection, a qualified person would be needed to conduct
this inspection.
    The Agency notes that neither this paragraph nor the subsequent
paragraphs under proposed Sec.  1926.1412(f) specify the level of
scrutiny that would be required for the annual/comprehensive
inspection. As it is the Agency's understanding that it was the
Committee's belief that this inspection needs to be more thorough than
a visual inspection for apparent deficiencies, OSHA solicits comments
from the public as to whether language specifying a higher level of
scrutiny (for example, ``thorough, including disassembly when
necessary'') should be added.
    In terms of timing, this proposed annual/comprehensive inspection
is essentially the same as currently specified in Subpart N, which
requires an ``annual'' inspection.
    The requirement that the inspection be conducted at least every 12
months means that an inspection must be conducted on or before the
anniversary date of the last annual inspection. A situation that may
arise is where the equipment is not in service on the anniversary date.
In that situation, since the equipment is not in service, the annual
inspection would not have to be done at that point. However, the
equipment could not be put back into service until the annual
inspection had been done.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Note that, under proposed Sec.  1926.1412(h), discussed
below, equipment that has been out of regular service for three
months or more must receive a monthly inspection before being
returned to service. However, if the equipment had been out of
regular service for more than three months but it was due for its
annual inspection, the annual inspection would have to be done and
there would therefore be no need to also do the Sec.  1926.1412(h)
(out of regular service) inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed below, proposed Sec.  1926.1412(f)(4)-(f)(6) contain
specific proposed responsive actions in the event a deficiency is
discovered in the annual/comprehensive inspection. C-DAC recommended
that proposed Sec.  1926.1412(f)(1) state that `` * * * the equipment
shall be inspected * * * in accordance with paragraph (d) (shift
inspections).'' Read literally, the C-DAC language would have required
the employer to comply with the responsive actions specified for the
shift inspections in proposed Sec.  1926.1412(d). However, the
specified responsive actions for the proposed shift inspection differ
from those proposed for the annual/comprehensive inspection. Therefore,
the Agency modified the C-DAC language for proposed Sec.
1926.1412(f)(1) to make it clear that the responsive actions that would
be required if a deficiency were found under Sec.  1926.1412(f)(1) are
those specified in proposed Sec.  1926.1412(f)(4)-(f)(6). This has been
done by adding the following language to the C-DAC (f)(1) provision:

    At least every 12 months the equipment shall be inspected by a
qualified person in accordance with paragraph (d) (shift
inspections) of this section, except that the corrective action set
forth in Paragraph (f) Annual/comprehensive, of this section shall
apply.

    The difference is that while both require that the equipment be
removed from service if safety hazards are identified, paragraphs
(f)(4) through (f)(6) also provide that a deficiency that might, but
has not yet, reached the safety hazard stage must be monitored on a
monthly basis. (Also, the determinations in Sec.  1926.1412(f)(4)
through (f)(6) are made by a qualified person, whereas the
determinations in the shift inspection are made by a competent person.)
    Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (xxi) supplement the list of
inspection items in proposed Sec.  1926.1412(f)(1) that would be
required to be inspected in the annual/comprehensive inspection. The
Committee developed this list based on the members' experience and
current industry practice as reflected in current consensus standards
for annual/periodic inspections. The Committee believed that each item
plays an important role in the safe operation of equipment.
    The list in proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (xxi) differs
somewhat from those in consensus standards. Among other differences,
the list in these proposed paragraphs is more user-friendly to the
employer and qualified person because the item inspected is at the
beginning of each sentence. Also, some items not in consensus standards
are included because, as discussed below, in the view of the Committee,
they also have a significant effect on the safe operation of equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) lists ``[e]quipment structure
(including the boom and, if equipped, the jib),'' including ``(A)
Structural members: deformed, cracked, or significantly corroded. (B)
Bolts, rivets and other fasteners: loose, failed or significantly
corroded. (C) Welds for cracks.'' Differences with similar items listed
in ANSI B30.5-1968, ASME B30.5-2004 and COE-EM 385-1-1 (3 Nov 03) are
as follows: ``Welds for cracks'' was added to better ensure that the
equipment is structurally sound; ``Other fasteners'' was added to
``bolts and rivets'' (referenced in the ANSI/ASME standards) because
there are now other types of fasteners which also need to be inspected
to ensure they are not loose, failed or significantly corroded; and
``significantly'' was added to describe

the degree of corrosion on a structural member or fastener needed to
trigger further examination because some corrosion on those items is
normal and has no effect on safety.
    Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) through (iv) list: ``[s]heaves and
drums for cracks or significant wear;'' ``[p]arts such as pins,
bearings, shafts, gears, rollers and locking devices for distortion,
cracks or significant wear;'' and ``[b]rake and clutch system parts,
linings, pawls and ratchets for excessive wear.'' These items are
similar to the items currently listed in the Periodic Inspection
(monthly to twelve month intervals) in ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-
2004. The Committee believed that these items, as reflected in their
inclusion in current consensus standards, need to be checked in an
annual inspection to ensure the safe operation of the equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(v) lists ``[s]afety devices and
operational aids for proper operation (including significant
inaccuracies).'' The Committee included the term ``significant
inaccuracies'' in recognition of the fact that such devices normally
operate within a tolerance range. Corrective action would not be
required if the inaccuracy is so small as to be irrelevant with regards
to the safe operation of the equipment. In contrast, significant
inaccuracies in these devices could mislead the operator and contribute
to actions that could result in the equipment being inadvertently used
in an unsafe manner. Consequently, the Committee believed that these
devices and aids need to be inspected for both proper operation and
significant inaccuracies.
    This provision is broader than similar provisions in the ANSI and
ANSI/ASME standards. Specifically, ANSI B30.5-1968 only addresses
``safety devices for malfunction'' (the Periodic Inspection includes
the items listed in the Frequent Inspection) while the Periodic
Inspection for ASME B30.5-2004 only includes operational aids.
    Another significant difference between this paragraph and the ASME
standard is the follow-up action required subsequent to the discovery
of a deficiency involving operational aids. Under this paragraph, the
discovery of such a deficiency that is determined to be a safety hazard
would require the equipment to be removed from service until the safety
hazard is corrected. In contrast, under the 2004 ASME standard,
alternatives to the removal of equipment from service are
available.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Section 5-<IP_ADDRESS> of the ASME standard allows the employer
to follow the recommendations of the manufacturer of the equipment
or device for continued operation or shutdown of the equipment. The
same section of the ASME standard also sets forth alternative
precautions, which may be taken unless the manufacturer specifies
otherwise, when specific operational aids malfunction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  1926.1416 would permit equipment with operational
aids that are not functioning properly to continue to be used with
specified alternative measures in place. Proposed Sec.  1926.1416(d)
and (e) would set time limits for such use. It is the Agency's
understanding that the Committee intended that this same approach
should apply with respect to the follow-up action required when an
operational aid is found in the annual inspection to be not working
properly. In other words, the equipment could be returned to service
but the time limits in proposed Sec.  1926.1416(d) and (e) would apply,
as would the alternative measures requirements.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1412(f) does not explicitly describe how the
follow-up measures in proposed Sec.  1926.1412(f)(4)-(f)(6) would apply
to operational aids. As explained below in the discussion of proposed
Sec.  1926.1412(f)(4)-(f)(6), the Agency believes that it would be
appropriate to add language to clarify that the follow-up action
required when an operational aid is found in the annual inspection to
be not working properly is the action specified in proposed Sec.
1926.1416(d) and (e).
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(vi) lists ``[g]asoline, diesel, electric,
or other power plants for safety-related problems (such as leaking
exhaust and emergency shut-down feature), conditions and proper
operation.'' This proposed provision was derived from ANSI B30.5-1968
and ASME B30.5-2004 and reworded to emphasize and limit its application
to safety related issues, and to include examples to better communicate
those concepts. Leaking exhaust was included as an example because it
could asphyxiate an employee. The emergency shut-down feature was added
as an example because a failure of this feature could result in an
employee being struck by a suspended load.
    Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(vii), (viii) and (ix) list ``[c]hains
and chain drive sprockets for excessive wear of sprockets and excessive
chain stretch,'' ``[t]ravel steering, brakes, and locking devices, for
proper operation,'' and ``[t]ires for damage or excessive wear.'' These
proposed provisions were derived from ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-
2004. The Committee believed that these items, as their presence in
these industry standards reflects, play a significant role in the safe
operation of equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(x) lists ``[h]ydraulic, pneumatic and
other pressurized hoses, fittings and tubing, as follows: (A) Flexible
hose or its junction with the fittings for indications of leaks. (B)
Threaded or clamped joints for leaks. (C) Outer covering of the hose
for blistering, abnormal deformation or other signs of failure/
impending failure. (D) Outer surface of a hose, rigid tube, or fitting
for indications of excessive abrasion or scrubbing.'' The purpose of
this proposed paragraph, as noted during C-DAC meetings, is to ``call
attention to specific parts of these hoses'' and thus prevent the
failure of mechanisms, such as the brakes, hoist mechanisms and limit
switches, that are powered or affected by the movement of fluids or air
through the equipment's system of hoses.
    Neither the general provisions in 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart N nor
the provisions in ANSI B30.5-1968 that are incorporated by reference in
Subpart N contain a specific requirement for an inspection of these
hoses, fittings and tubing. However, several more recent consensus and
government standards do contain similar items in their annual/Periodic
inspections. ASME B30.5-2004, COE-EM 385-1-1 (3 Nov 03) and DOE STD
1090-2004 all contain some form of this item in their Periodic
inspection provisions.
    The Committee's discussion of this item focused on whether language
used in ASME B30.5-2004 should be adopted. For example, the meaning of
the reference in the ASME standard to ``metal and couplings'' as one of
the points of concern on a hose for leakage was questioned. The
Committee sought to be clearer by referencing ``fittings'' instead in
proposed Sec.  1926.1412(f)(2)(x)(A).
    Also, members questioned the appropriateness of the ASME language
on inspecting for hose leakage that specifies leakage from threaded or
clamped joints that is not eliminated by ``recommended procedures.''
Since the use of such procedures to correct a leak is in the nature of
a repair, the concept of limiting the inspection item in this manner
was rejected.
    Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(xi)-(xiii) list a series of items that,
like (f)(2)(x), focus on specific parts of hydraulic and pneumatic
power systems. They would be included for the same reason--to better
ensure that those parts of the equipment driven by hydraulic and
pneumatic power do not fail. These provisions address: ``(xi)
[h]ydraulic and pneumatic pumps and motors, as follows: (A) Performance
indicators:

unusual noises or vibration, low operating speed, excessive heating of
the fluid, low pressure. (B) Loose bolts or fasteners. (C) Shaft seals
and joints between pump sections for leaks''; (xii) ``[h]ydraulic and
pneumatic valves, as follows: (A) Spools: sticking, improper return to
neutral, and leaks. (B) Leaks. (C) Valve housing cracks. (D) Relief
valves: failure to reach correct pressure (if there is a manufacturer
procedure for checking pressure, it must be followed)''; and (xiii)
``[h]ydraulic and pneumatic cylinders, as follows: (A) Drifting caused
by fluid leaking across the piston. (B) Rod seals and welded joints for
leaks. (C) Cylinder rods for scores, nicks or dents. (D) Case (barrel)
for significant dents. (E) Rod eyes and connecting joints: loose or
deformed.''
    As with proposed paragraph (f)(2)(x), these items are not
explicitly mentioned in Subpart N. Neither the Subpart itself nor the
incorporated ``Periodic'' inspection in ANSI B30.5-1968 specifically
references these items. However, ASME B30.5-2004, COE-EM 385-1-1 (3 Nov
03) and DOE STD 1090-2004 each require inspection of these items by
language with varying degrees of specificity.
    While discussing these items, C-DAC members decided not to include
the inspection of hydraulic filters that are included in ASME B30.5-
2004 because, as a Committee member who works for a manufacturer noted,
the condition of these filters is a maintenance rather than a safety
issue. Other discussion related to several of the items in this list.
In proposed Sec.  1926.1412(f)(2)(xi)(C), ``pump'' was inserted to
clarify which joints must be inspected for leaks. Further,
``significant'' was added to describe the dents subject to inspection
under proposed Sec.  1926.1412(f)(2)(xiii)(D) because some dents on
cases do not affect operation.
    The Committee believed that these items, as their presence in these
government and consensus standards reflects, play a significant role in
the safe operation of equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xiv) lists ``[o]utrigger pads/floats''
for excessive wear or cracks.'' The purpose of the inspection of
outrigger pads/floats is to make certain that these pads (which are
attached to the outrigger and used to distribute the weight of the load
to the ground) will not fail and leave the outrigger without proper
support.
    This item is not included in the annual inspection of Subpart N for
cranes and derricks, the periodic inspections of ANSI B30.5-1968 or
ASME B30.5-2004. However, the Periodic (yearly) inspection in COE-EM
385-1-1 (3 Nov 03) may cover ``outrigger pads/floats'' with its general
provision regarding ``foundation or supports.'' The Committee similarly
included this item because it believed that it plays a significant role
in the safe operation of equipment.
    Paragraph (f)(2)(xv) lists ``slider pads for excessive wear or
cracks.'' Slider pads (which are used to guide sections of equipment
such as the boom extension on a hydraulic crane) are included because
excessive wear may cause the equipment to fail. The Committee was aware
that some disassembly may be required to inspect slider pads.
    This item is not included in the annual inspection of Subpart N for
cranes and derricks or the periodic inspections of ANSI B30.5-1968 or
ASME B30.5-2004. However, the Committee included this item because of
its role in the safe operation of the equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xvi) lists ``[e]lectrical components and
wiring for cracked or split insulation and loose or corroded
terminations.'' Wires are not listed in the annual/Periodic inspection
in Subpart N, ANSI B30.5-1968, ASME B30.5--2004 or COE-EM 385-1-1 (3
Nov 03). The purpose of this proposed provision is to prevent hazards
related to deficiencies in electrical components and wiring. Since such
deficiencies may cause a fire or the malfunction of safety related
systems, the Agency believes that the inclusion of electrical
components as well as wiring in the inspection list is necessary.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xvii) lists ``[w]arning labels and decals
originally supplied with the equipment by the manufacturer or otherwise
required under this standard: missing or unreadable.'' The annual/
Periodic inspection in COE-EM 385-1-1 (3-NovJan 03) contains a similar
requirement relative to ``safety and function labels for legibility and
replacement.'' However, this item is not included in the annual/
Periodic inspections included in Subpart N, ANSI B30.5-1968 or ASME
B30.5-2004.
    The Committee believed that warning decals that would be required
under this proposed standard (either by virtue of a specific provision
in this proposed standard, e.g., paragraph 1407(g), or because they
were originally supplied by the manufacturer with the equipment, see
Sec.  1926.1433(e)(5), Posted warnings) provide important safety
reminders and information. As such, it was of the view that they need
to be maintained in order for them to continue to alert users to those
safety concerns. The Agency modified the C-DAC language for proposed
paragraph (f)(2)(xvii) so that it would cover warning labels and decals
originally supplied by the manufacturer and thus better reflect the
Committee's intent as indicated by proposed Sec.  1926.1433(e)(5).
    Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(xviii-xxi) list: ``Originally equipped
operator seat: missing;'' ``Operator seat: unusable;'' \35\
``Originally equipped steps, ladders, handrails, guards: missing;'' and
``Steps, ladders, handrails, guards: in unusable/unsafe condition.''
These are not included in the annual/periodic inspections of ANSI
B30.5-1968, ASME B30.5-2004, or COE-EM 385-1-1 (3 Nov 03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The original C-DAC language provided: ``Operator seat:
missing or unusable.'' OSHA modified this language to avoid the
implication that equipment that did not include an operator seat as
original equipment would, contrary to C-DAC's intent, nevertheless
need to have a seat installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee believed that these are safety related items that
need to be inspected. For example, if the operator seat is unusable,
the likelihood of the operator manipulating a control in an inadvertent
manner or being unable to reach a control is increased. The other items
relate to preventing falls and contact with exposed parts that are
moving or otherwise dangerous. It should be noted that, among others,
proposed Sec.  1926.1433, Design, construction and testing, and Sec.
1926.1426, Fall protection, would include requirements related to
several of these items.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(3) would require functional testing as part
of the annual/comprehensive inspection. A general functional testing
requirement is not included in the annual/periodic inspection in COE-EM
385-1-1 (3 Nov 03), although it does require functional testing for
certain items, such as ``crane function operating mechanisms,'' and
``operator aids (safety devices) and indicating devices.'' Similarly,
the annual/periodic inspection provisions of ANSI B30.5-1968
(incorporated by reference into Subpart N) and ASME B30.5-2004, imply a
functional testing requirement with regard to several specific items
(e.g., in B30.5-1968 and in B30.5-2004), ``[t]ravel steering, braking,
and locking devices, for malfunction'').
    The purpose of this testing is to ensure that the equipment as
configured in the inspection is functioning properly. It was the
Committee's belief that, without functional testing, the inspection may
not reveal some safety problems.
    The proposed provision reflects the Committee's belief that
functional testing should be limited to the equipment ``as configured
in the

inspection.'' In its view, functional testing in all possible
configurations, with all possible attachments, is unnecessary and would
be unduly burdensome. In light of the comprehensive nature of the
inspection that would result from compliance with the proposed annual/
comprehensive inspection provision, the Agency believes that this
limitation would not adversely affect safety.
    Proposed paragraphs (f)(4) through (6) delineate the follow-up
procedures that would apply when a deficiency is identified during the
annual/comprehensive inspection. The purpose of these provisions is to
ensure that a deficiency that is not yet a safety hazard but may
develop into one is monitored on a monthly basis, and that a deficiency
that is a safety hazard is corrected before the equipment is returned
to service.
    Specifically, proposed paragraph (f)(4) provides that immediately
following the identification of a deficiency, the qualified person must
determine ``whether the deficiency constitutes a safety hazard, or
though not yet a safety hazard, needs to be monitored in the monthly
inspections.'' Proposed paragraph (f)(5) would require that equipment
with a deficiency identified as a safety hazard by the qualified person
be removed from service until the deficiency is corrected. Proposed
paragraph (f)(6) would require the employer to check in the monthly
inspections the deficiencies that the qualified person had identified
as needing monitoring.
    The corrective procedures in proposed paragraphs (f)(4) through
(f)(6) are similar to those in ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004 in
that the ANSI/ASME provisions also call for equipment operation to
cease upon discovery of a safety hazard. They differ in that the ANSI/
ASME provisions have no procedures for monitoring deficiencies that are
not yet safety hazards.
    The Committee believed that this would be an effective means of
ensuring that employers respond appropriately to deficiencies
identified in the annual/comprehensive inspection. In addition, the
Committee's addition of a mechanism for monthly monitoring, where
needed, of deficiencies that have not yet developed into safety hazards
would ensure that developing hazards are caught before they endanger
employees.
    Upon reviewing these proposed provisions, OSHA believes that C-DAC
inadvertently omitted a reference in the proposed provisions for
annual/comprehensive inspections to special corrective action
procedures for operational aids. This issue is explained below.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1416, Operational aids, sets out requirements
that would apply where an operational aid is not working properly.
Specifically, it would allow equipment with an operational aid that is
not working to continue to be operated for a limited time as long as
certain temporary protective measures are used.
    In a shift or monthly inspection, as reflected in proposed Sec.
1926.1412(d)(3), if a deficiency in an operational aid is identified,
the corrective action described in proposed Sec.  1926.1416 would
apply. In contrast, in the proposed paragraph on annual/comprehensive
inspections (Sec.  1926.1412(f)), C-DAC did not include a similar
reference.
    If the corrective actions described in proposed Sec.  1926.1416 did
not apply and an operational aid were found to be not working properly
in an annual/comprehensive inspection, the qualified person would have
to determine if that constituted a safety hazard. If he or she
concluded that it was a safety hazard, the equipment would have to be
removed from service immediately until the aid was repaired. OSHA
believes that such a result would be contrary to C-DAC's intent, since
the issue of the extent to which an operational aid needed to be
repaired was comprehensively dealt with in proposed Sec.  1926.1416.
    In sum, the Agency believes that proposed Sec.  1926.1412(f) should
be modified to specifically make the corrective actions in proposed
Sec.  1926.1416 applicable. OSHA requests public comment on this issue.
    The Committee considered whether the monitoring aspect of this
proposed requirement would unduly add to the employer's paperwork
burden. The Committee determined that it would not, since all that
would be involved would be a notation on the employer's monthly
inspection form to pay special attention to the item and then note its
condition.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(7), Documentation of annual/comprehensive
inspection, would require the employer that conducts the inspection to
complete and maintain, for a minimum of twelve months, documentation
that contains ``[t]he items checked and the results of the
inspection,'' and ``[t]he name and signature of the person who
conducted the inspection and the date.'' Note that proposed Sec.
1926.1413(c)(4), which pertains to the annual/comprehensive wire rope
inspection, contains a similar documentation requirement.
    This proposed documentation requirement differs in several respects
from Subpart N and other current consensus standards. For example,
Subpart N at 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(6), has an open-ended retention period
and does not include a signature requirement or a requirement that the
inspector be named. It also differs from the periodic inspection in
ASME B30.5-2004 that only calls for ``dated records'' for specific,
critical items, does not specify that the inspector's name be listed,
and does not specify a retention period.
    The Committee believed that the proposed provision would promote
safety by ensuring that the items checked and the inspection results
are documented and maintained for at least 12 months. This would ensure
that past deficiencies and potential hazards associated with the
equipment can be tracked. In the Committee's view this information
would help the qualified person assess the equipment in the subsequent
annual/ comprehensive inspection.
    The Committee believed that the documentation of this inspection,
signed by the person who conducted the inspection and retained for 12
months, would have several effects. First, it would increase the
likelihood that more employers would implement systems for conducting
and responding to inspections. The failure to do so would be more
readily apparent if a record was not made, and the signature of the
person who conducted the inspection would be an inducement to that
person to ensure that the inspection was done correctly.
    The Committee determined that it would not be necessary for this
documentation to be available on site. The information in the document
is not routinely needed at the site to ensure safe operation. Rather,
it would be sufficient to maintain it in a centralized location (such
as a corporate office) and made available as necessary.
    During the SBREFA process, several Small Entity Representatives
objected to the requirement for documentation of monthly and annual
inspections, stating that such documentation would be unduly burdensome
and would not, in their opinions, add to worker safety. The Panel
recommended that OSHA solicit public comment on the extent of
inspection documentation the rule should require. OSHA requests comment
on this issue.

Paragraph 1412(g) Severe Service
    Proposed paragraph (g) would require the employer to inspect the
equipment when the severity of use/conditions--``such as loading that
may have exceeded rated capacity, shock loading that may have exceeded
rated capacity, [or] prolonged exposure to a corrosive atmosphere''--
creates a ``reasonable probability of damage or excessive wear.'' In
such instances, the employer would be required to stop using the
equipment and have a qualified person ``inspect the equipment for
structural damage''; determine whether, in light of the use/conditions
of the severe service, any items listed in the Annual/comprehensive
inspection need to be inspected and if so, inspect them; and if a
deficiency is found, follow the correction/monitoring procedures set
forth in proposed Sec.  1926.1412(f)(4)-(f)(6).
    Neither ANSI B30.5-1968 nor ASME B30.5-2004 has a specific
inspection provision for severe service. Rather, those standards
reference ``severity of service'' as a factor to be considered when
determining how frequently to conduct a Periodic Inspection. COE-EM
385-1-1 (1 Jan 03) references severe service under its periodic
inspection as a basis for requiring that inspection to be performed
quarterly as opposed to ``Yearly.''
    The Committee believed that there are certain events and
circumstances that, because they may cause damage (i.e., structural
damage or significant wear), should trigger a close inspection to check
for such damage, rather than waiting for the next annual inspection.
    The Committee considered using ``heavy service'' as a trigger for
such an inspection. In the course of that discussion, the Committee
considered triggering the inspection based on specific rated load
capacities (such as 85 to 100% of the rated load capacity) or on a
particular number of cycles (such as in excess of 10 lift cycles per
hour). These were rejected because members believed that, as long as
the use is within the equipment's rated capacity, such use would not be
expected to necessitate a special inspection.
    Instead, the Committee agreed that a trigger based on use or
conditions in which there is a reasonable probability of damage or
excessive wear would be an effective means of ensuring that equipment
was not operated with such damage/wear. Examples were provided in the
proposed provision to add clarity to the concept.
Paragraph 1412(h) Equipment Not in Regular Use
    Proposed paragraph (h) would require that equipment that sits idle
for three months or more be inspected by a qualified person in
accordance with the monthly inspection provisions of proposed Sec.
1926.1412(e) before being used.
    This would ensure that deficiencies that may arise as a result of
the equipment standing idle are checked before its subsequent use. The
Committee believed that this inspection would need to be done by a
qualified person because some of the deficiencies that may arise from
sitting idle require the qualified person's higher level of ability to
detect and assess. For example, equipment that is idle for a period of
time is often subject to variations in weather (e.g., temperature and
humidity) that cause contraction and expansion of parts and fluids,
which can cause damage. In addition, idle equipment is also more likely
to have corroded pins and corrosion on the boom. Such conditions need
to be assessed by a qualified person to determine if there is a
deficiency that constitutes a hazard.
    This proposed requirement differs from the ANSI/ASME standards in
several respects, most significantly in terms of the time frame that
triggers the inspection and the type of inspection required. Both ANSI
B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004 subject cranes that are idle for one or
more months, but less than six months, to a frequent inspection, and
cranes that are idle for six or more months to a periodic inspection.
It should be noted that under the proposed provision and the ANSI/ASME
standards, an inspection of wire rope is included. A qualified person
would conduct this inspection of wire rope (as well as the rest of the
items included in this inspection of equipment not in regular use).
    The Committee considered the ANSI/ASME approach to inspecting idle
equipment. It determined that a one month trigger was too short,
because problems that may arise from the equipment sitting idle, such
as drying/hardening seals, take longer than that to occur. It believed
that a three month trigger was more appropriate to use for this
purpose.
    Paragraph 1412(i). [Reserved.] This paragraph is reserved because
it is inconvenient for readers to determine whether ``(i)'' is being
used as a letter or a roman numeral.
Paragraph 1412(j)
    Proposed paragraph (j) would require that any part of a
manufacturer's inspection procedures relating to safe operation that is
more comprehensive or has a more frequent schedule than that required
by this proposed section must be followed. However, the proposed
paragraph notes that additional manufacturer documentation requirements
need not be followed. Examples are provided in the proposed provision
of the types of items that would be considered to relate to safe
operation (``a safety device or operator aid, critical part of a
control system, power plant, braking system, load-sustaining structural
components, load hook, or in-use operating mechanism'').
    Neither the general provisions of 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart N nor
ANSI B30.5-1968 contains a similar provision. However, Sec.
1926.550(c)(5) of Subpart N relative to hammerhead tower cranes and
Sec.  1926.550(f)(2)(iii) relative to floating cranes and floating
derricks require that inspections meet the manufacturer's requirements.
COE-EM 385-1-1-1 (3 Nov 03) states that ``[c]ranes and derricks shall
be * * * inspected * * * in accordance with the manufacturer's
operating manual for the crane and the applicable ANSI/ASME codes or
OSHA requirements, whichever is more stringent.''
    The Committee believed that, to the extent a more comprehensive or
frequent inspection is specified by the manufacturer, it is necessary
for that to be done to ensure the safe operation of the equipment. In
the Committee's view, the expertise of the manufacturer with respect to
the equipment in this regard needs to be recognized and acted upon.

Summary of Significant Differences From the Current 29 CFR Part 1926
Subpart N

    This proposed section differs in several respects from Subpart N.
Unlike Subpart N, the proposed standard does not include an initial
inspection for new equipment or inspections for standby cranes, nor
does it include a requirement for preventive maintenance.
    The Committee concluded that manufacturers' quality control and
inspection practices are generally effective in ensuring that new
equipment does not have deficiencies that constitute safety hazards.
The Committee believed that, to the extent those practices do not
identify and correct all such hazards, the shift inspection would be
adequate to identify and address them.
    The Committee concluded that a special inspection for ``standby''
cranes is not needed since the proposed section includes proposed
requirements for equipment ``not in regular use'' (see the

discussion of proposed Sec.  1926.1412(h), above).
    The Committee also concluded that a general requirement for
preventive maintenance is not needed because the proposed inspection
requirements are designed to ensure that deficiencies constituting
safety hazards will be identified quickly and equipment with such a
safety hazard would be prohibited from being returned to service until
the hazard is corrected.
    As discussed above, the proposed section would add requirements for
a post-assembly inspection and a severe service inspection, and varies
from Subpart N to some extent with respect to some of the items to be
inspected. In addition, the specific proposed requirements for
inspecting operational aids and for a qualified person to perform the
modified equipment and annual inspections would be new requirements.
Finally, rather than providing for ``daily to monthly'' inspections,
the proposed standard would require shift inspections and monthly
inspections.

Section 1413 Wire Rope--Inspection

    Cranes/derricks use wire rope to lift and support their loads and
parts of the equipment. If the rope is worn or damaged, it can break,
causing a failure of the equipment and/or a falling load, which can
kill or injure workers below. Approximately 3% of crane fatalities in
construction work result from wire ropes snapping. J.E. Beavers et al.,
``Crane-Related Fatalities in the Construction Industry,'' 132 Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 901, 903 (Sept. 2006).
(OSHA-2007-0066-0011).
    Subpart N, in Sec.  1926.550(a), contains several inspection
requirements applicable to wire ropes. Other requirements are found in
ANSI B30.5-1968, which is incorporated by reference in Subpart N
through Sec.  1926.550(b)(2). In addition, the employer currently must
look to both Sec.  1926.550 and to the ANSI standard to learn the
content of the required inspections, the qualifications of the
inspector, and the requirements for addressing deficiencies found in
ropes. The Committee believed that placing all of the required
inspections and remedies in this subpart without reference to outside
resources would make it easier for employers to find and become
familiar with the steps they are required to take and so facilitate
compliance. This is particularly true for small businesses, which bear
a disproportionate cost when they must access outside resources.
    The proposal would require wire rope inspections at the same
frequency--shift, monthly, and annually--that would apply for other
crane components. Also, like inspections of other components, the shift
and monthly inspections must be conducted by a ``competent person,''
and the annual inspection by a ``qualified person.''
Paragraph 1413(a) Shift Inspection
    Proposed paragraph (a) would require a shift inspection, the first
of the three types of wire rope inspections that would be required
under this subpart. The timing, degree of scrutiny, and the level of
expertise required of the person conducting this inspection and the
other two inspections (monthly and annual) essentially mirror those in
proposed Sec.  1926.1412, Inspections, for general equipment
inspections.
Paragraph 1413(a)(1)
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) describes who conducts the shift
inspection, the timing of the inspection, and the degree of scrutiny
required.
    The shift inspection would be conducted by a ``competent person,''
a defined term in this subpart.\36\ C-DAC believed that a ``competent
person'' would be the appropriate person to perform the shift
inspection. OSHA standards typically assign comparable inspection
duties to ``competent persons.'' See, for example, Sec.  1926.753(c)
(competent person must conduct pre-shift visual inspection of cranes
used in steel erection) and Sec.  1926.451(d)(3)(i) (competent person
must inspect suspension scaffold before use to ensure it is able to
support intended load). Moreover, a ``competent person'' would conduct
other aspects of the shift inspections under this proposed standard.
Some C-DAC members questioned using a ``competent person'' for shift
and monthly inspections on the basis that the individual most likely to
perform such an inspection, the operator, may not have the authority to
take corrective action, as is required of a ``competent person'' by
definition. In response, OSHA notes that the employer would be required
to ensure that the person assigned to perform the shift inspections has
the requisite authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ As discussed below under paragraph 1926.1413(a)(4), Removal
from service, in certain instances tasks relative to alternative
measures for certain (Category II) deficiencies would be done by a
``qualified person,'' also a defined term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed paragraph also would require that this inspection be
started before each shift and be completed before or during that shift.
As with the general shift inspection, the Committee concluded that it
was appropriate to allow the wire rope inspection to be completed
during the shift instead of requiring it to be completed before the
shift begins (see the discussion above of proposed Sec.
1926.1412(d)(1), which explains the Committee's reasons for allowing
the general shift inspection to be completed during the shift).
    Accordingly, the competent person would be required to inspect all
wire rope that is reasonably likely to be used during the shift. In
cases where some of the rope that is likely to be used is not readily
visible before the shift begins, as discussed above, that portion may
be inspected during the shift.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(1) would require the competent person
to conduct a ``visual inspection * * * for apparent deficiencies.'' As
discussed below, the purpose of this inspection is to ensure that
deficiencies are identified and that, depending on the competent
person's evaluation of those deficiencies, appropriate action is taken.
The Committee wanted to make clear, however, that the inspection was
not to be so comprehensive and time-consuming that it would be
unrealistic to conduct it for each shift. To clarify that the
inspection was one that was reasonable for a shift inspection, the
provision states that neither ``untwisting (opening of wire rope)'' nor
``booming down'' would be required during this inspection. It believed
that keeping the level of inspection realistic will encourage
compliance that ultimately will serve to reduce accidents.
Paragraph 1413(a)(2) Apparent Deficiencies
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(1) (discussed above) would require the
competent person to look for ``apparent deficiencies, including those
listed in paragraph (a)(2).'' Proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(2) would
establish three categories (I, II, and III) of apparent wire rope
deficiencies. The likelihood that a deficiency is hazardous increases
as the number of the category increases from I to III. As discussed
further below, the category determines the options or ``next steps''
available to or required of the employer under Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4),
Removal from service.
    C-DAC's goal in this paragraph is to establish clear and
appropriate requirements setting out the steps employers must take when
inspections reveal deficiencies.
    Category I: Proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(2)(i) lists ``Category I''
apparent deficiencies. These are similar to the types of wire rope
deterioration noted in the inspection provisions of

section 5-2.4.1 of ANSI B30.5-1968 and section 5-2.4.2 of ASME B30.5-
2004. As further indicated below in the discussion of Sec.
1926.1413(a)(4)(i) under Removal from service, these items are grouped
together because they reflect damage that may or may not be severe
enough to constitute a hazard. Proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(i) sets
forth the steps the employer would be required to take once a Category
I apparent deficiency has been identified.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(2)(i)(A) begins the list with the
``significant distortion'' of wire rope, such as ``kinking, crushing,
unstranding, birdcaging, signs of core failure or steel core protrusion
between the strands.'' These apparent deficiencies were selected
because, as indicated by their inclusion in consensus standards, such
as section 5-2.4.2 of ASME B30.5-2004, they may constitute or indicate
the presence of a hazard. The Committee considered whether the
reference in this paragraph to core failure should be limited to
rotation resistant rope. However, the Committee decided not to limit
``signs of core failure'' to rotation resistant rope.
    The word ``significant'' was included in this and other provisions
in Sec.  1926.1413(a)(2)(i) to make clear that minimal defects of these
types do not rise to the level of Category I deficiencies. Only those
that may pose genuine safety concerns are included.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1413 (a)(2)(i)(B) lists ``significant
corrosion'' as a Category I apparent deficiency. This type of damage
was included because severe corrosion can weaken wire rope and cause it
to break. The Committee used the descriptive term ``significant'' to
limit further action to situations in which the degree of corrosion
could realistically suggest a hazard.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C) lists ``electric arc (from a source
other than power lines) or heat damage'' as a Category I apparent
deficiency. These deficiencies were derived from SAE (Society of
Automotive Engineers) and COE (Army Corps of Engineers) standards and
are included because such damage can weaken the wire rope. In
discussing these types of damage, some Committee members expressed
concern that ``heat damage'' would include instances where the rope had
been cut to size by flame cutting. However, flame cutting would occur
at the end of the newly cut rope, not at a load-bearing part of the
rope. Heat damage is only a concern if it weakens a load-bearing part
of the rope. Flame cutting done at the end of the rope, not in a load-
bearing part, would not cause a hazard.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(D) lists ``improperly applied end
connections'' as another apparent deficiency. In the Committee's
experience, one type of error that occurs is when somebody between
shifts cuts the cable and puts the end connection back the wrong
way.\37\ An improper connection is weaker than a proper one and can
result in the connection failing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ An example would be when the person installs a U-bolt clip
with the ``U'' on the live end of the wire rope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(E) lists ``[s]ignificantly corroded,
cracked, bent, or worn end connections (such as from severe service)''
as the last type of Category I apparent deficiency. Each of these may
constitute a hazard.
    Category II: Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) contains two types of
Category II apparent deficiencies--visible broken wires (Sec.
1926.1413(a)(2)(ii)(A)) and wire rope diameter reduction (Sec.
1926.1413(a)(2)(ii)(B)). In the experience of the Committee, these more
typically signal the presence of a safety hazard than Category I
apparent deficiencies. Proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(ii), under
Removal from service, sets forth the steps the employer would be
required to take once a Category II apparent deficiency has been
identified.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) lists separate criteria for
visible broken wires for running wire ropes (six randomly distributed
broken wires in one rope lay or three broken wires in one strand in one
rope lay), rotation resistant ropes (two randomly distributed broken
wires in six rope diameters or four randomly distributed broken wires
in 30 rope diameters), and pendant or standing wire ropes (more than
two broken wires in one rope lay located in rope beyond end connections
and/or more than one broken wire in a rope lay located at an end
connection).
    A ``running wire rope'' is a wire rope that moves over sheaves or
drums. This definition is included in Sec.  1926.1401 of this proposed
standard to make clear the nature of the wire rope that is subject to
this inspection provision. These criteria are the same as those
contained in section 5-2.4.3 of ASME B30.5-2004, and those for running
wire ropes and pendant or standing wire ropes are also contained in
section 5-2.4.2 of ANSI B30.5-1968, which is incorporated by reference
in 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart N. One issue that was left unanswered
during the Committee discussions is whether these broken wire criteria
are equally applicable when using plastic sheaves. The Agency requests
public comment on this issue.
    The reference in proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) to ``a diameter
reduction of more than 5% from nominal diameter'' reflects a change in
the manner of expressing essentially the same criteria currently set
forth in fractions in Subpart N (Sec.  1926.550(a)(7)(iv)) and section
5-2.4.3(b)(6) of ASME B30.5-2004. OSHA notes that the ``reduction in
diameter'' fractions set forth currently in Sec.  1926.550(a)(7)(iv)
are in each case equal to or greater than 5%, so the proposed across
the board 5% criterion is equally or more protective than the current
standard for each rope diameter. C-DAC used the percentage reduction
criterion because it is consistent with the criterion now being set by
rope manufacturers and used in the industry. The industry uses the
percentage reduction criterion because it is easier to remember than
the fractional reductions in Subpart N.
    Category III: Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii) lists apparent
Category III deficiencies. The Committee believed that these are of
such significance that they require the rope's immediate removal from
service. For some Category III deficiencies, the undamaged part of the
rope may be returned to service if the damaged part is severed (the
actions required in response to identifying these deficiencies are
discussed below with respect to proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(iv)).
    Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(A), ``core protrusion or other
distortion indicating core failure'' in rotation resistant rope would
be a Category III apparent deficiency. As described by a C-DAC member,
this visible indicator is present when there is core protrusion between
the outer strands or, in other words, ``the metal core is coming out.''
Core protrusion is a late-stage indicator that the rope has already
suffered significant damage and, in the Committee's judgment,
necessitates the rope's immediate removal from service.
    Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B), ``[e]lectrical contact
with a power line'' would be a Category III apparent deficiency.
Contact with a power line could cause the rope to carry a high
electrical current that could result in internal damage that
significantly reduces the rope's strength. The Committee believed that,
in view of the difficulty in confirming such internal damage and the
likelihood that significant damage has occurred in such instances, it
is imperative that the entire rope be replaced.
    The rope would have to be removed from service under this provision
if the load, rigging, or the rope itself makes electrical contact with
a power line. In

addition, electrical contact under this provision would occur if the
boom or other part of the crane contacts a power line and the wire rope
is in contact with the ground through the hook or some other means.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C) also lists ``a broken strand'' as
a Category III apparent deficiency. A strand is a ``group'' of wires.
In the Committee's view, that degree of damage clearly compromises the
rope's capacity and continued use would be dangerous.
Paragraph 1413(a)(3) Critical Review Items
    Under proposed paragraph (a)(3), the competent person must give
particular attention to certain ``Critical Review Items'' during the
shift inspection (as well as, as discussed below, in the monthly and
annual inspections).
    Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i), rotation resistant wire rope
that is in use would be a critical review item. As indicated earlier,
the construction of rotation resistant rope makes it more susceptible
to damage and more difficult to detect damage to the inner wires and/or
strands.
    Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii), ``wire rope being used for
boom hoists and luffing hoists, particularly at reverse bends'' would
be included in the list because of the critical nature of these ropes
and, with respect to reverse bends, because these areas are subjected
to more stress and are more prone to damage.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) lists ``wire rope at flange points,
crossover points and repetitive pickup points on drums'' because these
points of the rope are subject to additional wear. These terms are
defined in Sec.  1926.1401, Definitions, as follows:

    Flange point: A point of contact between rope and drum flange
where the rope changes layers.
    Crossover points: Locations on a wire rope which is spooled on a
drum where one layer of rope climbs up and crosses over the previous
layer. This takes place at each flange of the drum as the rope is
spooled onto the drum, reaches the flange, and begins to wrap back
in the opposite direction.
    Repetitive pickup points: When operating on a short cycle
operation, the rope being used on a single layer and being spooled
repetitively over a short portion of the drum.

    Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iv) lists ``wire rope adjacent to end
connections'' because such rope is prone to corrosion and/or breakage
due to the localized stresses placed on these areas.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(v) lists ``wire rope at and on equalizer
sheaves'' because the limited travel of such rope and added stress make
it more prone to wear.
Paragraph 1413(a)(4) Removal From Service
    Remedial steps upon identification of apparent deficiency: Proposed
paragraph (a)(4) would set out the required next steps to be taken once
the competent person performing the inspection has identified an
apparent deficiency. Those steps depend upon whether, under Sec.
1926.1413(a)(2), the apparent deficiency falls under Category I, II or
III. Under this approach, immediate removal from service would be
required for certain deficiencies, while continued use under prescribed
circumstances would be allowed for others. This approach was adopted by
C-DAC because, in the Committee's collective experience, different
types of deficiencies warrant different responses.
    As described below, this approach differs somewhat from Subpart N,
with its incorporation by reference of ANSI B30.5-1968, as well as ASME
B30.5-2004. In addition, certain apparent deficiencies addressed in
this proposed rule are not addressed by those consensus standards.
    Category I remedial steps: Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(i) sets forth
the follow-up to the discovery of a Category I apparent deficiency that
would be required. Immediately upon the discovery of such a deficiency,
the competent person must determine whether the deficiency is a safety
hazard. If it is determined to be a hazard, operations involving the
use of the wire rope would be prohibited until one of two responses is
taken--the rope is replaced or the deficiency, if localized (and not
due to power line contact), is removed by severing the rope in two so
that the undamaged portion can be used. The provision also would
prohibit joining lengths of rope by splicing.
    The Committee found that the likelihood of significant damage from
power line contact is so great that, after such contact, it is
imperative that the rope be removed from service. Also, it determined
that splicing is not a safe practice and should therefore be
prohibited.
    The Category I deficiencies, except for damage from significant
corrosion or an electric arc, are currently addressed by Subpart N
through incorporation by reference of section 5-2.4 of ASME B30.5-1968.
That ANSI standard requires the deficiencies to be evaluated (by an
``appointed or authorized person'') and a determination made as to
whether continued use of the rope would constitute a safety hazard. A
similar provision is contained in ASME B30.5-2004. These provisions
imply, but do not explicitly state, that a rope constituting a safety
hazard must not be used. The proposed standard would explicitly state
this prohibition.
    Category II remedial steps: Proposed paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and
(iii) establish the procedures to be followed once Category II apparent
deficiencies have been identified. This category of deficiencies
includes wire rope that has diameter reduction and/or visible broken
wires as described in proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(2)(ii). Proposed
Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(ii) sets forth two alternative options for the
employer--Option A or B--when such a deficiency is identified.
    Under Option A, an employer must consider the wire rope to be a
safety hazard where the deficiency meets the wire rope manufacturer's
established criterion for removal or ``meets a different criterion that
the wire rope manufacturer has approved in writing for that specific
wire rope.'' In such instances, operations involving the use of the
wire rope in question are prohibited until it is replaced or severed as
provided in Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B).
    Option B would allow limited continued use of the wire rope with an
identified Category II apparent deficiency provided the employer
ensures the procedures specified in Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(iii) are met.
Under 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii), a qualified person first assesses the
deficiencies in light of the load and other conditions of use and
determines that continued use is safe as long as the conditions
established in this paragraph are met.
    These conditions include (as established by the qualified person)
the parameters for use of the rope, including a reduced maximum rated
load, the number of broken wires and/or the diameter reduction that
will require the rope to be taken out of service (or repaired in
accordance with proposed 1926.1413(4)(i)(A) or (B)), and a specific
time limit, not to exceed 30 days from the date the deficiency was
first identified, to replace the rope or sever the damaged portion in
accordance with 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B).
    The C-DAC draft, at paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(C), would also have
allowed the qualified person to specify the number of broken strands
that would require the equipment to be taken out of service. However,
as discussed above, under 1926.1413(a)(2)(iii)(C), a single broken
strand is a Category III apparent deficiency that requires the
equipment to be immediately removed from service until the rope is
replaced or the deficiency severed, in which case the undamaged part of
the rope may continue to be used. Because the proposed rule prohibits
any use of a

wire rope with a broken strand, OSHA has deleted the words ``broken
strands'' from 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(C).
    Once the qualified person has established the conditions for
continued use of the rope, the workers who are to conduct the shift
inspections must be notified of the qualified person's determinations.
In addition, the qualified person's procedures and findings must be
documented. The Committee included this documentation provision because
the person conducting the shift inspections would need to be able to
refer to the parameters set by the qualified person.
    29 CFR Part 1926 subpart N, in Sec.  1926.550(a)(7), currently
requires that ropes with the same deficiencies that would fall under
the proposed rule's Category II (as well as heat damage, which would be
a Category I deficiency) be removed from service. Section 2.4.3(a) of
ASME B30.5-2004 allows the rope to be used to the end of the work shift
based on the judgment of a qualified person.
    The Committee determined that the alternative measures specified in
Option B are sufficiently comprehensive and specific to ensure that the
rope's continued use for up to 30 days would be safe.
    OSHA notes that the remedial steps for Category II apparent
deficiencies do not, unlike those for Category I and III apparent
deficiencies, state explicitly that splicing of wire rope is
prohibited. Instead, Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A) states that, if a
Category II apparent deficiency is a safety hazard, continued use of
the rope is prohibited unless ``the damage is removed in accordance
with Sec.  1926.1413(4)(i)(B),'' which applies to Category I
deficiencies. Proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B) includes a
prohibition against splicing that C-DAC intended to apply to Category
II deficiencies, but the language ``damage is removed'' in proposed
Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A) could, in the absence of an explicit
prohibition against splicing in that paragraph, arguably be read to
mean that the rope could be severed and the undamaged portions spliced.
To make clear C-DAC's intent that the anti-splicing provision of Sec.
1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B) applies to Category II, OSHA has modified the C-
DAC language for proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(B) as follows:

    (ii) If a deficiency in Category II is identified, the employer
shall comply with Option A of this section or Option B of this
section, as follows:
    (A) Option A. Consider the deficiency to constitute a safety
hazard where it meets the wire rope manufacturer's established
criterion for removal from service or meets a different criterion
that the wire rope manufacturer has approved in writing for that
specific wire rope. If the deficiency is considered a safety hazard,
operations involving use of the wire rope in question shall be
prohibited until the wire rope is replaced, or the damage is removed
in accordance with all of the requirements and restrictions in
paragraph (4)(i)(B) of this section.

    OSHA has made similar changes to proposed Sec.
1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(C) & (D).
    Category III remedial steps: Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(iv) would
establish the procedure for dealing with identified apparent
deficiencies that fall within Category III. These deficiencies include
a broken strand, electrical contact with a power line, and core
protrusion or other distortion in rotation resistant rope indicating
core failure. This proposed paragraph would prohibit operations
involving the use of the wire rope until either the wire rope is
replaced or (except where there has been power line contact) severed in
two, so that the undamaged portion can be used. Joining lengths of wire
rope by splicing would be prohibited (see discussion above of proposed
Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B)).
    Neither Subpart N nor ANSI B30.5-1968 addresses these apparent
deficiencies. However, the Committee noted that section 5-2.4.2(a) of
ASME B30.5-2000 lists ``broken or cut strands'' and ``core failure in
rotation resistant ropes'' as deficiencies that may be an immediate
hazard. (ASME B30.5-2004 contains the same characterization of these
deficiencies as the 2000 version). The Committee believed that ropes
with Category III deficiencies must not be used because of the high
potential for rope failure.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(v) would require that where a wire rope
is required to be removed from service under this proposed section, the
equipment (as a whole) or the hoist with that wire rope shall be
tagged-out as provided in proposed Sec.  1926.1417(f)(1) until the wire
rope is replaced or repaired. Neither Subpart N, with its incorporated
reference to ASME B30.5-1968, nor ASME B30.5-2004 contains a similar
tag-out provision specific to wire rope. The Committee believed that
this would be an efficient and effective way of preventing employees
from activating equipment (or the affected hoist) that has a wire rope
with an identified hazard.
Paragraph 1413(b) Monthly Inspection
    Proposed paragraph (b) would require a monthly inspection of wire
rope. The monthly inspection would be, as explained below, a documented
shift inspection. C-DAC decided to keep the timing of this inspection
(as well as the level of scrutiny required and the expertise required
of the inspector) parallel with the general inspection requirements in
Sec.  1926.1412 to provide for an efficient inspection process and thus
enhance compliance. A monthly wire rope inspection is currently
required by Subpart N's incorporation by reference of ASME B30.5-1968.
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) would require the monthly
inspection to be conducted in the same manner as the shift inspection
under Sec.  1926.1413(a). Thus, the monthly inspection would be a
visual inspection conducted by a competent person for the same types of
apparent deficiencies noted in the wire rope shift inspection.
    It should be noted that the reference in proposed Sec.
1926.1413(b)(2) of the C-DAC Consensus Document to ``paragraph
1413(a)(3)'' has been corrected in the proposed rule to refer to Sec.
1926.1413(a)(4), which contains the relevant provisions governing
corrective actions.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require the monthly inspection to
be documented in the same manner as required by paragraph Sec.
1926.1412(e)(3) for the monthly general inspection. C-DAC wanted to
keep this requirement parallel with the monthly general inspection
provision in order to reduce paperwork and confusion, and facilitate
compliance.
    Specifically, for the general monthly inspection, Sec.
1926.1412(e)(3) provides that the ``employer that conducts the
inspection'' must provide documentation that reflects the items checked
with results, the name and signature of the inspector, and the date.
Similar requirements are set forth in ASME B30.5-1968.
    Proposed paragraph 1412(e)(3) also specifies that the documentation
be retained for not less than three-months. The Committee believed that
the proposed three-month retention period would provide sufficient
overlap to avoid gaps in information and thus provide a tracking
mechanism for developing problem areas.
Paragraph 1413(c) Annual/Comprehensive
    Proposed paragraph 1413(c) would require an annual inspection (at
least every 12 months) for wire rope, conducted by a qualified person.
The annual inspection would be considerably more thorough and
comprehensive than the shift and monthly inspections required by
proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a) and (b). In

addition, it would be conducted by a ``qualified person,'' who would
have greater expertise than the ``competent person'' who must conduct
the shift and monthly inspections.
    The timing and inspector qualifications for the annual wire rope
inspection coincide with those for the general equipment annual/
comprehensive inspection. C-DAC believed that the use of corresponding
timeframes and personnel will allow inspections to be conducted
efficiently and thereby promote effectiveness and compliance.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(1), all apparent deficiencies and
critical review items required to be checked in a shift inspection
would have to be checked in the annual/comprehensive inspection (see
Sec.  1926.1413(a)(2) and (a)(3)). In addition, under proposed Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2), a complete and thorough inspection, covering the
surface of the entire length of the wire ropes, would be required. In
addition to inspecting in this manner for the types of deficiencies
listed in Sec.  1926.1413(a)(2), under proposed Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A), the qualified person would be required to give
particular attention to the critical review items listed in Sec.
1926.1413(a)(3). Note that the C-DAC document's Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A) referred to the ``critical review items listed
in paragraph (a)(2)'' instead of Sec.  1926.1413(a)(3). That reference
to Sec.  1926.1413(a)(2) was a typographical error, which has been
corrected in the proposed rule.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B), particular attention must
be given to those sections of wire rope that are normally hidden during
shift and monthly inspections. For example, such sections would include
parts of the rope that form the lower wraps on the boom hoist drum and
which would not be visible unless the drum is in a very low angle
position. The parts of the rope that are normally inside a cowling or
covered area would be another example of such sections.
    Similarly, proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(C) through (F) require
particular attention to wire rope in contact with saddles, equalizer
sheaves or other sheaves where rope travel is limited, wire rope
subject to reverse bends, wire rope passing over sheaves and wire rope
at or near terminal ends, since these areas are more prone to wear.
    Unlike the shift and monthly inspections, in which booming down
would not be required, booming down would be necessary in order for the
inspection to be ``complete and thorough, covering the surface of the
entire length of the wire rope.''
    OSHA notes that the items listed in Sec.  1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C)
and (F) (``Wire rope in contact with saddles, equalizer sheaves or
other sheaves where rope travel is limited'' and ``Wire rope at or near
terminal ends'') are similar to the critical review items listed for
shift inspections in proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and
(a)(3)(v)(``Wire rope adjacent to end connections'' and ``Wire rope at
and on equalizer sheaves''). Consequently, the Agency is planning to
revise the language in proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v)
to match the language in Sec.  1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and
(c)(2)(ii)(F). OSHA then could delete proposed Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F) because proposed Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A) incorporates by reference the critical review
items listed in Sec.  1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v), thereby making
the items listed in proposed paragraphs Sec.  1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C)
and (c)(2)(ii)(F) redundant and unnecessary. The Agency asks the public
for comments on this proposed action.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would establish an exception to the
timing of the annual/ comprehensive inspection where that inspection is
infeasible due to ``existing set-up and configuration of the equipment
(such as where an assist crane is needed) or due to site conditions
(such as a dense urban setting).'' The provision sets a timetable for
annual/comprehensive inspections in such cases that requires the
inspection to be performed ``as soon as it becomes feasible, but no
longer than an additional 6 months for running ropes and, for standing
ropes, at the time of disassembly.''
    This provision reflects the Committee's concern that, particularly
in densely developed urban settings, the inability to boom down would
prevent the employer from completing a comprehensive wire rope
inspection. The Committee considered requiring employers anticipating
such situations to provide rope that is new or ``like new'' when the
crane is set-up at the site. Also considered was requiring that an
annual inspection be required in such instances before the start of the
job. The Committee found these proposals to be impractical because it
is difficult for employers to forecast completion timeframes with
sufficient accuracy.
    The proposed provision is intended to ensure that, under the
circumstances where the exception would apply, the required inspection
would occur within an appropriate period. The Committee considered a
maximum of an additional 6 months appropriate for running ropes in
these circumstances. A longer period, up to the time of disassembly,
was considered appropriate for standing ropes because these ropes, in
the Committee's experience, are less subject to deterioration and wear.
    These provisions of the annual/comprehensive inspection differ in
various ways from Subpart N annual inspection provisions at Sec.
1926.550(a)(6). The current annual inspection in Subpart N is a
``thorough'' inspection conducted by a ``competent person or by a
government or private agency recognized by the U.S. Department of
Labor.'' Under this proposal, the annual/comprehensive inspection would
be conducted by a qualified person and includes a number of specific
items the inspection must encompass. The Committee believed that these
changes are needed to reduce the likelihood of injuries and fatalities
from wire rope failure.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(3) identifies the next steps that would have
to be taken once the qualified person performing the annual/
comprehensive inspection discovers a deficiency. The qualified person
must immediately determine whether the deficiency constitutes a safety
hazard. If it does, under proposed Sec.  1926.1413(c)(3)(i), the rope
would either have to be replaced or, if the deficiency is localized,
the damaged part may be severed and the undamaged portion may continue
to be used. As discussed with respect to proposed Sec.
1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B), joining lengths of wire rope by splicing would
be prohibited.
    The proposed standard does not include a prohibition in Sec.
1926.1413(c)(3)(i)(B) against repair of wire rope that contacted an
energized power line, although such a prohibition is included in the
context of a shift inspection in proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B).
The Agency's understanding is that the Committee decided to not include
that prohibition in the annual/comprehensive inspection provision
because, if an energized power line contact had occurred, the rope
would have been removed from service immediately in accordance with
proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B).
    If the qualified person determines that the deficiency is not
currently a safety hazard but needs to be monitored, under proposed
Sec.  1926.1413(c)(3)(ii) the employer would be required to ensure that
the deficiency is checked in the monthly inspections. This would ensure
that, as the deficiency continues to develop, the competent person
would pay particular attention to it in the monthly inspections. Once
it became a

safety hazard, it would be identified promptly and the appropriate
corrective action would be taken.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(4), the annual/comprehensive
inspection would be required to be documented according to proposed
Sec.  1926.1412(f)(7), which is the documentation provision for the
annual general inspection. As with other parallel requirements in this
section, the C-DAC intended to ensure consistency with other
recordkeeping requirements and thus facilitate compliance.
    Proposed paragraph 1412(f)(7), which is incorporated by reference
here, would require the employer that is conducting the inspection to
document and retain for 12 months, ``the items checked and the results
of that inspection'' and ``the name and signature of the person who
conducted the inspection and the date.'' This documentation requirement
differs from 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart N's annual inspection in that
Subpart N does not specify the period of time the documentation must be
kept and has neither a signature requirement nor a requirement that the
inspector be named. The Committee believed that a 12 month retention
period would ensure that the employer would be able to refer to the
last annual/comprehensive inspection to help track the rate of
progression of a deficiency that has not yet developed into a safety
hazard. The Committee also believed that it would increase the
likelihood of compliance with the annual/comprehensive inspection
requirements.
    Finally, proposed paragraph 1413(d) would prohibit the use of the
type of rope lubricants that hinder inspection. For example, rope
lubricants that are opaque or so dark that they mask the wire rope
inside them would be of this type. This prohibition is necessary to
ensure that the rope lubricant does not hide potential deficiencies.

Section 1414 Wire Rope--Selection and Installation Criteria

    This proposed section sets forth requirements for selecting and
installing wire rope. It addresses safety concerns related to wire rope
selection and installation. In addition, it would provide greater
flexibility in the selection process than current requirements under
Subpart N. This flexibility reflects and takes advantage of new
developments in wire rope technology.
    Currently, paragraph 1926.550(a)(7)(vi) of Subpart N prescribes
that wire rope safety factors accord with ANSI B30.5-1968 or SAE J959-
1966. By contrast, this proposed section would not refer to external
standards for wire rope safety factors or other requirements (with a
single exception discussed below) and would give greater flexibility in
selecting wire rope, particularly rotation resistant wire rope.
Specific differences between this proposal and Subpart N are examined
in the discussion of the paragraph where the difference arises.
    The Agency notes that, in developing the C-DAC consensus document,
the Committee appears to have made an inadvertent omission. The wire
rope safety factors in section 5-1.7.1 of ANSI B30.5-1968 (which, as
noted above, are incorporated by reference in Subpart N) apply
irrespective of whether the rope is of the standard type (i.e., rope
that is not rotation-resistant) or rotation resistant. However, the C-
DAC document contains safety factor (now ``design'' factor)
requirements only for rotation resistant rope \38\; it has no
provisions on design factors for standard rope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ As discussed below under proposed paragraph (c), C-DAC drew
from the current 2004 ASME document in proposing design factors for
rotation resistant rope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, under Subpart N's incorporation of section 5-1.7.1 of
ANSI B30.5-1968, the factors for standard rope vary from a minimum of
2.5 to 3.5 depending on how the rope is used. The 2004 version of
section 5-1.7.1 of ASME B30.5 contains similar provisions and the same
range of design factors.\39\ Given the importance of design factors in
the selection of wire rope, OSHA believes that the omission of design
factors for standard rope from the C-DAC document was an oversight.
OSHA is unaware of any reason to omit design factors for standard rope
and plans to include factors for standard rope similar to those in
section 5-1.7.1 of ASME B30.5-2004. OSHA requests public comment on
this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The provisions for standard rope in section 5-1.7.1 of
B30.5-2004 read as follows:
    5-1.7.1 Rope Design Factors
    (a) For supporting rated loads and for supporting the boom and
working attachments at recommended travel or transit positions and
boom lengths,
    (1) the design factor for live or running ropes that wind on
drums or travel over sheaves shall not be less than 3.5.
    (2) the design factor for boom pendants or standing ropes shall
not be less than 3.0.
    (b) For supporting the boom under recommended boom erection
conditions,
    (1) the design factor for live or running ropes shall not be
less than 3.0.
    (2) the design factor for boom pendants or standing ropes shall
not be less than 2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph 1414(a)
    Proposed paragraph (a) would require the selection of replacement
wire rope to be in accordance with the requirements of this section and
the recommendations of the wire rope manufacturer, the equipment
manufacturer, or a qualified person. Currently, Subpart N (through
section 5-1.7.2e of ANSI B30.5-1968) limits the employer to using
replacement rope of the same size, grade and construction as the rope
originally furnished by the crane manufacturer unless otherwise
approved by the rope manufacturer. The 2004 version of ASME B30.5, in
section 5-2.4.3(d), specifies that replacement rope shall have a
strength rating at least as great as the original rope unless a
deviation is approved by the equipment manufacturer, the rope
manufacturer, or a qualified person.
    A number of concerns about the current 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N
provision were raised during the C-DAC negotiations. Some members were
concerned about delays in obtaining approval from the equipment
manufacturer. With respect to older equipment, the manufacturer may no
longer be in business. In such cases the employer is unable to get
original equipment wire rope information or obtain approval for use of
a different specification of rope. Even where the original manufacturer
was purchased by another company, the current company may no longer
have the original equipment information. Another concern was that the
wire rope manufacturer may be unduly conservative in recommending a
replacement rope.
    The Committee concluded that it would be appropriate to allow a
qualified person to determine the replacement rope specifications. The
Committee believed that the criteria for being a qualified person are
sufficiently rigorous to ensure that such a person's recommendation in
this regard would be authoritative with respect to safety.
    OSHA notes that proposed paragraph (a)'s mention of only
``replacement rope'' could mislead some readers to conclude that all of
Sec.  1926.1414 applies only to replacement rope. The Committee clearly
intended that the remainder of Sec.  1926.1414 apply to both original
equipment rope and replacement rope. Rewording Sec.  1926.1414(a) to
read as follows would, OSHA believes, make clear the Committee's
intent: ``Original equipment wire rope and replacement wire rope shall