be selected and installed in accordance with the requirements of this
section. Selection of replacement wire rope shall be in accordance with
the recommendations of the wire rope manufacturer, the equipment
manufacturer, or a qualified person.'' OSHA requests public comment on
such a revision.

Paragraph 1414(b) Boom Hoist Reeving
    Proposed paragraph (b) sets forth two provisions regarding the use
of wire rope for boom hoist reeving.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would prohibit using fiber core ropes for
boom hoist reeving, except for derricks. In the Committee's view, the
composition of such ropes makes them prone to degradation that is not
completely detectable by normal inspection techniques. The Committee
believed that fiber core ropes can be used safely for boom hoist
reeving on derricks because the sheaves on derricks are smaller than on
cranes, and because they are more pliable, fiber core ropes can
accommodate reverse bending. In addition, but less significant, derrick
booms are typically shorter in length and have less capacity.
    Currently, Subpart N does not contain an express prohibition
against the use of fiber core wire ropes for boom hoist reeving. ANSI
B30.5-1968, incorporated by reference into Subpart N, only references
the effect of temperature on fiber core wire rope.
    The 2004 version of ASME B30.5, in section <IP_ADDRESS>(b), prohibits
the use of fiber core wire ropes for boom hoist reeving for mobile and
locomotive cranes. By contrast, the standard in the ASME B30 series
that applies to derricks, ASME B30.6-2003, does not prohibit the use of
fiber core wire rope for boom hoist reeving. Thus, the distinction in
proposed Sec.  1926.1414(b) between cranes and derricks in this regard
is consistent with current national consensus standards.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would prohibit rotation resistant rope
from being used for boom hoist reeving except where the requirements of
Sec.  1926.1414(c) are met. The Committee believed that only where
these provisions are met would the use of rotation resistant rope for
this purpose be safe. The particulars of paragraph (c) are discussed
next.
Paragraph 1414(c) Rotation Resistant Ropes
Paragraph (c)(1)
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would classify rotation resistant ropes
into three ``Types'' (``Type I,'' ``Type II,'' and ``Type III'').\40\
Proposed Sec.  1926.1414(c)(2) specifies use limitations and
requirements for each ``Type'' of wire rope. This approach differs from
Subpart N, ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004, which do not
distinguish between types of rotation resistant rope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ ASTM A 1023/A 1023M-02 has a similar classification system,
although it divides rotation resistant ropes into ``categories.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Technological advances have resulted in different types of what in
the past had been referred to as ``rotation resistant rope.'' The
different kinds, which are distinguished in this proposed section as
Types I, II and III, have different capabilities, which are described
in the definitions in proposed Sec.  1926.1414(c)(1). This proposed
section tailors the requirements and limitations to each Type. The
Committee believed that this approach would enable the industry to take
advantage of technological advances and improve safety.
Paragraph (c)(2) Requirements
    Proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) set forth use
requirements of the three ``Types'' of rotation resistant rope in terms
of operating design factors (and in some instances activity). The
purpose of these provisions is to ensure that the selection of the Type
of rotation resistant rope is suitable, in terms of safety, to its use.
    The specifics of each paragraph are discussed below. This approach
generally differs from Subpart N. The safety factors in ANSI B30.5-1968
and SAE J959-1966 that are incorporated by reference in 29 CFR part
1926 subpart N are applicable to wire rope generally; those industry
consensus standards do not separately address rotation resistant rope
with respect to design factors.
    However, sections 5-5-1.7.1(c) and 5-<IP_ADDRESS>(d) of ASME B30.5-2004
generally designate a design factor of 5 for the use of rotation
resistant rope, reflecting the advances in technology that led the
Committee to adopt a similar approach. Further, the 2004 ASME standard
allows for deviation from the design factor of 5, but in no case lower
than 3.5, when certain specified procedures that are similar to
procedures in proposed Sec.  1926.1414(c)(2)(iv) and further described
in Sec.  1926.1414(c)(3) are followed.
    Proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(i)-(iv) use the phrase ``operating
design factor.'' ``Operating'' has been included in this phrase to show
that the factors specified in these proposed paragraphs are to reflect
how the rope is installed on the specific piece of equipment in which
it is used. In other words, the operating design factor is calculated
based on numerous considerations associated with both the rope's design
and how it is installed on the equipment in which it will be used.
    The Committee recognized that limiting the use of a particular Type
of rotation resistant rope by operating design factors (and, in some
instances, by activity) is a new approach. However, the technological
developments that have occurred since Subpart N was promulgated have
led to a need to tailor use requirements and parameters to the
different Types of rotation resistant rope.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) would prohibit Types II and III
rotation resistant rope with an operating design factor of less than 5
from being used for duty cycle or repetitive lifts. The Committee
believed that such ropes are inappropriate for this type of use, which
subjects the rope to high levels of stress generally and/or
concentrates wear in particular sections of the rope.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ In contrast, where the operating design factor is 5 or
greater, the Committee believed that core damage (which is difficult
to detect) would not occur prior to the development of outer core
damage. Consequently, its use for duty cycle or repetitive lifts
would be safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While not addressed in the current Subpart N, a similar limitation
applies to rotation resistant rope (though not limited by Type) in
section 5-<IP_ADDRESS>(d)(3) of ASME B30.5-2004.
    This prohibition would not apply to Type I rotation resistant rope
because the Committee believed that it is significantly more resistant
to rotation or torque compared with Types II and III. This reduces Type
I's potential for internal wear during use and moves degradation from
the inner wires to the outer wires, where damage is more easily
detected during wire rope inspections. Accordingly, the Committee
concluded that Type I rope can safely be used for duty cycle and
repetitive lifts at an operating design factor below 5 (but no less
than 3.5), as specified in proposed 1926.1414(c)(2)(ii).
    The Committee's understanding of ``duty cycle'' in this context is
a continuous operation in which approximately the same type and weight
of load is handled. For example, dredging with a clamshell is duty
cycle work. ``Repetitive lifts'' refers to a continuous operation with
loads that may vary in size and weight. For example, steel erection
work typically involves repetitive lifts of various size and
configurations of structural steel members. It is the Agency's
understanding that these definitions are widely understood in the
industry. However, OSHA believes it is appropriate to include them in
Sec.  1926.1401, Definitions, to avoid any misunderstanding as to their
meaning in this standard. OSHA requests public comment on this issue.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would require that all rotation
resistant ropes

have an operating design factor of no less than 3.5. As discussed
above, some rotation resistant ropes--Types II and III--would have to
have an operating design factor of no less than 5 when used for duty
cycle or repetitive lifts. Apart from those uses, under proposed Sec.
1926.1414(c)(2)(ii), the lowest operating design factor that would be
allowed for both Types II and III, as well as Type I, would be 3.5.
    This provision recognizes that the use of rotation resistant rope
at operating design factors below 5 (but in no case below 3.5) is
permissible, although proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(i) (discussed above),
(iii) and (iv) would set limitations and conditions. The Committee was
cognizant of the fact that section 5-<IP_ADDRESS>(d) of ASME B30.5-2004 also
allows rotation resistant rope to be used at a design factor as low as
3.5 under similarly restricted circumstances.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would require the operating design
factor for Type I rotation resistant rope to be no less than 5 except
where the wire rope manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer approve
a different design factor in writing. (Note that, under proposed
paragraph (c)(2)(ii), the operating design factor would be prohibited
from being less than 3.5.) The Committee believed that, in light of the
design of Type I rope, where there is approval for the operating design
factor by both the wire rope manufacturer and equipment manufacturer,
the use of the rope would be safe.
    The Committee considered concerns about the fact that, in the
future, there may be many new Type I ropes on the market, and the
manufacturer may not have tested them; this could lead to difficulty in
obtaining manufacturer approval for an operating design factor less
than 5. However, in the Committee's judgment, the manufacturer's
expertise regarding the particular equipment is essential in this
instance to ensure that use of such rope would be safe.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iv), Types II and III rotation
resistant rope would be required to have an operating design factor of
no less than 5 except when used for non-duty cycle and non-repetitive
lifts, and where the requirements of Sec.  1926.1414(c)(3)(i)--(iii)
are met. When these exceptions apply, proposed Sec.
1926.1414(c)(2)(ii) would prohibit the operating design factor from
being less than 3.5.
    This proposed paragraph reflects the Committee's belief that there
is a greater likelihood of internal damage in Type II and Type III
rotation resistant rope when used with an operating design factor lower
than 5. However, the Committee's view is that where the additional
precautions in proposed Sec.  1926.1414(c)(3) are met, its use would be
safe.
    As stated above, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N is dissimilar from this
paragraph in that it does not contain a specific operating design
factor for rotation resistant rope and does not otherwise differentiate
between rotation resistant wire ropes. This provision is, however,
similar to section 5-<IP_ADDRESS>(d) in ASME B30.5-2004 which, while not
differentiating by ``Type,'' does allow the use of rotation resistant
rope with an operating design factor of less than 5 where conditions
similar to those included in proposed Sec.  1926.1414(c)(3) are
instituted.
Paragraph (c)(3)
    This proposed paragraph specifies additional requirements that must
be met when Types II and III are used with an operating design factor
of between 3.5 and 5 (for non-duty cycle, non-repetitive lifts). The
Committee believed that these additional requirements are needed to
ensure that use of such ropes would be safe.
    Specifically, under proposed Sec.  1926.1414(c)(3)(i), an
inspection of the rope by a qualified person in accordance with Sec.
1926.1413(a) would be required, with its use allowed only if that
person determines there are no deficiencies constituting a hazard (with
the presence of more than one broken wire in any one rope lay
considered a hazard). Because of the lower operating design factor of
these ropes, the Committee believed that the expertise of a qualified
person is needed to ensure that there are no deficiencies that
constitute a hazard. Similarly, even one broken wire in any one rope
lay would be considered a hazard.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii), operations would have to be
conducted in a manner and at speeds that minimize dynamic effects.
Dynamic effects are the additional forces exerted on the rope due to
dynamics like acceleration and deceleration. Such effects need to be
minimized because they increase the stress on the rope.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii), each lift would have to be
documented in the monthly and annual inspection records, with such use
to be considered by the qualified person in allowing subsequent use of
the rope. The Committee considered this an important step because the
more times the rope is used, the greater the likelihood that
degradation would have occurred. Requiring each such lift to be
documented in the monthly and annual inspection records would ensure
that this information is available to the qualified person when that
person makes his or her inspections and assessments under proposed
Sec.  1926.1414(c)(3)(i) and (ii).
Paragraph (c)(4) Additional Requirements for Rotation Resistant Rope
for Boom Hoist Reeving
    Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(i) would prohibit rotation resistant rope
from being used for boom hoist reeving except where the requirements of
proposed Sec.  1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) are met. Currently, Subpart N,
through its incorporation by reference of section 5-1.7.2 of ANSI
B30.5-1968, prohibits the use of rotation resistant rope for boom hoist
reeving under all circumstances. This prohibition reflects the fact
that rotation resistant rope used for boom hoist reeving tends to twist
and thereby suffer internal damage when it passes over sheaves that are
close together.
    In reviewing this prohibition, the Committee noted that this
problem is reduced when load hoists using rotation resistant rope are
used as boom hoists for attachments such as luffing attachments or boom
and mast attachment systems because the sheaves are not as close
together in these applications and the twisting forces are therefore
lower.
    The Committee concluded that safety would not be compromised in
such circumstances as long as the conditions in proposed Sec.
1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) were met. The Committee also believed that the
exception would serve a practical purpose, especially when using
attachments such as luffing jibs. The auxiliary hoist is typically used
as a boom hoist for such attachments, and is normally rigged with
rotation resistant rope. The exception enables the employer to avoid
the need to change the rope when using such attachments when safety
could be assured by meeting the specified conditions for its use. Note
that section 5-1.7.2 of ASME B30.5-2004 also allows rotation resistant
rope to be used for boom hoist reeving when conditions similar to those
in proposed Sec.  1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) are met.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A), the drum must have a first
layer rope pitch diameter of not less than 18 times the nominal
diameter of the rope used. A first layer rope pitch diameter less than
that could damage the rope.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B), the requirements of Sec.
1926.1426(a) and (b) would have to be

met.\42\ Section 1926.1426(a) prohibits boom free fall for equipment
manufactured prior to October 31, 1984 and restricts the circumstances
under which a free falling boom may be used for equipment manufactured
before that date. By saying that paragraph 1426(a) applies
``irrespective of the date of manufacture,'' proposed Sec.
1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(B) makes clear that, when rotation resistant rope
is used for boom hoist reeving, boom free fall is prohibited for all
equipment under all circumstances. The reference to Sec.  1926.1426(b)
requires the boom hoist to have a secondary mechanism to prevent free
fall in the event the primary system fails. These provisions would
prevent the rope from being subjected to the shock load forces that
would occur in a boom free fall when the rope arrests the fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The C-DAC Document referred to Sec.  1926.1426(b) and (c).
C-DAC's intent clearly was to refer to Sec.  1926.1426(a) and (b),
and OSHA has corrected the text accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The C-DAC draft of proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(C) incorporated by
reference the provisions in ASME B30.5-2004 at sections 5-1.3.2(a),
(a)(2) through (a)(4), and (b) through (d).\43\ (Note that, at the time
the C-DAC document was completed, the most current version of ANSI/ASME
B30.5 was the 2000 version. Since that time the 2004 version has been
issued. The referenced provisions are identical in both versions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The Committee determined that the incorporated provisions
were sufficiently clear and enforceable for use as OSHA
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These provisions of section 5-1.3.2 (load hoist mechanisms) of the
ASME standard provide:

* * * * *
    (a) Load Hoist Drums. The load hoist drum assemblies shall have
power and operational characteristics sufficient to perform all load
lifting and lowering functions required in crane service when
operated under recommended conditions.
* * * * *
    (2) Load hoist drums shall have rope capacity with the
recommended rope size and reeving to perform crane service within
the range of boom lengths, operating radii, and vertical lifts
specified by the manufacturer.
    (a) No less than two full wraps of rope shall remain on the drum
when the hook is in the extreme low position.
    (b) The drum end of the rope shall be anchored to the drum by an
arrangement specified by the crane or rope manufacturer.
    (c) The drum flange shall extend a minimum of 1/2 inch (13 mm)
over the top layer of rope at all times.
    (3) The load hoist drums shall provide a first layer rope pitch
diameter of not less than 18 times the nominal diameter of the rope
used.
    (4) A means controllable from the operator's station shall be
provided to hold the drum from rotating in the lowering direction
and be capable of holding the rated load without further action by
the operator. Foot-operated brakes having a continuous mechanical
linkage between the actuating and braking means, capable of
transmitting full braking force and equipped with a positive
mechanical means to hold the linkage in the applied position, meet
this requirement.
* * * * *
    (b) Load Hoist Brakes.
    (1) When power-operated brakes having no continuous mechanical
linkage between the actuating and braking means are used for
controlling loads, an automatic means shall be provided to set the
brake, to prevent the load from falling in the event of loss of
brake control power.
    (2) Foot-operated brake pedals shall be constructed so that the
operator's feet, when in proper position, will not slip off, and a
means shall be provided for holding the brakes in the applied
position without further action by the operator.
    (c) Power Controlled Lowering. When provided, a power-controlled
lowering system shall be capable of handling rated loads and speeds
as specified by the manufacturer. Such a system is recommended to
assist in precision lowering and to reduce demand on the load brake.
    (d) Cylinders with Rope Reeving. Cranes using a load hoist
mechanism with hydraulic cylinder(s) and rope reeving shall have
power and operational characteristics sufficient to perform all load
lifting and lowering functions required in crane service when
operated under recommended conditions. Sheaves used in multiple rope
reeving shall have a pitch diameter not less than 16 times the
nominal diameter of the rope and shall comply with para. 5-1.7.4.

    Upon reviewing these provisions, OSHA believes that two changes
need to be made to the incorporation recommended by C-DAC. First, the
second sentence of section 5-1.3.2(c) is stated as a recommendation
rather than a mandatory requirement. OSHA believes it would be
confusing to incorporate a non-mandatory recommendation into this
standard. Therefore, rather than incorporating that provision by
reference, OSHA is adding a new paragraph (G) to Sec.
1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) that incorporates only the mandatory first sentence
of section 5-1.3.2(c) of ASME B30.5: ``When provided, a power-
controlled lowering system shall be capable of handling rated loads and
speeds as specified by the manufacturer.''
    The second change pertains to the final sentence of section 5-
1.3.2(d) of ASME B30.5. That sentence's requirement of a minimum pitch
diameter of 16 times the nominal diameter of the rope varies from the
requirement of proposed Sec.  1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(D), discussed next,
that the minimum pitch diameter be 18 times the rope's nominal
diameter. The variation is due to the fact that section 1.3.2(d) of
ASME B30.5 does not apply solely to rotation resistant rope, as does
this paragraph. Although it is possible to comply with a minimum pitch
diameter of both 16 and 18 times the nominal diameter of the rope by
adhering to the value of 18, OSHA believes it would be confusing to
include requirements giving both values. Accordingly, OSHA is modifying
the incorporation by reference recommended by C-DAC so that, in this
proposed rule, Sec.  1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(C) reads as follows:

    The requirements in ASME B30.5-2004 Section 5-1.3.2 (a), (a)(2)-
(a)(4), (b), and (d), except that the minimum pitch diameter for
sheaves used in multiple rope reeving is 18 times the nominal
diameter of the rope used instead of the value of 16 specified in
section 5-1.3.2(d).

    Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(D) provides that all sheaves used in
the boom hoist reeving system shall have a rope pitch diameter of not
less than 18 times the nominal diameter of the rope used.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(E) provides that the operating design
factor of the boom hoist reeving system shall be not less than five. In
this paragraph and the next one as well, OSHA has changed the C-DAC
term ``design factor'' to ``operating design factor.'' OSHA made this
change so that the terminology in these two paragraphs would be
consistent with that in proposed paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this
section. OSHA requests public comment on whether there is any reason
for using different terminology in proposed Sec.
1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(E) and (F) than in proposed Sec.  1926.1414(c)(2)
and (3).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(F) provides that the operating design
factor for these ropes shall be the total minimum breaking force of all
parts of rope in the system divided by the load imposed on the rope
system when supporting the static weights of the structure and the
crane rated load. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the
methodology for computing the operating design factors is clear and the
operating design factor requirements specified in the proposed standard
achieve their intended effect.
Paragraph 1414(d)
    Proposed paragraph (d) would require that wire rope clips used with
wedge sockets be attached to the unloaded dead end of the rope;
however, the provision also permits the use of

devices specifically designed for dead-ending rope in a wedge socket.
The Committee believed that this provision is necessary to ensure
attachment strength, reliability and prevention of cable damage.
Paragraph 1414(e)
    Proposed paragraph (e) states that socketing shall be done in the
manner specified by the manufacturer of the wire rope or fitting. This
is a clearer version of the provision in section 5-1.7.2b of ANSI
B30.5-1968, which refers to the manner specified by the manufacturer of
the assembly.
Paragraph 1414(f)
    Proposed paragraph (f) specifies that prior to cutting wire rope,
seizings must be placed on each side of the point to be cut, with the
length and number of seizings determined in accordance with the wire
rope manufacturer's instructions. Seizings are needed to hold the wire
in the strands and the strands in place during handling while cutting.
This keeps the rope beyond the area of the cut intact. This provision
differs from both section <IP_ADDRESS>(c) of ANSI B30.5-1968 (incorporated
by reference into 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart N) and from section 5-
2.4.4(c) of ASME B30.5-2004, which set forth specific seizing
requirements based upon whether the rope is preformed and the rope's
diameter.
    In Committee's experience, the instructions and procedures for
seizing differ among various wire rope manufacturers. It concluded that
the most appropriate approach would be to require that, beyond
specifying that seizings be placed on each side of the point to be cut,
which is always necessary, the length and number of seizings be in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The Committee decided
to require employers to follow the manufacturer's instructions because
it believed that wire rope manufacturers have the knowledge and
expertise to best determine the length and number of seizings that are
needed to maintain the integrity of their wire ropes during cutting.

Section 1415 Safety Devices

    This section sets forth the proposed requirements for equipping
cranes and derricks with certain safety devices.
    The safety devices addressed by this section are devices that C-DAC
believed are essential for the safe operation of cranes and derricks
and therefore, required to be present and in proper working order
during all equipment operations with no alternative measures permitted.
Those devices considered less critical to equipment safety are
designated as operational aids and are governed by proposed Sec.
1926.1416. That section allows for equipment to continue operating if
the operational aid fails or malfunctions but requires certain
temporary alternative protective measures in such cases. Those devices
designated as safety devices in this section are so essential and
integral to safe equipment operation that C-DAC determined that there
is no acceptable alternative to having them in proper working order.
Paragraph 1415(a) Safety Devices
    Proposed paragraph (a) lists the safety devices that would be
required on all equipment covered by this Subpart and any
specifications and conditions applicable to those devices (including
the exemption of certain equipment from the requirements of the listed
devices).
    Crane Level Indicator: Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would require that
a crane level indicator be on all equipment covered under this subpart.
The Agency is proposing this requirement based upon the Committee's
belief that level equipment is a key factor in ensuring crane and
derrick safety. Using a crane level indicator is necessary because it
has the requisite accuracy for leveling the equipment. C-DAC members
stressed the need to use a crane level indicator because, if the
equipment is not properly leveled, it will not have all the capacities
indicated in the load charts. Reliance on the charts in such situations
could cause the equipment to overturn or otherwise fail.
    C-DAC discussions also raised two significant issues in applying
the (a)(1) requirement. First, as stated in Sec.  1926.1415(a)(1)(i),
the proposal specifies that a crane level indicator must either be
built into the equipment or available on it. The Committee believed
that either option accomplishes the purpose of enabling the employer to
determine if the equipment is level. Second, as covered in Sec.
1926.1415(a)(1)(ii), the Committee believed that tagging out or
removing deficient built-in crane level indicators is necessary. This
provision addresses the hazard posed by false readings.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would exempt portal cranes,\44\
derricks, floating cranes/derricks and land cranes/derricks on barges,
pontoons, vessels, or other means of flotation from the requirements of
Sec.  1926.1415(a)(1). C-DAC members indicated that these types of
equipment are leveled upon installation and then fixed in place,
precluding the need for a crane level indicator.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Proposed Sec.  1926.1401 defines ``portal cranes'' as a
type of crane consisting of a rotating upperstructure, hoist
machinery, and boom mounted on top of a structural gantry which may
be fixed in one location or have travel capability. The gantry legs
or columns usually have portal openings in between to allow passage
of traffic beneath the gantry.
    \45\ Note that, under proposed Sec.  1926.1437(e), a pontoon or
barge/vessel list and trim device would be required for floating
cranes/derricks and land cranes/derricks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Boom Stops: Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires boom stops on all
equipment except for derricks and hydraulic booms. ``Boom stop'' is
defined in proposed Sec.  1926.1401 as a device that restricts the boom
from moving above a certain maximum angle and toppling over backwards.
This definition is derived from the SC&RF Handbook. The term includes
all devices that meet the definition, including boom stops, (belly
straps with struts/standoff), telescoping boom stops, attachment boom
stops, and backstops. As the definition indicates, a boom stop is
needed to prevent a boom from tipping backwards past its designed range
during equipment operations. Several Committee members suggested
exempting certain older equipment from being retrofitted with boom
stops. However, C-DAC concluded that the significant safety issue at
stake and the fact that installing boom stops is not technically
difficult justify requiring them on older equipment.
    As noted above, the Agency proposes to exempt derricks and
hydraulic cranes from the requirements of 1926.1415(a)(2). The derrick
boom overturn issue is covered in proposed 1926.1436(f)(2). Hydraulic
cranes are exempted because these cranes contain the equivalent
function of boom stops in that the hydraulic cylinder physically
prevents the boom from moving backward past its designed range.
    Jib Stops: ``Jib stop'' is defined in Sec.  1926.1401 as the same
type of device as a boom stop but used for a fixed or luffing jib. The
definition notes that the device is also referred to as a ``jib
backstop.'' Proposed Sec.  1926.1415(a)(3) would require jib stops on
all equipment where a jib is attached, except for derricks. Jib stops
perform the same function for jibs as boom stops perform for booms, and
are similarly necessary. The proposal exempts derricks from this
requirement because jibs are not installed on derricks.
    Foot Pedal Brake Locks: Proposed paragraph (a)(4) would require
that equipment with foot pedal brakes have

locks, except for portal cranes and floating cranes. Such locks are
needed to prevent the unintentional disengagement of a foot pedal
brake, which could lead to unintended equipment movement and consequent
injuries and fatalities. Due to the physical effort needed to keep the
pedal engaged, this is particularly important where the brake is
applied for long periods of time.
    The rationale for exempting portal cranes and floating cranes from
this requirement discussed by the Committee was that there are
instances in which, due to the pitching of a floating crane and the
pitching of the vessel or object in the water with which a portal crane
works, the operator may have to immediately release the brake. The
concern is that, if the foot pedal brake lock had been activated, the
operator may not be able to release the brake quickly enough in such a
situation to prevent the equipment from being overloaded or to prevent
unintended movement of the load.
    Upon review of the exemption in the provision, the Agency has
realized that C-DAC assumed that the locking device would in all cases
be of the type that is located on the brake pedal. That type of device
can be difficult to disengage, thereby delaying the operator's ability
to release the brake. However, it is OSHA's understanding that there
are other types of brake locking mechanisms that do not present this
problem (for example, a brake lock that is hand-actuated). It therefore
appears that the exemption may not be needed.\46\ The Agency requests
public comment on changing proposed paragraph Sec.  1926.1415(a)(4) by
deleting the exemption and requiring a hoist brake locking mechanism
for all cranes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ OSHA notes that ASME B30.8-2004, ``Floating Cranes and
Floating Derricks,'' section 8-1.6.2(l), applies to load hoists and
reads as follows: ``Foot-operated brake pedals * * * shall be
equipped with a means for latching in the applied position.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Integral Holding Device/Check Valve: Proposed paragraph (a)(5)
would require that hydraulic outrigger jacks have an integral holding
device/check valve. Such a device is necessary to prevent the outrigger
jack from collapsing in the event of a hydraulic failure.
    Rail Clamps and Rail Stops: Proposed paragraph (a)(6) specifies
that equipment on rails have rail clamps and rail stops, except for
portal cranes. A rail clamp restricts the equipment from lifting off
the rails. The rail stop prevents the equipment from moving further
than a specific point on the rails. Portal cranes are exempt from the
requirements of Sec.  1926.1415(a)(6) because these cranes typically
are equipped with a parking brake that provides the equivalent function
of preventing the crane from unintentionally moving along the rails.
Paragraph 1415(b) Proper Operation Required
    Proposed paragraph (b) would prohibit the operation of the
equipment if any of the safety devices listed in this section are not
in proper working order. This paragraph reflects the Committee's
belief, discussed above, that proper operation of these devices is
critical to safe use of the equipment.

Section 1416 Operational Aids

    This section sets forth the proposed requirements for equipping
cranes and derricks with certain operational aids. ``Operational aids''
are defined in Sec.  1926.1401 as ``devices that assist the operator in
the safe operation of the crane by providing information or
automatically taking control of a crane function. These include, but
are not limited to, the devices listed in Sec.  1926.1416 (`listed
operational aids').'' This definition is similar to that in section 5-
0.2.2 of ASME B30.5-2004.
    As discussed above in regard to proposed Sec.  1926.1415, the
Committee believed that the devices addressed in Sec.  1926.1416
enhance safety. However, they are less essential to the safe operation
of equipment than the safety devices addressed by Sec.  1926.1415
because of the availability of alternatives that are sufficient on a
temporary basis. The temporary alternative measures are precautions
that were historically used prior to the widespread availability and
use of these operational aids.
Paragraphs 1416(a) and (b)
    Under proposed paragraphs (a) and (b), operational aids would be
required on all equipment unless otherwise specified, and would have to
be in proper working order unless the employer uses specified temporary
alternative protection. Section 1926.1416(b) provides that if the
crane/derrick manufacturer specifies more protective alternative
measures than those listed in the standard, the employer would be
required to follow them.
    Committee discussions of these provisions primarily focused on the
use of manufacturer procedures as temporary alternative measures. The
Committee considered recommending that the Agency require employers to
follow any temporary alternative measures specified by the equipment
manufacturer in addition to those required by this proposal. However,
instead of requiring additional measures, the Committee decided that
employers should be required to rely solely on measures specified by
the manufacturer but only if those measures are more protective than
those specified in the standard.
Paragraph 1416(c)
    Proposed paragraph (c) states that if a listed operational aid
stops working properly during operations, the operator shall safely
stop operations until the temporary alternative measures are
implemented or the device is again working properly. It further
provides that, if a replacement part is no longer available, a
substitute device that performs the same type of function may be used,
and the use of such a device is not considered a modification under
proposed Sec.  1926.1434, Equipment modifications. Section 1926.1434
applies to modifications or additions which affect the capacity or safe
operation of the equipment unless certain steps are taken to have the
modifications or additions approved.
    The Committee believed that it is unnecessary to apply Sec.
1926.1434 to the use of a substitute operational aid because, as long
as the substitute device works properly, its use will not affect the
capacity or safe operation of the equipment.
Paragraph 1416(d) Category I Operational Aids and Alternative Measures
    The proposal splits operational aids into two categories, with
different amounts of time permitted for temporary alternative measures
to be used in place of the listed operational aids. Category I
operational aids, which are addressed by proposed paragraph (d), would
set a 7-day time limit for repairing the deficient aid, and Category
II, addressed below under proposed paragraph (e), has a 30-day time
limit. The allowance of a 30-day time period for Category II
operational aids reflects the Committee's belief that these aids are
less critical to equipment safety than those in Category I.
    Both Category I and II would have an exception to the repair time
limits. For Category I, if the employer documents that it has ordered
the necessary part within 7 days of the occurrence of the deficiency,
the repair would have to be completed within 7 days of receipt of the
part. For Category II, if the employer documents that it has ordered
the necessary part within 7 days of the occurrence of the deficiency
and the part is not received in time to complete the repair in 30 days,
the repair shall be completed within 7 days of receipt of

the part. The Committee believed that these time frames set limitations
that are both feasible and reflective of the amount of time that it is
appropriate to rely on the alternative measures in each category.
    During the SBREFA Panel process, one Small Entity Representative
stated that an extended period of time might be required to determine
the appropriate part number for older equipment and that it might
therefore not be possible to order a replacement within 7 days. OSHA
solicits public comment on the extent to which this is a problem. OSHA
further seeks comment on how to accommodate a situation in which
ordering a replacement part is hindered because the part number is not
readily available. For example, would a parts supplier be able to
furnish the correct part if the type of device (e.g., boom hoist
limiting device) and the model of the crane are provided?
    The SBREFA Panel also questioned whether the number of ``days'' for
ordering parts and completing repairs for operational aids refers to
calendar days or business days. Absent a different definition in the
standard, OSHA interprets the word ``days'' to mean ``working days''
which, as discussed above in relation to proposed Sec.  1926.1407(e),
would mean Mondays through Fridays, excluding federal holidays. OSHA
solicits public comment on whether a different definition of ``days''
should apply under this section.
    Proposed paragraph (d) lists the required Category I operational
aids and the acceptable temporary alternative measures for these aids.
    Boom Hoist Limiting Device: Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would require
that all equipment manufactured after December 16, 1969 have a boom
hoist limiting device. As defined in Sec.  1926.1401, a boom hoist
limiting device disengages boom hoist power when the boom reaches a
predetermined operating angle and also sets brakes or closes valves to
prevent the boom from lowering after power is disengaged. This
definition is taken from the SC&RF Handbook. Section 1926.1401 also
explains that the term ``boom hoist limiting device'' includes boom
hoist disengaging device, boom hoist shutoff, boom hoist disconnect,
boom hoist hydraulic relief, boom hoist kick-outs, automatic boom stop
device, or derricking limiter. A boom hoist limiting device
automatically prevents the boom hoist from pulling the boom past the
minimum allowable radius (maximum boom angle). If the boom were to be
pulled past that point, a failure is likely (for example, the boom
could buckle from being forced against the boom stop).
    The December 16, 1969 date reflects the effective date of ANSI
B30.5-1968. This was the first national consensus standard to require a
boom hoist limiting device, and the Committee regarded that date as a
reasonable indicator of when the industry began widely manufacturing or
equipping cranes and derricks with such devices. Although the ANSI
standard was only applicable to crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes,
the Committee recommended extending this provision to all equipment
based on prevailing industry practice.
    The Agency is also proposing three temporary alternative measures
[Sec.  1926.1416(d)(1)(A)-(C)], of which the employer must use at least
one upon malfunction of the boom hoist limiting device. These are: Use
of a boom angle indicator; clearly marking the boom hoist cable at a
point that will give the operator sufficient time to stop the hoist to
keep the boom within the minimum allowable radius; and, if a spotter is
used, clearly marking the boom hoist cable at a point that will give
the spotter sufficient time to signal the operator and have the
operator stop the hoist to keep the boom within the minimum allowable
radius. C-DAC recommended these measures because historically they were
used by employers prior to the development of the boom hoist limiting
device. This paragraph further proposes requiring these measures on a
permanent basis for those employers operating equipment manufactured on
or before December 16, 1969 and not originally equipped with a boom
hoist limiting device.
    Luffing Jib Limiting Device: Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would
require that equipment with a luffing jib have a luffing jib limiting
device. As defined in Sec.  1926.1401, a luffing jib limiting device is
similar to a boom hoist limiting device, except that it limits the
movement of the luffing jib. C-DAC indicated that these two devices
function similarly and are distinguished only as to the type of crane
extension each is automatically designed to limit: The jib versus the
boom. The temporary alternative measures for a luffing jib limiting
device are the same as those proposed for a boom hoist limiting device
in Sec.  1926.1416(d)(1)(i)(A)-(C).
    Anti Two-Blocking Device: Proposed paragraph (d)(3) sets forth the
requirements for anti two-blocking devices. ``Two blocking'' is defined
in Sec.  1926.1401 as ``a condition in which a component that is
uppermost on the hoist line such as the load block, hook block,
overhaul ball, or similar component, comes in contact with the boom
tip, fixed upper block or similar component. This binds the system and
continued application of power can cause failure of the hoist rope or
other component.'' This definition is derived from the SC&RF Handbook.
As the definition indicates, two-blocking can result in the crane
dropping the load, the headache ball, or another component, creating an
extreme hazard to employees below. An anti two-blocking device has been
required by Sec.  1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(C) when hoisting personnel since
October 3, 1988 but is not otherwise required under 29 CFR part 1926
subpart N. The Committee believed that expanding the use of anti two-
blocking devices beyond hoisting personnel is needed to help reduce the
number of crane-related injuries and fatalities.
    Anti two-block devices are manufactured in two forms: As an
automatic prevention device or as a warning device. The automatic
prevention device automatically stops two blocking from occurring. The
warning device warns the operator when two blocking is about to occur.
C-DAC members agreed that the automatic prevention anti two-block
device provides better protection for employees, since it automatically
stops two-blocking. As discussed below, the proposed standard would
ultimately require automatic prevention devices on all equipment under
a phase-in schedule. In drafting the schedule, C-DAC took account of
the date the national consensus standard, ANSI B30.5, began to require
such devices for telescopic boom cranes and the fact that B30.5 has
continued to allow lattice boom cranes to be equipped with either
prevention devices or warning devices.
    Effective February 28, 1992, ASME B30.5 required automatic
prevention devices on telescopic boom cranes. At the same time, for
lattice boom cranes, ASME B30.5 required two-block protection but
allowed greater flexibility, requiring them to be equipped with either
automatic prevention devices or warning devices. The additional
protection required for telescopic boom cranes in the ASME standard
reflects the fact that such cranes are more likely to two-block because
telescoping the boom out (an action that does not occur with lattice
boom cranes) moves the boom's block closer to the load end of the hoist
cable, which can cause two-blocking.
    Because February 28, 1992, is the date that ASME B30.5 first
required anti two-block devices on telescopic boom cranes and the
industry first began widely manufacturing or equipping such cranes

with such devices, proposed Sec.  1926.1416(d)(3)(i) would require
automatic prevention devices on all telescopic boom cranes manufactured
after February 28, 1992. However, because ASME B30.5 has allowed
lattice boom cranes to have either a warning device or an automatic
prevention device since February 28, 1992, proposed Sec.
1926.1416(d)(3)(ii)(A) similarly would give employers the option of
using either device on lattice boom cranes manufactured between
February 28, 1992 and one year after the effective date of this
standard.
    As noted above, C-DAC believed that the automatic prevention device
offers better protection than the warning device. Therefore, to ensure
that future cranes are equipped with the preferable automatic
prevention device, the proposal would require lattice boom cranes
manufactured more than one year after the effective date of this
standard to be equipped with an automatic prevention device.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(C) excludes lattice boom equipment
used during certain activities from the anti two-block requirements of
Sec.  1926.1416(d)(3)(A) and (B). The provision would exempt lattice
boom equipment when used for dragline, clamshell (grapple), magnet,
drop ball, concrete bucket, and pile driving work because these
operations involve heavy repetitive motion, and currently manufactured
anti-two block devices used during these activities consistently
malfunction (that is, the device ``trips'' even though a two-block has
not occurred) and are frequently damaged.
    Lattice boom equipment used during marine operations generally
would be exempt because the constant movement of the barge tends to
damage the device. Similarly, lattice boom equipment used during
container handling work in construction would be exempted because this
activity typically involves hoisting containers to and from ships.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ In most situations hoisting containers would be regulated
under 29 CFR part 1918; the proposed standard would apply to
hoisting containers only where that activity is considered
construction work. For example, hoisting a container of construction
material from a ship onto a concrete pier that is part of a bridge
construction project would be a construction activity and covered by
this proposed standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, note that proposed paragraph 1437(f)(1) would require anti
two-block devices on floating cranes/derricks and land cranes/derricks
on barges when hoisting personnel or hoisting over an occupied coffer
dam or shaft. In those situations the exemption would not apply. The
Agency believes that the need for anti two-block devices in such
situations to prevent employees from being dropped, and to prevent a
load from striking employees in the confined work environment of a
coffer dam or shaft, outweighs any propensity for damage to the device
or unnecessary ``tripping'' during marine operations.
    For lattice boom cranes and derricks, the temporary alternative
measure required when an anti two-block device malfunctions is to
clearly mark the cable so that it can easily be seen by the operator at
a point that will give the operator sufficient time to stop the hoist
to prevent two-blocking, or use a spotter to warn the operator to stop
the hoist.
    For telescopic boom cranes, the temporary alternative measure
required would be to clearly mark the cable so that it can easily be
seen by the operator at a point that will give the operator sufficient
time to stop the hoist to prevent two-blocking and use a spotter when
extending the boom. The Committee believed that the alternative measure
for telescopic boom cranes needs to have the additional precaution of a
spotter when extending the boom because in those cranes two-blocking
can occur even when the cable hoist is not being operated. As noted
above, telescoping the boom out moves the boom's block closer to the
load end of the hoist cable, which can cause two-blocking. A mark on
the hoist cable in such instances would not warn the operator that two-
blocking is about to occur. Therefore, when extending the boom, a
spotter would also have to be used.
Paragraph 1416(e) Category II Operational Aids and Alternative Measures
    Proposed paragraph (e) lists the required Category II operational
aids and the acceptable temporary alternative measures for these aids.
If these aids were to malfunction there would be a 30-day time limit
for repair. If the employer documents it has ordered the necessary
parts within 7 days of the occurrence of the deficiency and the part is
not received in time to complete the repair within 30 days, the repair
would be required to be completed within 7 days of receipt of the part.
    Boom Angle or Radius Indicator: Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would
require a boom angle or radius indicator readable from the operator's
station on all equipment. ``Boom angle indicator'' is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 as ``a device which measures the angle of the boom relative
to the horizontal.'' This definition is taken from the SC&RF Handbook.
Knowing the boom angle is necessary to accurately determine the crane's
capacity from its load chart. The temporary alternative would be to
measure the radii or boom angle with a measuring device.
    Jib Angle Indicator: Proposed paragraph (e)(2) would require a jib
angle indicator on all equipment with a luffing jib. The temporary
alternative would be to measure the radii or jib angle with a measuring
device.
    Boom Length Indicator: Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would require a
boom length indicator on all equipment equipped with a telescopic boom.
As defined in Sec.  1926.1401, a boom length indicator ``indicates the
length of the permanent part of the boom (such as ruled markings on the
boom) or, as in some computerized systems, the length of the boom with
extensions/attachments.'' The length of the boom must be known because
it affects the crane's capacity as shown on the load chart. The
temporary alternative would be one of the following: mark the boom with
measured marks to calculate boom length; calculate boom length from
boom angle and radius measurements; or measure the boom with a
measuring device.
    Load Weighing and Similar Devices: Proposed paragraph (e)(4) would
require load weighing and similar devices on all equipment with a rated
capacity over 6,000 pounds and manufactured after March 29, 2003,
except derricks. (A comparable provision for derricks is in proposed
Sec.  1926.1436(f)(3), discussed below.) The framework of this proposed
paragraph is similar to the approach taken in section 5-<IP_ADDRESS> of ASME
B30.5-2004 with respect to these aids. The framework permits employers
to choose to outfit its equipment with either a load weighing device;
load moment or rated capacity indicator; or a load moment or rated
capacity limiter.
    Load moment (or rated capacity) indicator is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 as ``a system which aids the equipment operator by sensing
the overturning moment on the equipment, i.e., load multiplied by
radius. It compares this lifting condition to the equipment's rated
capacity, and indicates to the operator the percentage of capacity at
which the equipment is working. Lights, bells, or buzzers may be
incorporated as a warning of an approaching overload condition.'' This
definition is derived from the SC&RF Handbook.
    Load moment (or rated capacity) limiter is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 as ``a system which aids the equipment operator by sensing
the overturning moment on the equipment, i.e., load multiplied by
radius. It compares this lifting condition to the equipment's rated
capacity, and when the rated

capacity is reached, it shuts off power to those equipment functions
which can increase the severity of loading on the equipment, e.g.,
hoisting, telescoping out, or luffing out. Typically, those functions
which decrease the severity of loading on the equipment remain
operational, e.g., lowering, telescoping in, or luffing in.'' The
proposal permits employers flexibility in choosing which device to
employ because the Committee believed that all three devices will help
ensure that the equipment does not exceed its capacity and tip over.
    This provision would be limited to equipment (other than derricks)
manufactured after March 29, 2003. That was the date when ASME B30.5
first called for all mobile cranes with a rated capacity over 6,000
pounds to be equipped with load weighing devices. It therefore reflects
when the industry first began widely manufacturing or equipping cranes
with load weighing or load moment devices.
    Each of these indicators makes it easier for the operator to ensure
that the equipment is operated within its capacity. The proposed
provision would therefore reduce the likelihood of injuries and
fatalities from tip-over and other incidents resulting from operating
equipment beyond its capacity.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(5) would require two future operational
aids--an outrigger position sensor/monitor and a hoist drum rotation
indicator--on all equipment manufactured after January 1, 2008. ``Drum
rotation indicator'' is defined in Sec.  1926.1401 as ``a device on a
crane or hoist which indicates in which direction and at what relative
speed a particular hoist drum is turning.'' This definition is taken
from the SC&RF Handbook. C-DAC believed that these aids will help
ensure the safe operation of cranes but found that additional time is
needed for the industry to develop them.
    The Committee also considered whether a third future operational
aid--counterweight sensors--should be required on all equipment
manufactured after January 1, 2008. Several Committee members
representing crane manufacturers expressed concern as to the difficulty
in developing a reliable counterweight sensor presently or in the near
future. In light of these technological problems, the Committee did not
include these.

Section 1417 Operation

    Proposed Sec.  1926.1417 addresses hazards associated with general
operation of equipment covered by this standard. Currently, 29 CFR part
1926 subpart N primarily addresses safe operation by incorporating
national consensus standards and manufacturer recommendations. For
example, Sec.  1926.550(b)(2) requires crawler, truck, and locomotive
cranes to comply with the operation requirements of ANSI B30.5-1968.
The provisions in this proposed section are designed to update such
requirements, make them more comprehensive, and state them in a way
that is clear and enforceable.
Paragraph 1417(a)
    Currently, Subpart N requires employers to comply with
manufacturers' operational requirements for hammerhead tower cranes
(Sec.  1926.550(c)(5)) and for floating cranes/derricks (Sec.
1926.550(f)(2)(iii)) but not for other types of equipment. Proposed
Sec.  1926.1417(a) would require employers to comply with the
manufacturer procedures applicable to the operational functions of all
equipment covered by this proposed standard, including the use of
equipment with attachments.
    The Committee believed that the manufacturer has a high degree of
expertise with respect to the capabilities and limitations of the
equipment it has designed and built. Accidents can therefore be
prevented by ensuring that the equipment is operated in a manner that
is consistent with the manufacturer's procedures. As noted in the
discussion of the proposed definition of ``procedures'' in Sec.
1926.1401, the phrase ``manufacturer procedures'' is to be interpreted
broadly to include all recommendations by the manufacturer regardless
of the format of those recommendations.
Paragraph 1417(b) Unavailable Operation Procedures
    Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3). Currently, Subpart N has no
provision for developing operational procedures where manufacturer
procedures are not available. C-DAC believed that setting requirements
to address these situations would help improve safety with respect to
the operation of such equipment.
    ``Unavailable procedures'' is defined in proposed Sec.  1926.1401
as meaning procedures that are no longer available from the
manufacturer, or have never been available from the manufacturer. C-DAC
provided this definition so that employers would understand what
constitutes unavailable procedures. For instance, procedures that are
in the employer's possession but are not on the job site, would not be
considered unavailable under proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.1417(b) and
1926.1441(c)(2), where the term is used.
    Under proposed paragraph (b)(1), in the event that the manufacturer
procedures for operation are not available, the employer would be
required to develop procedures necessary for the safe operation of the
equipment and its attachments. The employer would also be required to
ensure compliance with such procedures.
    For example, the manufacturers of some old equipment are no longer
in business; procedures for that equipment are typically unavailable.
Even where the original manufacturer became a part of another company
that is still in business, in some cases the successor company no
longer has the original manufacturers' procedures for that equipment.
In such instances the employer would be required to develop and follow
substitute procedures.
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) would specify qualifications
criteria for those who develop two aspects of the substitute
procedures. Specifically, under proposed Sec.  1926.1417(b)(2),
procedures for the operational controls would have to be developed by a
qualified person. As defined in Sec.  1926.1401 of this proposed
standard, ``operational controls'' are levers, switches, pedals and
other devices for controlling equipment operation. The Committee
believed that a high level of expertise is needed to develop such
procedures in light of both the complexity of the factors that must be
considered in developing such procedures and the critical nature of the
operational controls.
    Under proposed paragraph (b)(3), operational procedures related to
equipment capacity would have to be developed and signed by a
registered professional engineer familiar with the equipment. The
Committee believed that the type and complexity of engineering analysis
that is needed to develop safe procedures related to capacity
necessitates that this work be done by a registered professional
engineer (RPE). In addition, because capacity is so critical to safe
operation, the Committee believed that a signature by the RPE is needed
to ensure that this work is done with the requisite care.
Paragraph 1417(c) Accessibility of Procedures
    Paragraph (c)(1). This proposed paragraph would require employers
to provide the operator with ready access in the cab to the procedures
applicable to the operation of the equipment, including the following:
Rated capacities (load charts), recommended operating speeds, special
hazard

warnings, and the instructions and operator's manual.
    For the purposes of this proposed standard, ``special hazard
warnings'' are warnings of site-specific hazards (for example,
proximity of power lines). C-DAC defines this term in proposed Sec.
1926.1401 to differentiate these site-specific warnings from all other
general hazard warnings which are common to typical construction
worksites.
    Currently, Sec.  1926.550(a)(2) of Subpart N requires rated
capacities, recommended operating speeds, and special hazard warnings
to be posted on the equipment, and instructions and warnings to be
visible at the operator's station. Unlike Sec.  1926.1417(c)(1) of this
proposed standard, it does not require the operator's manual to be
accessible to the operator.
    The Committee believed that the information in these materials,
including the operator's manual, is essential for safe crane operation.
It is needed to help the operator avoid performing operations beyond a
crane's capacity and recommended operating speed, and by increasing
operator awareness of special hazards related to a specific piece of
equipment.
    In addition, the Committee believed that this information needs to
be available to the equipment operator in the cab so that the operator
can obtain the information as the need arises. If the information were
not available in the cab, operations would have to be delayed in order
for the operator to leave the cab and obtain the information elsewhere
(or for someone else to obtain them and bring them to the operator).
The prospect of such a delay would serve as a disincentive to obtaining
the information and increase the chance that operations would proceed
without it, which could result in injuries or fatalities.
    Paragraph (c)(2). Subpart N does not address the issue of load
capacities that are available only in electronic form. With the
advancement of technology since 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N was
promulgated, it has become increasingly common for equipment to be
supplied by manufacturers with load capacities in electronic form.
Because of the potential for an electronic or other failure to occur
that would make that information inaccessible, C-DAC determined that it
is necessary to establish requirements to address that problem.
Proposed Sec.  1926.1417(c)(2) establishes requirements to address a
situation in which electronic or other failure makes such information
unavailable.
    The Committee agreed that having the load capacities accessible to
the operator in the cab is so important, due to this information's
direct relationship to preventing overloading, that operations need to
shut down without them. Therefore, where load capacities are available
in the cab only in electronic form and a failure makes the load
capacities inaccessible, this proposed paragraph would require that the
operator immediately cease operations or follow safe shut-down
procedures until the load capacities become available again (in
electronic or other form).
Paragraph 1417(d)
    This proposed paragraph would require that operators refrain from
engaging in any practice that would divert his or her attention while
operating the crane. This would include the use of cell phones except
when cell phones are used for signal communications. Operating a crane
is a complex task that requires an operator's full attention to be
performed safely. This proposed paragraph addresses the risk that an
accident can occur if the operator's full attention is not directed
toward that task. A similar provision is found in section 5-3.1.2 of
ANSI B30.5-1968, which is incorporated by reference in Subpart N,
although it does not specifically reference the use of cell phones.
Paragraph 1417(e) Leaving Equipment Unattended
    Paragraph (e)(1). Currently, under 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N, the
operator of a crawler, locomotive, or truck crane is prohibited from
leaving the controls while a load is suspended.\48\ It is important for
the operator to be at the controls for a variety of safety-related
reasons. These include making necessary adjustments to keep the load in
a safe position, moving the load where necessary for reasons of safety
(such as for the safety of employees working with or near the load),
and responding to emergencies that may arise during lifting operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Section 5-3.2.4a. of ANSI B 30.5-1968, incorporated by
reference in 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart N at Sec.  1926.550(b)(2),
states, ``The operator shall not leave his position at the controls
while the load is suspended.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Committee's experience, this requirement is routinely
breached when the load is ``held suspended,'' that is, without need for
adjustment of the load's or the equipment's position--for an extended
period. In such circumstances, the operator does not manipulate the
controls.
    In this type of circumstance, the Committee believed that greater
safety could be achieved by developing criteria that allow the operator
to leave the controls when it is safe to do so rather than to simply
continue the existing rule unchanged. (Note that the suspension of
working gear, such as slings, spreader bars, ladders, and welding
machines, is addressed separately in proposed Sec.  1926.1417(e)(2)).
    This proposed paragraph would require that the operator not leave
the controls while the load is suspended except when four conditions,
outlined in proposed Sec.  1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv), are
met. The conditions are as follows:
    Paragraph (e)(1)(i). The operator would be required to remain
adjacent to the equipment and not engage in any other duties. This
paragraph will not only prevent unauthorized use of the crane by
persons who are not competent crane operators but also allow the
operator to quickly access the controls in case the equipment or load
inadvertently moves.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(ii). The load is to be held suspended for a period
of time exceeding normal lifting operations. As explained above, these
are instances when the load is ``held suspended,'' that is, without
need for adjustment of the load's or the equipment's position--for an
extended period. These are circumstances in which the operator will not
need to manipulate the controls. Such circumstances must be for a
period of time in excess of the periods that occur during normal
lifting operations.
    For example, during the construction of a structure, a large
subassembly is being attached to another part of the structure. After
the subassembly has been initially connected, it is held suspended
(that is, without need for adjustment of position) for support for a
protracted period while the final connections are made. This period
exceeds normal lifting operations. In this example, the criterion of
proposed Sec.  1926.1417(e)(1)(ii) would be met.
    Another, contrasting example is the following: A steel structure is
being erected. When installing the steel beams, the operator holds the
beam suspended (typically for several minutes) while it is initially
connected. Holding the beam suspended in such instances is a normal
part of the steel erection process. In this example the criterion in
proposed Sec.  1926.1417(e)(1)(ii) would not be met and the operator
can not leave the controls.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(iii). The competent person would have to determine
that it is safe for the operator to leave the controls and implement
measures

necessary to restrain the boom hoist and telescoping, load, swing, and
outrigger functions. This proposed provision addresses the hazard of
inadvertent movement while the controls are unattended.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(iv). Barricades or caution lines, and notices
would have to be erected to prevent all employees from entering the
fall zone. Furthermore, under this proposed paragraph no employees
would be permitted in the fall zone, including those listed in proposed
Sec.  1926.1425(b)(1) through (3), (d), or (e). The Committee concluded
that this is necessary because the added margin of safety that results
from the operator being at the controls would not be present in these
circumstances.
    Paragraph (e)(2). As drafted, proposed Sec.  1926.1417(e)(2) reads:

    The provisions in paragraph (e) of this section do not apply to
working gear (such as slings, spreader bars, ladders, and welding
machines) where the load is not suspended over an entrance or exit.

    The Agency notes that the reference to ``Sec.  1926.1417(e)'' is a
drafting error and that the appropriate reference is to paragraph
``Sec.  1926.1417(e)(1).'' In addition, the provision currently
contains two incidences of the word ``not'' which could lead to
confusion. Therefore, the Agency is considering changing the language
to read as follows and requests comment on such a change:

    The provisions in Sec.  1926.1417(e)(1) do not apply to working
gear (such as slings, spreader bars, ladders, and welding machines)
where the working gear is suspended over an area other than an
entrance or exit.

    The Committee agreed on this paragraph with the understanding that
employers frequently leave lightweight items such as slings, ladders,
spreader bars, and welding machines suspended in the air overnight in
order to prevent theft. These are items whose weight is negligible
relative to the capacity of the equipment and whose size is small (the
small size means that there will not be a significant sail effect and
the rigging needed to attach the item to the hook is not complex).
    The Committee recognized that this practice is a safe practice as
long as the working gear items are not suspended over an entrance or
exit where employees could be exposed to falling object hazards. Thus,
this paragraph would allow such items to be held suspended, without the
operator at the controls, and without establishing the four conditions
set forth in Sec.  1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through (iv), so long as the gear
is not suspended over an entrance or exit.
Paragraph 1417(f) Tag-Out
    Paragraph 1417(f)(1). Tagging out of service equipment/functions.
Where the employer has taken the equipment out of service, this
proposed paragraph would require that the employer place a tag in the
cab stating that the equipment is out of service and not to be used.
Where the equipment remains in service but the employer has taken a
function out of service, this proposed paragraph would require that the
employer place a tag in a conspicuous position stating that that
function is out of service and not to be used. This proposed paragraph
is designed to prevent hazards associated with workers inadvertently
attempting to use out-of-service equipment or a function that is out of
service.
    Currently, section 5-2.3.2 of ANSI B30.5-1968, which is
incorporated by reference in Subpart N, requires ``out of order'' signs
on crawler, locomotive and truck cranes undergoing maintenance. Unlike
proposed 1926.1417(f)(1), 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N does not address
the situation where the equipment itself is in service but a function
is out of service.
Paragraph 1417(f)(2) Response to ``Do Not Operate''/Tag-Out Signs
    Paragraph 1417(f)(2)(i). If there is a warning sign on the
equipment or starting control, proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) would
prohibit the operator from activating the switch or starting the
equipment until the sign is removed by someone authorized to remove it
or until the operator can verify that (A) no one is servicing, working
on, or otherwise in a dangerous position on the machine, and (B) the
equipment has been repaired and is working properly. Similarly, under
proposed Sec.  1926.1417(f)(2)(ii), when there is a warning sign on any
other switch or control, the operator would be prohibited from
activating that switch or control until the sign has been removed by an
individual authorized to remove it, or until the operator meets the two
requirements of paragraph Sec.  1926.1417(f)(2)(i), described above.
    These provisions would prevent two types of hazards. First, since
the machine is out of service, there is a risk that an employee
servicing, working on, or otherwise in a dangerous position on it is
not expecting it to be activated and would be injured if it were
activated. Second, if an employee does not know that the equipment is
malfunctioning or has a function that is not working properly, an
employee could inadvertently try to operate it with the result that the
equipment will not work as intended, causing unintended movement or a
collapse.
    Subpart N addresses this issue through section 5-3.1.3g of ANSI
B30.5-1968, which states: ``If there is a warning sign on the switch or
engine starting controls, the operator shall not close the switch or
start the engine until the warning sign has been removed by the person
placing it there.'' Instead of requiring that the sign be removed by
the person who placed it, proposed Sec.  1926.1417(f)(2) would permit
it to be removed by an authorized person and, as an alternative, permit
the operator to start the equipment after verifying that no worker is
in a dangerous area and that the equipment has been repaired and is
working properly. C-DAC believed that either alternative would achieve
the safety purpose of the tag-out because it would ensure that a
knowledgeable and responsible person, either the operator or another
authorized person, verifies that repairs are complete and all workers
are in a safe position before the equipment can be started.
    As discussed above, the operator would be permitted to start
equipment that is tagged out or activate a tagged-out switch if the
procedures specified in proposed Sec.  1926.1417(f)(2)(i) are met. In
reviewing this provision, the Agency noted that these procedures are
not as comprehensive as those in the general industry standard for the
control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout), which are listed in Sec.
1910.147(e)(3)(i) through (iii).\49\ The Agency requests public comment
on whether procedures similar to those in paragraphs 1910.147(e)(3)(i)
through (iii) \50\ would be feasible and appropriate for cranes/
derricks used in construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Section 1910.147 is not applicable to construction (see
Sec.  1910.147(a)(ii)(A)).
    \50\ These general industry provisions state:
    (i) Verification by the employer that the authorized employee
who applied the device is not at the factory;
    (ii) Making all reasonable efforts to contact the authorized
employee to inform him/her that his/her lockout or tagout device has
been removed; and
    (iii) Ensuring that the authorized employee has this knowledge
before he/she resumes work at that facility.
    Section 1910.147(e)(3)(i) through (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph 1417(g). Before starting the engine, this proposed
paragraph would require the operator to verify that all controls are in
the proper starting position and that all personnel are in the clear.
The Committee agreed that requiring operators to check that all
controls are in their proper starting positions would prevent
unintended movement of the equipment when the

engine is initially started. Similarly, requiring operators to ensure
that all personnel are in the clear is designed to prevent personnel
from being injured in the event that some aspect of the equipment moves
upon start-up. Currently, section 5-3.1.3h of ANSI B30.5-1968,
incorporated by reference in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N, contains a
comparable requirement.
    Paragraph 1417(h). Storm warning. When a local storm warning has
been issued, this proposed paragraph would require the competent person
to determine whether it is necessary to implement manufacturer
recommendations for securing the equipment. This provision was designed
to prevent hazards that could arise from severe weather including
inadvertent movement and crane collapse. High-speed winds in particular
can affect both the crane and the load, reducing the rated capacity of
the crane and affecting boom strength. Subpart N does not contain a
corresponding requirement.
    Paragraph 1417(i). [Reserved.] This proposed paragraph is reserved
because it is inconvenient for readers to determine whether ``(i)'' is
being used as a letter or a roman numeral.
Paragraph 1417(j)
    This proposed paragraph would require that operators be familiar
with the equipment and its proper operation. Furthermore, if
adjustments/repairs are necessary, then the operator would have to
promptly inform the individual designated by the employer to receive
such information as well as inform the next operator in cases where
there are successive shifts.
    This paragraph addresses the need to identify problems that may
develop with the equipment during operations. Early recognition of such
problems by the operator would help prevent accidents that could result
from continued operation of equipment that needs adjustment and/or
repair. Operators who are familiar with the equipment and its proper
operation can recognize such equipment anomalies and problems. By
requiring that information about needed adjustments and/or repairs be
provided to the individual designated by the employer to receive it,
this proposed paragraph will facilitate the correction of those
problems.
    C-DAC did not specify any particular job title for the person to
whom the operator would be required to provide this information because
different employers may assign the responsibility of receiving such
information to different job classifications.
    Providing this information to the next operator in cases where
there are successive shifts (that is, shifts that have no break between
them) would ensure that the next operator is aware of this information
and will be able to take appropriate action.
    This provision is comparable to section 5-3.1.3j of ANSI B30.5-
1968, incorporated by reference in Subpart N, which requires operators
of crawler, locomotive and truck cranes to familiarize themselves with
the equipment and its proper care, to report any needed adjustments/
repairs or defects to a responsible person, and to notify the next
operator of any such problems when changing shifts.
Paragraph 1417(k)
    This proposed paragraph would prohibit safety devices and
operational aids from being used as a substitute for the exercise of
professional judgment by the operator. The Committee agreed that such
devices and aids do not displace the need for operators to apply their
professional judgment because the devices and aids can malfunction and
lead to the types of safety hazards they are designed to prevent.
Subpart N contains no corresponding provision.
    Paragraph (l). [Reserved.] This proposed paragraph is reserved
because it is inconvenient for readers to distinguish the letter ``l''
from the number ``1.''
Paragraph 1417(m)
    If the competent person determines that there is a slack rope
condition requiring re-spooling of the rope, this proposed paragraph
would require that before starting the lift, it shall be verified that
the rope is seated on the drum and in the sheaves as the slack is
removed. This would prevent a loose coil of rope from becoming cross-
coiled on the drum, a portion of the rope coming off the drum
altogether, or the rope being pulled alongside (instead of seating in)
a sheave. Each of these conditions can lead to sudden failure of the
rope.
    Section 5-3.2.3a.4 of ANSI B30.5-1968, incorporated by reference in
Subpart N, has a provision stating: ``If there is a slack rope
condition, it should be determined that the rope is properly seated on
the drum and in the sheaves.'' The term ``should'' has been interpreted
by the courts of appeals as meaning that the provision is non-
mandatory. The provision in paragraph (m) of this section uses language
making clear that the provision is mandatory.
Paragraph 1417(n)
    This proposed paragraph addresses the hazards posed by wind, ice
and snow on equipment capacity and stability. Wind can reduce capacity
by imposing loads on the equipment, which can also reduce stability.
Ice and snow can also reduce capacity and stability when it accumulates
on the equipment. There are numerous variables involved in determining
the effects of wind, ice and snow in any particular circumstance, (for
example, the extent to which the crane is operating below its rated
capacity, the sail effect presented by the load, the rate at which ice
or snow is accumulating, and whether the snow is wet or light). C-DAC
concluded that the most effective approach would be to require the
competent person to consider their effect on equipment stability and
rated capacity. 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N currently has no similar
provision.
Paragraph 1417(o) Compliance With Rated Capacity
    Paragraph 1417(o)(1). This proposed paragraph would require
employers to ensure that equipment is not operated beyond its rated
capacity. Overloading a crane or derrick can cause it to collapse, with
potentially catastrophic consequences. This basic safeguard has long
been recognized in the industry as crucial and is designed to prevent
such accidents. A comparable requirement is contained in 29 CFR part
1926 subpart N through incorporation by reference of section 5-3.2.1a
of ANSI B30.5-1968.
    Paragraph 1417(o)(2). This proposed paragraph would require
employers to ensure that operators are not required to operate the
equipment in a manner that would exceed its rated capacity, in
violation of proposed Sec.  1926.1417(o)(1) above. This proposed
provision reinforces the general prohibition of proposed Sec.
1926.1417(o)(1) by making it a separate violation for an employer to
expressly require an operator to exceed the equipment's rated capacity.
29 CFR part 1926 subpart N currently has no provision comparable to
proposed paragraph (o)(2) of this section.
    In the Committee's experience, a significant problem in the
construction industry is that some employers pressure operators to
conduct lifts that exceed the equipment's rated capacity. Such
employers seek to avoid the time and expense associated with bringing
in larger capacity equipment.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ In some instances the overcapacity problem can be avoided
by repositioning the crane (for example, by moving the crane so that
the lift can be performed at a higher boom angle). However, even in
those instances some time (and associated expense) is involved.

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

    The Committee believed that in many of these instances the employer
knows that the load exceeds the crane's rated capacity but acts on the
belief that the rated capacity is sufficiently conservative to perform
the lift. In some such cases the exact weight of the load is unknown,
and the employer pressures the crane operator in the belief that even
if the operator is right about the weight exceeding the capacity
rating, the safety factor that the employer assumes is built into the
capacity rating will enable the crane to perform the lift anyway.
    In the C-DAC discussions of this issue, members explained that
while equipment capacity ratings are developed with consideration of a
safety factor, that safety factor is not intended by the manufacturer
to be treated as excess capacity. There are numerous, complex
considerations used by manufacturers in setting the capacity rating.
Employers cannot safely assume that, in any particular situation, they
will not need the benefits conferred by the safety factor.
    There continue to be a significant number of injuries and
fatalities resulting from equipment overturning. Although it has long
been a requirement not to exceed the equipment's rated capacity, in the
Committee's experience, a significant number of overturning incidents
are caused by exceeding rated capacity. A study of fatal accidents
involving cranes in the U.S. construction industry for 1984-1994, based
on investigations of reported accidents conducted by OSHA and states
with OSHA-approved safety and health programs, showed that 22 deaths
resulted from overloaded cranes. A. Suruda, M. Egger, & D. Liu,
``Crane-Related Deaths in the U.S. Construction Industry, 1984-94,'' p.
12, Table 9, The Center to Protect Workers' Rights (Oct. 1997). (OSHA-
2007-0066-0013).
    The Committee believed that there are several root causes of this
problem, including lack of operator qualification/certification
requirements, insufficient ground conditions, reliance on unreliable
information regarding load weight, and operators being pressured into
exceeding rated capacity. The Committee concluded that this additional
measure is needed to help counteract the persistent problem of
operators being pressured into exceeding rated capacity.
    Paragraph 1417(o)(3). Load weight. As discussed above, another
cause of injuries and fatalities from overturning equipment is the use
of unreliable information on load weight. The Committee concluded that
one of the ways these incidents can be reduced is to require that load
weight be verified by a reliable means.
    Under this proposed paragraph, the operator would be required to
verify that the load is within the rated capacity of the equipment by
using the procedures in either proposed Sec.  1926.1417(o)(3)(i) or
(ii). Under Sec.  1926.1417(o)(3)(i), the weight of the load would have
to be determined in one of three ways: From a reliable source, from a
reliable calculation method, or by other equally reliable means. An
example of verifying the load weight from a reliable source would be
where the load is mechanical equipment and the weight is obtained from
its manufacturer.
    An example of a reliable calculation method would be the following:
The load is a steel I-beam. After measuring the thickness of the steel
and the I-beam's other dimensions, the operator uses an industry table
that shows weight per linear foot for a beam of these dimensions. The
operator then calculates the beam's weight using that information. If
the weight of the load is determined under proposed Sec.
1926.1417(o)(3)(i), the information about how the load weight was
determined must be provided to the operator, prior to the lift, upon
the operator's request. This provision is included to help ensure that
the operator has the information necessary to verify that the load is
within the rated capacity of the equipment.
    Under proposed paragraph (o)(3)(ii), the operator would have to
begin hoisting the load to determine if it exceeds 75 percent of the
maximum rated capacity at the longest radius that will be used during
the lift operation, using a load weighing device, load moment
indicator, rated capacity indicator, or rated capacity limiter. If the
load does exceed 75 percent of the maximum rated capacity, then the
operator would be prohibited from proceeding with the lift until he/she
verifies the weight of the load in accordance with proposed Sec.
1926.1417(o)(3)(i).
    The Committee concluded that as long as one of these devices shows
that the load does not exceed 75% of the rated capacity (at the longest
radius that will be used), it is not necessary to determine the actual
weight of the load. Its conclusion is based on the belief that this
verification procedure \52\ incorporates a sufficient margin of error
and would be adequate to ensure that the crane's rated capacity would
not be exceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The operator would still be required to use his or her
professional judgment in determining whether the load exceeds the
capacity of the equipment. As discussed above, proposed Sec.
1926.1417(k) would prohibit sole reliance by the operator on an
operational aid, such as a load weight device, for ensuring that the
equipment's capacity will not be exceeded. The procedure in proposed
Sec.  1926.1417(o)(3)(ii) is a verification procedure--it would
verify that the operator's estimate is at least correct in terms of
not exceeding 75% of the equipment's rated capacity (at the longest
radius that will be used). If, for example, the load weight device
yields a figure that is significantly below what the operator
estimates to be the true weight, the operator would need to reliably
determine the weight of the load before proceeding with the lift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the Committee believed that if the device shows that
the load exceeds 75%, there is an insufficient margin of error to
proceed without a more accurate determination. In such instances a
verified determination of the actual weight, in accordance with
proposed Sec.  1926.1417(o)(3)(i), is needed to ensure safety.
    Currently, the only Subpart N requirement for determining or
verifying the weight of the load is found in section 5-3.2.1b of ANSI
B30.5-1968, which states: ``When loads which are limited by structural
competence rather than by stability are to be handled, the person
responsible for the job shall ascertain that the weight of the load has
been determined within plus or minus 10 percent before it is lifted.''
The Committee believed that the more detailed procedures in proposed
Sec.  1926.1417(o)(3) and the greater margin of safety provided by the
75% limit are needed to prevent the crane's capacity from being
exceeded.
Paragraph 1417(p)
    This proposed paragraph would require that the boom or other parts
of the equipment not contact any obstruction. The Committee agreed on
this provision because of its understanding that boom contact with an
obstruction can deform, misalign or otherwise damage the equipment.
Such damage can cause unintended movement, prevent intended movement,
or a collapse. 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N currently has no similar
provision.
Paragraph 1417(q)
    This proposed paragraph would require that the equipment not be
used to drag or pull loads sideways. The Committee intended this
provision to prevent the sideloading that occurs when a load is dragged
or pulled sideways. Sideloading can buckle the boom, damage the swing
mechanism, or overturn the crane (such as when the boom is at a high
angle). Currently, section 5-3.2.3c.2 of ANSI B30.5-1968 contains a
similar requirement, providing: ``Side loading of booms shall

be limited to freely suspended loads. Cranes shall not be used for
dragging loads sideways.'' (As discussed below, proposed paragraph (v)
addresses sideloading of freely suspended loads by restricting the
speed of rotation).
Paragraph 1417(r)
    On wheel-mounted equipment, this proposed provision would require
that no loads be lifted over the front area, except as permitted by the
manufacturer. The Committee agreed on this provision because wheel-
mounted equipment typically is not designed to lift loads over the
front area without tipping over unless it is specifically designed to
do so (such as where equipped with a front outrigger for support and
stabilization for this purpose). Equipment that is not so designed will
likely tip over or otherwise fail when lifting loads over the front
area. This proposed paragraph continues the requirement of section 5-
3.2.3g of ANSI B30.5-1968, which is incorporated by reference in
Subpart N.
Paragraph 1417(s)
    In many circumstances an operator may use equipment that has not
recently been used to handle a load that is 90% or more of the maximum
line pull. The condition and adjustment of the brakes may be sufficient
to handle lesser loads, but insufficient to handle loads closer to
their design capacity. Consequently, the operator may not know that the
brakes are insufficient until after the load is hoisted. In such a case
the load could be dropped, posing a struck-by hazard.
    This proposed paragraph would address that hazard by requiring that
the operator test the brakes each time a load that is 90% or more of
the maximum line pull is handled by lifting the load a few inches and
applying the brakes. In duty cycle and repetitive lifts where each lift
is 90% or more of the maximum line pull, this requirement would apply
to the first but not to successive lifts, since the operator would have
already determined from the initial test that the brakes are
sufficient.
    Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N contains a similar
requirement through section 5-3.2.3h of ANSI B30.5-1968, which states:
``The operator shall test the brakes each time a load approaching the
rated load is handled by raising it a few inches and applying the
brakes.'' C-DAC believed that additional clarity than that found in the
ANSI provision is needed to give employers notice of when a brake test
was required and therefore proposed in Sec.  1926.1417(s) to require
testing when the load is 90% or more of the maximum line pull.
Paragraph 1417(t)
    This proposed paragraph would require that neither the load nor the
boom be lowered below the point where less than two full wraps of rope
remain on their respective drums. This provision is designed to ensure
that the rope is not unspooled to the point where the rope would become
disconnected from the drum. It continues the current Subpart N
requirement found in section 5-3.2.3j of ANSI B30.5-1968.
Paragraph 1417(u) Traveling With a Load
    Paragraph 1417(u)(1). This proposed paragraph would prohibit
traveling with a load if the practice is prohibited by the
manufacturer. If the manufacturer does not prohibit this practice, the
equipment may travel with a load, but only if the requirements of
proposed Sec.  1926.1417(u)(2) are met. 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N does
not prohibit traveling with a load if the practice is prohibited by the
manufacturer but, through incorporation of section 5-3.2.3n of ANSI
B30.5-1968, permits traveling with a load whenever conditions similar
to those in proposed Sec.  1926.1417(u)(2)(i) are satisfied.
    The dynamic effects of traveling with a load impose additional and/
or increased forces on crane components. Unless the crane has been
designed to handle these types of forces and force levels, they can
cause component failure, collapse, instability or overturning. The
Committee believed that the manufacturer has the expertise to ascertain
its equipment's capabilities. Therefore, the Committee believed that
where the manufacturer has prohibited traveling with the load, such a
determination needs to be complied with to ensure safety.
    Paragraph 1417(u)(2). If the manufacturer does not prohibit
traveling with a load, the equipment may travel with a load if the
requirements of proposed Sec.  1926.1417(u)(2) are met. This proposed
paragraph sets forth three procedures that employers would have to
follow when traveling with a load.
    Paragraph 1417(u)(2)(i). Pursuant to this proposed paragraph, a
competent person would have to supervise the operation, determine if it
is necessary to reduce crane ratings, and make determinations regarding
load position, boom location, ground support, travel route, overhead
obstructions, and speed of movement necessary to ensure safety. Under
proposed Sec.  1926.1417(u)(2)(ii), the determinations of the competent
person must be implemented. These provisions are similar to section 5-
3.2.3n of ANSI B30.5-1968, which is incorporated in 29 CFR part 1926
subpart N.
    As discussed above, traveling with a load imposes types and levels
of forces on the equipment that are not present when the equipment is
stationary, and conditions such as load position and boom location can
affect the magnitude of those forces. Some of the criteria in proposed
Sec.  1926.1417(u)(2)(i) address this type of effect. Other criteria in
this paragraph are intended to ensure that other hazards--those posed
by the crane being in changing locations (such as ground support,
travel route and overhead obstructions)--are addressed by the competent
person. When traveling with a load, a crane may encounter hazards such
as power lines, insufficient ground support, uneven or slippery ground
conditions, and obstructions that the equipment could strike.
    A competent person must address these issues before the equipment
begins to travel with a load. The competent person must also supervise
the operation as it proceeds so that problems that arise that were not
foreseen at the outset can be properly addressed. In sum, the Committee
designed these provisions to ensure that the employer plans and
implements a travel operation so that the various effects and
changeable conditions associated with travel are properly identified,
assessed and addressed.
    Paragraph 1417(u)(2)(iii). For equipment with pressurized tires,
this proposed paragraph would require that tire pressure specified by
the manufacturer be maintained. Subpart N currently has no
corresponding provision.
    The Committee agreed on this provision to address the hazards posed
by improper tire pressure when traveling with a load. Where pressure
varies among the tires, the equipment may be out of level, reducing
capacity and causing instability. Uniform but improper pressure can
reduce capacity or lead to tire failure. Each of these circumstances
can lead to unintended movement, loss of the load, overturning and/or
collapse.
Paragraph 1417(v)
    This proposed paragraph would require that rotational speed of the
equipment be such that the load does not swing out beyond the radius at
which it can be controlled. As noted above in relation to proposed
Sec.  1926.1417(q), 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N currently permits
sideloading

of freely suspended loads with no restriction comparable to that in
proposed Sec.  1926.1417(v).
    The Committee intended this provision to prevent the hazard of
sideloading, which occurs when the load swings to either side of the
boom tip, rather than its appropriate position directly beneath the
boom tip. When the load is not directly under the boom tip, sideloading
occurs and decreases capacity. This hazard can lead to tip-over or boom
failure.
Paragraph 1417(w)
    This proposed paragraph would require that a tag or restraint line
be used if necessary to prevent rotation of the load that would be
hazardous. The Committee agreed on this provision in order to prevent
the hazard of an unstable or uncontrolled load which could in turn
destabilize other parts of the crane or the crane itself. This
condition can also result in the load posing a struck-by hazard.
Section 5-3.2.3p of ANSI B30.5-1968 contains a comparable requirement.
Paragraph 1417(x)
    This proposed paragraph would require that the brakes be adjusted
in accordance with manufacturer procedures to prevent unintended
movement. This requirement would apply to all brakes on equipment
covered by this standard, including brakes used to control the lowering
of the load and those used to stop the equipment while it is traveling.
Improper adjustment can cause a delay in the onset of braking after the
operator attempts to activate the brake and can also diminish the
brake's capacity. Brakes are critical to the safe operation of the
equipment and must be properly adjusted to serve their safety function.
    Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N does not specifically address
brake adjustment. However, section 5-2.3.1a of ANSI B30.5-1968 requires
a preventive maintenance program based on the manufacturer's
recommendations, and section 5-2.3.3b requires that all components and
operating mechanisms be adjusted to ensure their correct functioning.
In light of the critical role that brakes play in ensuring equipment
safety, these provisions of ANSI B30.5-1968 can be read to include
brake adjustments. The Committee concluded that the more explicit
approach to this issue taken in proposed Sec.  1926.1417(x) requirement
would help enhance employee safety.
Paragraph 1417(y)
    This proposed paragraph would require that the operator obey a stop
or emergency stop signal, regardless of who gives the signal. Any
person on a worksite may observe a hazardous condition that is not
visible to or recognized by the crane operator and that can only be
avoided if the equipment stops immediately. Therefore, the operator
must obey a stop signal given by anybody on the worksite. Section 5-
3.1.3c of ANSI B30.5-1968 contains a comparable requirement.
Paragraph 1417(z) Swinging Locomotive Cranes
    Pursuant to this proposed paragraph, a locomotive crane shall not
be swung into a position where it is reasonably foreseeable that
railway cars on an adjacent track could strike it, until it is
determined that cars are not being moved on the adjacent track and that
proper flag protection has been established. A comparable requirement
is contained in section 5-3.4.4 of ANSI B30.5-1968.
Paragraph 1417(aa) Counterweight/Ballast
    Paragraph 1417(aa)(1). This proposed paragraph contains
counterweight/ballast requirements that would apply to equipment other
than tower cranes. Pursuant to proposed Sec.  1926.1417(aa)(2),
requirements regarding counterweight/ballast for tower cranes are found
in proposed Sec.  1926.1435(b)(7).
    Paragraph 1417(aa)(1)(i). This proposed paragraph would require
that equipment not be operated without the counterweight or ballast in
place as specified by the manufacturer. Failure to follow the
manufacturer's specifications for use of counterweights and ballast
could result in a tipover or collapse.
    Paragraph 1417(aa)(1)(ii). Under this proposed provision, the
employer would be prohibited from exceeding the maximum counterweight
or ballast specified by the manufacturer for the equipment. Exceeding
that maximum could result in component failure, which could cause
unintended movement, tipover or collapse.
    Requirements similar to those in Sec.  1926.1417(aa)(1)(i) and (ii)
are currently contained in Subpart N through incorporation by reference
of section 5-3.4.2 of ANSI B30.5-1968.
    The C-DAC draft of this provision stated that the maximum
counterweight or ballast ``approved'' by the manufacturer shall not be
exceeded. Upon reviewing the draft, OSHA determined that a term that
more accurately reflects the Committee's intent in this regard is
``specified.'' Therefore, the Agency has modified the C-DAC language so
that proposed Sec.  1926.1417(aa)(1)(ii) reads:

    The maximum counterweight or ballast specified by the
manufacturer for the equipment shall not be exceeded.

    Paragraph 1417(aa)(2). This proposed paragraph complements proposed
Sec.  1926.1417(aa)(1) by noting that the counterweight and ballast
requirements for tower cranes are found in proposed Sec.
1926.1435(b)(8).

Section 1418 Authority To Stop Operation

    This proposed section provides: ``Whenever there is a concern as to
safety, the operator shall have the authority to stop and refuse to
handle loads until a qualified person has determined that safety has
been assured.'' Subpart N incorporates pre-1971 industry consensus
standards that require operators to have comparable authority, and
current industry consensus standards contain similar provisions. An
appropriately capable equipment operator is highly knowledgeable in
matters affecting equipment safety and is well qualified to determine
whether an operation presents a safety concern. C-DAC believed that it
continues to be necessary for the employer to provide this authority to
the operator.
    Current consensus standards specify that an operator with a safety
concern must raise that concern with a supervisor before proceeding
with a lift. For example, section 5-3.1.3(d) of ANSI B30.5-2004,
``Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,'' provides: ``Whenever there is any
doubt as to safety, the operator shall consult with the supervisor
before handling the loads.'' Similar provisions are included in section
2-3.1.7 of ASME B30.2-2001, ``Overhead and Gantry Cranes,'' section 3-
3.1.3(d) of ASME B30.3-1996, ``Construction Tower Cranes,'' section 6-
3.2.3 of ASME B30.6-2003, ``Derricks,'' and other standards in the ASME
B30 series.
    The proposed section reflects C-DAC's belief that it is necessary
to clearly delineate the circumstances under which it would be
permissible to resume operations after the operator has exercised this
authority. Under the proposed provision, operations would be prohibited
from resuming ``until a qualified person had determined that safety has
been assured.''
    In accordance with the proposed definition of a qualified person
(see the discussion above of this term in proposed Sec.  1926.1401),
that person would, ``by possession of a recognized degree, certificate,
or professional

standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training and experience,
successfully demonstrated the ability to solve/resolve problems
relating to the subject matter, the work or the project.'' For example,
operations could resume only after the qualified person either: (1)
Assesses the factors that led the operator to stop and refuse to handle
the load and determines that there is not, in fact, a safety hazard, or
(2) after corrective action has been taken, determines that there is no
longer a safety hazard.
    An illustrative example of this is the following: A large steel
cylinder, which is lying lengthwise on the ground, is to be lifted into
the vertical position and then up to the top of a structure. As the
crane operator prepares to lift the cylinder into the vertical
position, the operator sees that the rigging is attached at a point
that is more than halfway down from the top of the cylinder. This
indicates to the operator that the rigging has been attached below the
cylinder's center of gravity. Rigging such a load below the center of
gravity could cause it to flip over when it is lifted. As a result of
this concern, the operator exercises his/her authority to stop and
refuse to handle the load.
    After the operator explains his/her concern to the employer, the
employer consults with an individual who is a qualified person with
respect to the rigging of the load. The qualified person finds that the
wall of the steel cylinder is much thicker near its base than at the
top. After calculating the cylinder's center of gravity, the qualified
person determines that it is well below the midpoint of the cylinder.
The qualified person then determines that the rigging is, in fact,
attached above the cylinder's center of gravity, and that safety is
assured. The lifting operation is then resumed.
    In this example the operator appropriately exercised his/her
authority to stop and refuse to handle the load, since there were
indications of an unsafe condition. A qualified person then
appropriately found that safety was assured after examining those
indications, assessing the relevant factors, and determining that the
load was in fact rigged in a safe manner.

Signals

    Proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.1419 through 1926.1422 address the
circumstances under which a signal person must be provided, the type of
signals that may be used, criteria for how signals are transmitted, and
other criteria associated with the use of signals.

Section 1419 Signals--General Requirements

    This proposed section would set requirements regarding signals when
using equipment covered by this proposed standard.
    Currently, Sec.  1926.550(a)(4) provides: ``Hand signals to crane
and derrick operators shall be those prescribed by the applicable ANSI
standard for the type of crane in use. An illustration of the signals
shall be posted at the job site.'' C-DAC believed that the current rule
is insufficient in several respects. First, the current rule does not
establish the circumstances in which there is a need to have a signal
person. Second, the current standard refers only to hand signals. C-DAC
believed that other means of signaling need to be addressed as well to
provide necessary flexibility and reduce the potential for
miscommunication (requirements regarding other signaling methods are
addressed in proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.1420 and 1926.1421).
    Finally, C-DAC found that hazardous situations arise as a result of
signal persons not understanding safety-related aspects of crane
operations and dynamics and not knowing how to give appropriate
signals. Consequently, it determined that there is a need to establish
requirements regarding the qualifications of the signal person; these
are addressed in proposed Sec.  1926.1428. In short, C-DAC believed
that addressing these issues is one of the means by which the number of
injuries and fatalities caused by ``struck-by'' incidents, in which the
equipment or load strikes an employee, can be reduced.
Paragraph 1419(a)
    Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) address the circumstances
that would require the provision of a signal person: When the point of
operation, meaning the load travel or the area near or at load
placement, is not in full view of the operator (Sec.  1926.1419(a)(1));
when the equipment is traveling and the operator's view in the
direction of travel is obstructed (Sec.  1926.1419(a)(2)); and when,
due to site specific safety concerns, either the operator or the person
handling the load determines it is necessary (Sec.  1926.1419(a)(3)).
The first two of these circumstances involve an obvious hazard--limited
operator visibility.
    With respect to the third circumstance, C-DAC believed that other
situations arise that, from a safety standpoint, necessitate the use of
a signal person. For example, the operator may recognize that the load
at one point will move alongside and very close to a structure. Even
though the load in this example will remain in view of the operator as
it travels, because of the tight tolerances involved, the operator
determines that a signal person is needed to help ensure that the load
does not come in contact with the structure (which could cause the load
to fall).
    Another example is where a heavy load, such as a large HVAC unit,
has to be placed very precisely on a concrete pad. In this example, as
in the previous one, the load remains within the view of the operator
at all times. However, the employee handling the load determines that
signals need to be given to the operator so that the load handler's
work and the operator's movement of the load are properly coordinated.
Because of the weight of the load, the employee handling it will have
to use both hands to help position it as it is placed on the pad and
will not be able to give signals. In such an instance the person
handling the load could determine that a signal person is necessary.
Paragraph 1419(b) Types of Signals
    Under proposed paragraph (b), signals to crane operators would have
to be by hand, voice, audible, or ``new'' signals. As used in this
proposed standard, these terms refer to the type of signal, not the
means by which the signal is transmitted. For example, signaling by
voice refers to oral communication, not whether the oral communication
is done with or without amplification or with or without electronic
transmission. The manner of transmission of the signal is addressed
separately.
    ``Audible signal'' is defined in Sec.  1926.1401 as ``a signal made
by a distinct sound or series of sounds. Examples include, but are not
limited to, sounds made by a bell, horn, or whistle.'' Under some
circumstances, audible signals are effective means of communicating
with an operator, and C-DAC defined the term to make clear the types of
sounds that would be permissible.
    The criteria for the use of these signal types are set out in
proposed Sec.  1926.1419(c)-(m) (additional voice signal requirements
are in proposed Sec.  1926.1421, Signals--voice signals--additional
requirements). The Committee's intent was to reduce the potential for
miscommunication, which can lead to injuries and fatalities,
particularly from ``struck-by'' and ``crushed-by'' incidents. In
setting parameters for the use of the various types of existing signal
methods, and for signal methods that may be developed in the future,
the Committee sought to

promote a degree of standardization while still allowing appropriate
flexibility. In addition, the proposed provisions are designed to
ensure that the selection of signal type and means of sending the
signals are appropriate under the circumstances and reliable.
Paragraph 1419(c) Hand Signals
    Proposed paragraph (c) addresses the use of hand signals. The
industry has long recognized the need for consistent, universal hand
signals to minimize the potential for miscommunication between signal
persons and operators. ANSI B30.5-1968, ``Crawler, Locomotive and Truck
Cranes,'' contains illustrations of hand signals that are the same as
the current 2004 edition of ASME B30.5 and that are consistent with
hand signals for other types of cranes in ASME B30 standards. Subpart N
currently requires that hand signals to crane and derrick operators
``be those prescribed by the applicable ANSI standard for the type of
crane in use'' and that ``an illustration of the signals shall be
posted at the job site'' (Sec.  1926.550(a)(4)).
    Because of the industry's long familiarity with these standard hand
signals, C-DAC determined that, when using hand signals, the
standardized version of the signals should continue to be required.
These signals are referred to as the ``Standard Method,'' which is
defined in proposed Sec.  1926.1401 as ``the protocol in Appendix A for
hand signals.'' The ``Standard Method'' signals are located in Appendix
A. However, the Committee recognized that there are instances when use
of the Standard Method is either infeasible or where there is no
Standard Method signal applicable to the work being done.
    For example, the Standard Method signal for raising the boom is:
arm extended, thumb pointing upward and other fingers closed. The
signal for lowering the boom is the same except the thumb points down.
There are circumstances where back-lighting conditions make it
difficult for the operator to see the signal person's thumb and
therefore cannot discern whether it is pointing up or down. In such
circumstances use of the standard signal would be infeasible.
    In such instances, under this proposed paragraph, non-standard
signals (examples of which are provided in Appendix B of this proposed
rule) may be used. To avoid confusion when non-standard signals are
used, proposed Sec.  1926.1419(c)(2) would require that the signal
person, crane operator, and lift supervisor (where there is one) meet
prior to the operation to agree upon the signals that will be used.
Paragraph 1419(d) New Signals
    Proposed paragraph (d) would allow signals other than hand, voice,
or audible signals to be used if certain criteria are met. As discussed
above under proposed Sec.  1926.1419(b), C-DAC include Sec.
1926.1419(d) to allow for the development of new signals in the future.
To ensure that any new signals are as effective as hand, voice, or
audible signals, proposed 1926.1419(d)(1) and (d)(2) would require the
employer to demonstrate either that the new signals are as effective as
existing signals for communicating, or that there is a national
consensus standard for the new signals.\53\ C-DAC believed it was
appropriate to allow reliance on signals in a national consensus
standard because their inclusion in such a standard shows a high degree
of standardization and widespread acceptance by persons who are
affected by the signals, thereby ensuring that the signals can be used
safely to control equipment operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The C-DAC draft refers to an ``industry consensus
standard.'' OSHA hasd changed this to ``national consensus
standard'' to conform to the terminology used in the OSH Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph 1419(e) Suitability
    Under proposed paragraph (e), the type of signal (hand, voice,
audible, or new) and the transmission method used would have to be
suitable for the site conditions. For example, hand signals would not
be suitable if site conditions do not allow for the signal person to be
within the operator's line of sight. Radio signals would not be
suitable if electronic interference on the site prohibits the signals
from being readily understood.
Paragraph 1419(f)
    Proposed paragraph (f) would require the ability to transmit
signals between the operator and signal person to be maintained. If
that ability is interrupted, the operator would be required to safely
stop operations until signal transmission is reestablished and a proper
signal is given and understood.
Paragraph 1419(g)
    Proposed paragraph (g) would require the operator to stop
operations if the operator becomes aware of a safety problem and needs
to communicate with the signal person. Operations may only be resumed
after the operator and signal person agree that the problem has been
resolved.
    Most signal systems permit only one-way communication, from the
signal person to the operator. In addition, most two-way systems, such
as a typical two-way radio system, only permit one person to speak at a
time. When using such systems, circumstances may arise in which the
operator, while receiving signals, becomes aware of a safety problem
that is of a nature that necessitates that the operator communicate
with the signal person. For example, the signal person signals to the
operator to lower the load. However, the operator sees that an employee
has moved under the load in an area that is out of the view of the
signal person. Under this proposed provision the operator would have to
safely stop lowering the load and communicate the problem to the signal
person.
    Another example is where the signal person gives a hand signal but
it appears to the operator that the signal person is using the wrong
signal. The operator would be required to safely stop operations and
communicate with the signal person to resolve the problem.
Paragraph 1419(h) and (j)
    Proposed paragraph (h) would require that only one person at a time
signal the operator. C-DAC believed this provision was needed to
prevent confusion with respect to which signals the operator is
supposed to follow. An exception is provided when, as provided in
proposed Sec.  1926.1419(j), somebody becomes aware of a safety problem
and gives an emergency stop signal. Under proposed Sec.  1926.1417(y),
the operator would be required to obey such a signal.
    Paragraph 1419(i) [Reserved.] Paragraph (i) is reserved because it
is inconvenient for readers to determine whether ``(i)'' is being used
as a letter or a roman numeral.
Paragraph 1419(k)
    Proposed paragraph (k) would require that all directions given to
the operator by the signal person be given from the operator's
direction perspective. In the Committee's experience, the operator will
tend to react to a directional signal, such as ``forward,'' by acting
on the signal from the operator's perspective. This provision would
ensure that the signal that is given will be consistent with that
natural tendency.
    Paragraph 1419(l) [Reserved.] Paragraph (l) is reserved because it
is inconvenient for readers to whether ``l'' is being used as a letter
or a number.

Paragraph 1419(m) Communication With Multiple Cranes/Derricks
    Proposed paragraph (m) addresses a situation where the signal
person is in communication with more than one crane or derrick. It
would require the signal person to use an effective means of
identifying the crane or derrick the signal is for before giving the
signal. Proposed Sec.  1926.1419(m)(i) and (ii) set out alternate means
of complying with this requirement. Under proposed Sec.
1926.1419(m)(i), for each signal, prior to giving the function/
direction, the signal person must identify the crane/derrick for which
the signal is intended. Alternatively, under proposed Sec.
1926.1419(m)(ii), the employer could implement a method of identifying
which crane/derrick for which the signal is intended that is as
effective as the system in proposed Sec.  1926.1419(m)(i). Because of
the potential for confusion, it is essential that an alternative system
under proposed Sec.  1926.1419(m)(ii) be equally effective as Sec.
1926.1419(m)(i) in clearly conveying, on a consistent basis, the crane/
derrick to which each signal is directed.

Section 1420 Signals--Radio, Telephone, or Other Electronic
Transmission of Signals

    C-DAC concluded that certain criteria are needed to ensure the
reliability and clarity of electronically transmitted signals; these
criteria are listed in proposed paragraphs Sec.  1926.1420(a) through
(c). Proposed paragraph (a) would require the testing of the
transmission devices prior to the start of operations to ensure that
the signals are clear and that the devices are reliable. This will help
ensure that the operator receives and can understand the signals that
are given and will prevent accidents caused by miscommunication.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would require that such signals be
transmitted through a dedicated channel. As defined in Sec.  1926.1401,
a ``dedicated channel'' is ``a line of communication assigned by the
employer who controls the communication system to only one signal
person and crane/derrick or to a coordinated group of cranes/derricks/
signal person(s).'' Use of a dedicated channel would ensure that the
operator and signal person are not interrupted by users performing
other tasks or confused by instructions not intended for them.
    An exception to Sec.  1926.1419(b) would allow more than one signal
person and more than one crane/derrick operator to share a dedicated
channel in multiple crane/derrick situations for coordinating
operations. The Committee believed that this exception is needed
because, in those situations, it may be advantageous to share a single
dedicated channel. For example, in some situations several cranes may
be operating in an area in which their booms, loads or load lines could
come in contact with each other. In such cases it is crucial that the
movements of each crane be properly coordinated. By sharing a single
channel, each operator can hear what each crane is being asked to do,
which can facilitate that coordination.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would require that the operator's reception
be by a hands-free system. In other words, the operator must not have
to depress a button, manipulate a switch, or take any action in order
for the incoming signal to be received. C-DAC believed that this
provision is needed because the operator must have both hands free to
manipulate the equipment's controls.

Paragraph 1421 Signals--Voice Signals--Additional Requirements

    C-DAC considered whether the proposed rule should include a
standardized set of voice signals. Unlike hand signals, which have
become standardized to a large extent within the industry, in the
Committee members' experience there is significant variation in the
phrases used to convey the same instructions. Consequently, words or
phrases that the Committee might choose to propose to be required as
voice signals could be unfamiliar to many employees in the industry or
contrary to common usage in some parts of the country. In light of
this, the Committee determined that it would be better to use a
different approach to address the problem of miscommunication when
using voice signals. This approach, which establishes criteria for
whatever voice signals are used, is set out in proposed Sec.
1926.1421(a)-(c).
    Under proposed paragraph (a), prior to beginning operations, the
personnel involved with signals--the crane operator, signal person and
lift supervisor (if there is one)--would be required to meet and agree
on the voice signals that will be used. Because of the lack of
standardization and the variety of languages that are in use in the
construction industry, the Committee concluded that it is essential
that the persons who give and/or receive voice signals agree in advance
on the signals that will be used in order to avoid miscommunication.
Once the parties have met and agreed on the voice signals, another
meeting is not required to discuss them unless another worker is
substituted, there is some confusion about the signals, or a signal
needs to be changed.
    In reviewing the C-DAC draft of this provision, the Agency realized
that the adjective ``voice'' was inadvertently left out when referring
to signals. To avoid ambiguity, the Agency has added the term ``voice''
to clarify that this proposed provision applies to the use of voice
signals.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would require that each voice signal contain
the following three elements, given in the following order: function
(such as hoist, boom, etc.), direction; distance and/or speed;
Function, stop command. For example: hoist up; 10 feet; hoist stop. As
discussed above, the Committee considered it impractical to attempt to
standardize the voice signals themselves (that is, to require the use
of particular words to represent particular functions, directions or