cause confusion, since it is ambiguous as to whether that person had
been granted the authority to correct hazards. Such ambiguity in the
minds of the A/D crew members regarding the authority of the A/D
supervisor would undermine the effectiveness of the provision itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ With ``A/D supervisor,'' OSHA was merely creating a
descriptive term for use solely in the application of an OSHA
standard. OSHA's use of the term is a less significant designation
for the purposes of the NLRA than even a job title, which is itself
not determinative under the NLRA. See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. St. Mary's
Home, Inc., 690 F.2d 1062, 1066 (4th Cir. 1982) (``As the [NLRB]
itself has put it, `job titles are meaningless).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, OSHA has decided to use the term ``A/D director.''
``Director'' is not a defined term in the NLRA nor does it have any
particular significance as a job title with respect to NLRA
jurisprudence. Furthermore, like ``A/D supervisor,'' it is consistent
with C-DAC's intent to use a term that conveys the concept of authority
to oversee the assembly/disassembly process. To remain consistent with
this new term, in Sec.  1926.1404(a)(1), OSHA has replaced the word
``supervised'' with ``directed.''
    The A/D director has to meet the definition of both a ``competent''
and ``qualified'' person as OSHA defines those terms.\21\ The Committee
determined that having an A/D director overseeing the assembly/
disassembly process who had both the authority to correct a hazard and
who had the expertise of a qualified person was necessary to ensure the
safety of the operation. Several commenters strongly endorsed the new
A/D director requirement, believing the addition will improve workplace
safety. (See, e.g., ID-0343.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Section 1926.1401, Definitions, defines a ``competent
person'' as: ``one who is capable of identifying existing and
predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions which
are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has
authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate
them.'' Section 1926.1401 defines a ``qualified person'' in this
proposed standard as: ``One who, by possession of a recognized
degree, certificate, or professional standing, or who by extensive
knowledge, training, and experience, has successfully demonstrated
his ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the subject
matter, the work, or the project.'' These definitions are
essentially the same as the definitions in Sec. Sec.  1926.32(f) and
1926.32(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A commenter asserted that the qualifications for A/D directors are
too abstract and allowed for too much interpretation. The commenter
suggests that the qualifications for an A/D director should be more
similar to the requirements for operator certification in Sec.
1926.1427. (ID-0137.1.)
    C-DAC thoroughly discussed the necessary qualifications for an A/D
director and determined that the best option for ensuring employee
safety during assembly/disassembly was to require an A/D director to be
both a qualified and a competent person. (See ID-0321.5.) Furthermore,
the terms qualified person and competent person and their definitions
are well established and well recognized in the construction industry.
For these reasons, OSHA is deferring to the judgment of the Committee
and is not making the suggested change.
Paragraphs (b) Knowledge of the Procedures and (c) Review of the
Procedures
    Section 1926.1404(b) requires that the A/D director understand the
assembly/disassembly procedures. In addition, Sec.  1926.1404(c)
requires the A/D director to review the procedures immediately prior to
starting the process unless the director's experience in having used
them on the same type and configuration of equipment, and recollection
and understanding of the procedures is such that it makes their review
unnecessary.
    These two sections work together to ensure that an experienced A/D
director understands the procedures. Even if an A/D director has
experience, he/she must still meet the knowledge requirement in Sec.
1926.1404(b). For example, if an A/D director configured a type of
crane a number of years ago and no longer remembers the procedures
applicable to such a crane, he/she does not fall within the experienced
A/D director exception, and must, accordingly, review the procedures
immediately prior to starting the process.
    No comments were received on these provisions. They are promulgated
as proposed except that, in addition to a grammatical clarification,
Sec.  1926.1404(c) now contains a clearer knowledge requirement to
clarify the interplay between Sec. Sec.  1926.1404(b) and 1926.1404(c),
as described above.
Paragraph (d) Crew Instructions
    Under this provision, before beginning assembly/disassembly
operations, the A/D director would have to ensure that the crew members
understand their tasks and the associated hazards, as well as any
hazardous positions/locations that they need to avoid.
    No comments were received on this provision. It is promulgated as
proposed except that ``ensure'' replaces ``determine,'' to better
represent the role of the A/D director.
Paragraph (e) Protecting Assembly/Disassembly Crew Members Out of
Operator View
    Section 1926.1404(e) requires that before a crew member goes to a
location that is out of view of the operator and is either in, on, or
under the equipment, or near the equipment (or load) where the crew
member could be injured by movement of the equipment (or load), the
crew member must inform the operator that he/she is going to that
location. Where the operator knows that a crew member went to a
location

covered by paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the operator must not move
any part of the equipment (or load) until the operator is informed in
accordance with a pre-arranged system of communication that the crew
member is in a safe position. An example of such a system would be the
use of a signal person who gives an all-clear signal to the operator
once the signal person sees that the employee has exited the hazard
area. Another example would be where the employee in the hazard area is
equipped with a portable air horn and, in accordance with a pre-
arranged horn signal system, sounds an appropriate signal to the
operator that the employee has exited the hazard area. To be effective,
the pre-arranged signal system needs to be designed so that this all-
clear signal could not be confused with a horn signal from some other
employee for another purpose.
    One of the hazards identified by the Committee is an operator
swinging or moving the crane/derrick when assembly/disassembly
personnel are in a crush/caught-in-between zone and out of the
operator's view. The Committee concluded that an effective and
practical means of preventing these accidents would be through a
communication procedure that would provide key information to, and
coordination between, the operator and these workers.
    One Committee member suggested that instead of requiring that the
crew member directly inform the operator of his/her location, the rule
should permit the crew member to provide this information to the
operator through a third person. For example, the crew member would
instruct his/her foreman to radio the information to the operator. OSHA
requested public comment on this suggestion in the preamble of the
proposed rule (see 73 FR 59743, Oct. 9, 2008).
    Several commenters stated that the requirements should remain as
originally proposed and the Agency should not allow notification
through a third person. (ID-0205.1; -0213.1; -0182.1; -0187.1; -
0379.1.) One commenter believed that third party notification could
result in miscommunication or delays. (ID-0226; -0357.1.)
    One commenter testified that introducing a third person into the
communications link would not present any danger so long as there was
some verbal confirmation. (ID-0344.)
    OSHA agrees with C-DAC and the majority of the commenters. Indirect
communication between the crane operator and the employee working out
of view, through an intermediary, would increase the potential for
miscommunication. Therefore, the Agency has not changed the provisions
to allow third party notification.
    Commenters raised additional issues regarding Sec.  1926.1404(e).
Proposed Sec.  1926.1404(e) provided two methods to assure that
employees would not be injured while working outside of the operator's
view. Under proposed Sec.  1926.1404(e)(2)(i), the operator would give
a warning that is understood by the crew member as a signal that the
equipment (or load) is about to be moved and would allow time for the
crew member to get to a safe position. Under proposed Sec.
1926.1404(e)(2)(ii), the operator was prohibited from moving any part
of the crane until informed, in accordance with a pre-arranged system
of communication, that the crew member is in a safe position.
    Two commenters raised concerns regarding crew members actually
hearing warnings that were given in accordance with proposed Sec.
1926.1404(e)(2)(i). One commenter suggested that the operator should be
required to confirm that the employee has moved to a safe location
prior to initiating crane movement. (ID-0292.1.) Another commenter
suggested that a prearranged communications system should be required
because audible warnings can be drowned out by ambient noise. (ID-
0122.)
    These comments identified two flaws in proposed Sec.
1926.1404(e)(2)(i) that were not addressed by C-DAC. First, a crew
member may not hear a warning signal that the equipment or load is
about to move and may not respond appropriately. Second, the crew
member may hear the warning signal but be unable to move from his/her
position. This would leave the crew member exposed to struck-by and
crushing hazards. As a result, the Agency has revised the provision by
deleting the option that was in proposed Sec.  1926.1404(e)(2)(i).
Proposed Sec.  1926.1404(e)(2) is otherwise included as proposed except
for one grammatical correction.
Paragraph (f) Working Under the Boom, Jib or Other Components
    Section 1926.1404(f) requires that when pins (or similar devices)
are being removed, employees must not be under the boom, jib, or other
components, except where the employer demonstrates that site
constraints require employees to be so positioned. In such instances
the A/D director must implement procedures that minimize the risk of
unintended dangerous movement and minimize the duration and extent of
exposure under the boom. An example of such procedures is provided in
non-mandatory Appendix B.
Paragraph (g) Capacity Limits
    This provision requires that the rated capacity limits for loads
imposed on the equipment, each of its components (including rigging),
lifting lugs and equipment accessories being assembled or disassembled
not be exceeded. The provision applies ``during all phases of assembly/
disassembly.'' (See the discussion of this provision at 73 FR 59744,
Oct. 9, 2008.) Note that where an assist crane is being used during the
assembly/disassembly of another crane/derrick, the requirements for
rated capacity during operations must be met under Sec.  1926.1417(o),
Compliance with rated capacity, with respect to the assist crane.
    No comments were received on this provision. It is promulgated as
proposed except for one grammatical correction.
Paragraph (h) Addressing Specific Hazards
    Section 1926.1404(h) requires that the A/D director supervising the
assembly/disassembly operation address known hazards associated with
the operation with methods to protect the employees from them, and
provides a list of specific hazards that are likely to cause serious
injury or death. The A/D director must consider each hazard, determine
the appropriate means of addressing it, and oversee the implementation
of that method.
    No comments were received on this provision. It is promulgated as
proposed with a grammatical clarification and the addition of the words
``which include'' at the end of the introductory language to
acknowledge the employer's existing responsibility under Sec.  5(a)(1)
of the OSH Act (the ``general duty clause'') to address other
recognized hazards not listed in this paragraph.
Paragraph (h)(1) Site and Ground Bearing Conditions
    This provision works in conjunction with Sec.  1926.1402, which
addresses ground conditions for both assembly/disassembly and use of
the equipment, including ground condition criteria. Section
1926.1404(h)(1) requires the A/D director to assess the ground
conditions for conformance with those criteria, and to assess the site
for suitability for assembly and disassembly. (See the discussion of
this provision at 73 FR 59744, Oct. 9, 2008.) No comments were received
on this provision; it is promulgated as proposed.

Paragraphs (h)(2) Blocking Material and (h)(3) Proper Location of
Blocking
    These two provisions address the hazards associated with inadequate
blocking. Section 1926.1404(h)(2) requires the size, amount, condition
and method of stacking the blocking to be sufficient to sustain the
loads and maintain stability. Section 1926.1404(h)(3) requires that
when used to support booms or components, blocking must be
appropriately placed to protect the structural integrity of the
equipment, and prevent dangerous movement and collapse.
    ``Blocking'' (also referred to as ``cribbing'') is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 as ``wood or other material used to support equipment or a
component and distribute loads to the ground. Typically used to support
latticed boom sections during assembly/disassembly and under outrigger
floats.'' This definition is from A Glossary of Common Crane and
Rigging Terms, a publication by the Specialized Carriers & Rigging
Foundation (``SC&RF Handbook''). (ID-0035.)
    Proper blocking plays an important role in assembly/disassembly
safety by reducing the risk of injuries from unplanned movement or the
collapse of equipment. (See the discussion of blocking at 73 FR 59744,
Oct. 9, 2008.)
    One commenter suggested including a strength requirement for
blocking. (ID-0053.1.) OSHA determines that the provision as proposed,
which requires that the ``size, amount, condition and method of
stacking blocking must be sufficient to sustain the loads and maintain
stability,'' appropriately addresses blocking strength. Therefore, OSHA
has not made a change to the wording of the provision in this regard.
    The version of paragraph (h)(3) in the proposed rule was applicable
only to lattice booms and components. In the proposed rule's preamble,
OSHA asked for public comment on whether the provision should also
apply to other types of booms and components (i.e., those for hydraulic
cranes). (See the discussion of this provision at 73 FR 59745, Oct. 9,
2008.)
    Several commenters stated that proper blocking is necessary for
hydraulic cranes in addition to lattice boom cranes. (ID-0213.1; -
0205.1; -0118.1.) In addition, hearing testimony also indicated that
there is a need for this requirement to apply to hydraulic cranes
because they are sometimes assembled or disassembled, at least
partially, in the field. (See ID-0343.1.)
    OSHA has concluded that the requirement is necessary for both
hydraulic and lattice boom cranes and components. At times, portions of
hydraulic cranes are assembled and disassembled in the field and need
proper blocking. As a result, the word ``lattice'' in the proposed
provision's language has not been included in the final rule so that
the provision applies to hydraulic cranes and components as well as
lattice boom cranes and components.
Paragraph (h)(4) Verifying Assist Crane Loads
    This paragraph requires that, when using an assist crane, the loads
that will be imposed on the assist crane at each phase of assembly/
disassembly must be verified in accordance with Sec.  1926.1417(o)(3).
The purpose of this requirement is to avoid exceeding the assist
crane's rated capacity. ``Assist crane'' is defined in Sec.  1926.1401
as ``a crane used to assist in assembling or disassembling a crane.''
When used for this purpose, an ``assist crane'' is subject to all
applicable provisions of this standard, including the requirement of
Sec.  1926.1417(o) that it not be used in a manner that exceeds its
rated capacity. (See the discussion of this provision at 73 FR 59745,
Oct. 9, 2008.)
    No comments were received on this provision; it is promulgated as
proposed except that the purpose of the requirement is now included
above in the preamble, rather than in the rule text, to increase the
clarity of the requirement.
Paragraph (h)(5) Boom and Jib Pick Points
    This provision would require the A/D director to address the hazard
of using improper boom and jib pick points. Specifically, the points of
attachment of rigging to a boom/jib or boom/jib section(s) must be
suitable for preventing structural damage. Such damage could compromise
structural integrity and, in some cases, may not be immediately
noticed. If that component were nonetheless used, the boom/component
could fail.
    The points of attachment also need to facilitate the safe handling
of these components. (See the discussion of this provision at 73 FR
59745, Oct. 9, 2008.) No comments were received on this provision; it
is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (h)(6) Center of Gravity
    In a variety of instances the method used for maintaining stability
during assembly/disassembly depends on supporting or rigging a
component (or set of components) so that it remains balanced throughout
the process. In such instances the A/D director is required to identify
the center of gravity of the load. (See the discussion of this
provision at 73 FR 59745, Oct. 9, 2008.) No comments were received on
this provision. It is promulgated as proposed except for one
grammatical change.
Paragraph (h)(7) Stability Upon Pin Removal
    This paragraph requires that each of the following must be rigged
or supported to maintain stability upon the removal of the pins: Boom
sections, boom suspension systems (such as gantry A-frames and jib
struts), and components. ``Boom suspension system'' is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 as ``a system of pendants, running ropes, sheaves, and other
hardware which supports the boom tip and controls the boom angle.''
This definition is the same as that for ``boom suspension'' in the
SC&RF Handbook. (See the discussion of this provision at 73 FR 59745,
Oct. 9, 2008.)
    No comments were received on this provision; it is promulgated as
proposed except that the conjunctive ``and'' is substituted for ``or''
to make it clear that all three of the listed items (boom sections,
boom suspension systems, and components) must be properly rigged, not
just any one of those.
Paragraph (h)(8) Snagging
    As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, ``snagging''
occurs when pendant cables hung alongside the boom are caught
(``snagged'') on the pins, bolts, or keepers as the operator raises the
boom (see 73 FR 59746, Oct. 9, 2008.) Snagging could damage the cables
or other equipment and result in injury. This paragraph requires that
suspension ropes and pendants not be allowed to catch on the boom or
jib connection pins or cotter pins (including keepers and locking
pins). The definition for pendants can be found in Sec.  1926.1401.
This definition is similar to that in the SC&RF Handbook, but with the
addition of the reference to ``bar type'' pendants. (See the discussion
of this provision at 73 FR 59746, Oct. 9, 2008). No comments were
received on this provision; it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (h)(9) Struck by Counterweights
    Final Sec.  1926.1404(h)(9) requires the A/D director to address
the potential for unintended movement from inadequately supported
counterweights and from hoisting counterweights. ``Counterweight'' is
defined in Sec.  1926.1401 as a ``weight used to supplement the weight
of equipment in providing stability for lifting loads by
counterbalancing those loads.'' This

definition is taken from the SC&RF Handbook. (See the discussion of
this provision at 73 FR 59746, Oct. 9, 2008.)
    No comments were received on this provision; it is promulgated as
proposed except that OSHA has replaced the adjective ``unexpected''
with ``unintended'' to remain consistent throughout this section.
Paragraph (h)(10) Boom Hoist Brake Failure
    This provision addresses a hazard that can occur both during
assembly and disassembly, although it is more typically a hazard during
assembly. In many older cranes the boom hoist brake mechanism has an
external or internal mechanical brake band that operates by pressing
against the hoist drum. As the configuration of the crane changes and,
for example, more boom is added, this type of boom hoist brake may slip
unless it has been adjusted to hold the extra weight. The Committee was
concerned that the inability of an unadjusted brake to hold the
increased load will not be evident until the additional boom section(s)
has been added and the operator attempts to rely on the brake in a
subsequent phase of the operation. If the operator does not first raise
the boom a small amount after the section has been added (with the crew
clear of the boom) to test the brake, employees could be injured later
in the process when the operator manipulates the boom and finds that
he/she is unable to brake it.
    To address this hazard, the employer is required to test the brake
to determine if it can hold the load. In many cases, if it is
insufficient, an adjustment to the brake will correct the problem. If
it remains insufficient, the employer is required to use a boom hoist
pawl, other locking device, back-up braking device, or another method
of preventing dangerous boom movement (such as blocking or using an
assist crane to support the load) from a boom hoist brake failure.
    The Agency was concerned that the text of the proposed provision
was not sufficiently clear regarding the timing of this brake test, so
it solicited public comment on this issue. OSHA's interpretation was
that the test would need to be done immediately after each section (or
group of sections) is installed, and after all sections are in place
(see 73 FR 59746, Oct. 9, 2008).
    One commenter recommended revising the provision to specify that
the brake be tested prior to the commencement of lifting. (ID-0214.1.)
However, two other commenters wrote that the regulatory text should
remain as is and should not specify when to perform the brake test.
They point out that C-DAC's intent in Sec.  1926.1404(h) was to
identify hazards and require that they be addressed by the A/D
director. C-DAC designed Sec.  1926.1404(h) so that, for the most part,
the A/D director could determine the procedures (or how to implement
specified requirements) that would be best suited in each situation to
protect against those hazards. They also state that, in some cases, the
specific procedure that OSHA referred to in the proposed rule preamble
could result in a greater hazard. (ID-0205.1; 0213.1.)
    OSHA agrees that specifying an overly-detailed procedure to address
this hazard would be inappropriate given the myriad of circumstances in
which this issue may arise. However, the Agency also determined that
the proposed rule's regulatory text did not identify the purpose of the
provision with sufficient clarity. Therefore, the final standard does
not specify that the test has to be performed at a certain time that is
tied to the installation of any particular section, but instead
requires a test whenever the A/D director will be relying on the boom
hoist brake to function properly. In short, the test needs to be
performed, prior to reliance being placed on the brake, and the test
needs to accurately account for the loads that will be placed on the
brake. The provision in the final rule, therefore, requires the boom
hoist brake to be tested prior to each time reliance on the boom hoist
brake is anticipated.
Paragraph (h)(11) Loss of Backward Stability
    The Committee identified three points during the assembly/
disassembly process at which there is a heightened risk of loss of
backward stability. These are: when swinging the upperworks, during
travel, and when attaching or removing equipment components. Therefore,
under this provision, before any of these occur, the A/D director is
required to consider whether precautions need to be instituted to
ensure that backward stability is maintained. No comments were received
on this provision. However, OSHA is not including the drawing described
as Figure 1 in the proposed rule. See the discussion of the removal of
this figure below in Sec.  1926.1405. Except for the removal of any
reference to figure 1, OSHA is promulgating the provision as proposed.
Paragraph (h)(12) Wind Speed and Weather
    Section 1926.1404(h)(12) requires the A/D director to address
hazards caused by wind speed and weather to ensure that the safe
assembly/disassembly of the equipment is not compromised.
    The Committee considered the option of establishing a maximum wind
speed, as well as the option of incorporating ANSI's provisions
regarding wind speed. However, it determined that selecting any one
particular speed as a maximum would be arbitrary because of the variety
of factors involved. For example: different cranes and crane types vary
with respect to the ``sail'' area they present; an assembly process
involving use of an assist crane may require lower wind speeds than one
in which no assist crane is used; and assembly/disassembly operations
done ``in the air'' (that is, with the boom elevated in the air,
without ground support for the boom) may require lower wind speeds than
a boom assembled/disassembled on the ground. The Committee ultimately
decided that a better approach would be to have the A/D director
determine the maximum safe wind speed under the circumstances.
    Other weather conditions that can affect the safety of assembly/
disassembly would include, for example, ice accumulation on crane
components. Ice can both add to the weight of the components and create
slippery, dangerous surfaces on which employees work. The A/D director
must address weather conditions that affect the safety of the
operation. No comments were received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed with a slight rewording for clarity.
Paragraph (i) [Reserved.]
Paragraph (j) Cantilevered Boom Sections
    Members of the Committee determined that a common mistake in
assembly/disassembly is cantilevering too much boom. When too much boom
is cantilevered, structural failure can occur in components such as the
mast/gantry, boom sections and lifting lugs. Employees may be struck by
falling components from this type of failure. To prevent accidents from
cantilevering too much boom during assembly/disassembly, this provision
requires manufacturer's limitations on cantilevering not to be
exceeded.
    If the manufacturer's limitations are not available, the employer
is required to have a registered professional engineer (RPE) determine
the appropriate limitations, and to abide by those limitations. The
Committee concluded that in such cases there would need to be a
requirement that the RPE's determination be in writing to ensure that
the assessment has been done.

    This provision is promulgated as proposed with one grammatical
correction to make it clear that it is the limitations that must not be
exceeded.
Paragraph (k) Weight of Components
    As with any load to be lifted by a crane/derrick, the weight of the
components must be available to the operator so that the operator can
determine if the lift can be performed within the crane/derrick's
capacity. This requirement applies irrespective of whether the
component is being hoisted by the crane being assembled/disassembled or
by an assist crane.
    No comments were received on this provision. OSHA is promulgating
this provision largely as proposed, but has modified the text to make
it clear that assembly/disassembly is prohibited when the weight of
each of the components is not readily available.
Paragraph (l) [Reserved.]
Paragraph (m) Components and Configuration
    This provision deals with the selection of components that will be
used to comprise the crane/derrick, the configuration of the equipment,
and its inspection upon completion of assembly. (See the discussion of
this provision at 73 FR 59747, Oct. 9, 2008.)
    No comments were received on this provision. However, to be
consistent with the requirements of Sec.  1926.1403, the word
``prohibition'' has been added to Sec.  1926.1404(m)(1)(i); otherwise,
it is promulgated as proposed with the addition of commas to clarify
that this paragraph only applies to the selection of components and
configuration to the extent that either one affects the capacity or
safe operation of the equipment.
    Note that another section (Sec.  1926.1434) allows cranes/derricks
to be modified under certain circumstances. To the extent a crane/
derrick is modified in accordance with Sec.  1926.1434, the employer is
not required to follow the manufacturer's original instructions,
limitations and specifications regarding component selection and
configuration regarding those modifications. Instead, under Sec.
1926.1404(m)(1)(ii), the employer is required to follow the component
selection and configuration requirements approved in accordance with
Sec.  1926.1434.
Paragraph (n)
    For clarity, OSHA has reserved this paragraph and incorporated its
substance in Sec.  1926.1403, as explained above in the discussion
regarding Sec.  1926.1403. (See the discussion of this provision at 73
FR 59747, Oct. 9, 2008.)
Paragraph (o) Shipping Pins
    This provision requires reusable shipping pins, straps, links and
similar equipment to be removed. Once they are removed they must either
be stowed or otherwise stored so that they do not present a falling
object hazard. No comments were received for this paragraph; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (p) Pile Driving
    This provision prohibits equipment used in pile driving operations
from having a jib attached. An attached jib could be dislodged during
pile driving operations and cause structural damage to the boom,
potentially causing the boom to fail or diminishing its capacity. (See
the discussion of this provision at 73 FR 59748, Oct. 9, 2008.) No
comments were received on this provision; it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (q) Outriggers and Stabilizers
    This paragraph specifies requirements regarding outriggers. (See
the discussion of this paragraph at 73 FR 59748, Oct. 9, 2008.)
    OSHA received several comments with regard to Sec.  1926.1404(q)(2)
in relation to stabilizers. One commenter stated that it is necessary
to add the term ``stabilizers'' to the regulatory text for the
provision to properly apply to articulating cranes. (ID-0206.1.) The
commenter explains that, as opposed to outriggers, which are designed
to take all load off of the tires, stabilizers are designed to relieve
some, but not all, of the sprung weight for the purpose of increasing
the stability of the vehicle. The commenter believes that the provision
as written in the proposed rule would lead to improper use of
stabilizers in such a way that is dangerous and against manufacturer
recommendations. A second commenter emphasized that cranes equipped
with stabilizers (and not outriggers) do not raise the wheels off the
ground. (ID-0292.)
    OSHA agrees with the commenters that it is necessary to address
stabilizers in Sec.  1926.1404(q). With the exception of Sec.
1926.1404(q)(2), the term ``stabilizers'' has been added so that each
provision also applies to stabilizers. Section 1926.1404(q)(2) does not
apply to stabilizers because they are not designed to remove all weight
from the vehicle's wheels.
    One comment was received in regards to Sec.  1926.1404(q)(4). Under
that provision, each outrigger must be visible to the operator or to a
signal person during extension and setting. The commenter suggested
that the requirement be modified so that it would also apply to the
retraction of outriggers. (ID-0053.1.) The commenter indicated that
employees can be subject to crushing and pinching hazards during
outrigger retraction and this would be less likely to occur if it the
outrigger had to be visible to the operator or signal person during
retraction.
    OSHA agrees that crushing and pinching hazards exist during
outrigger retraction. However, Sec.  1926.1404(q) is designed to
prevent the overturning of the crane; it does not address the crushing
and pinching hazards posed by operation of the equipment in struck-by
or crushed/by locations outside the operator's view. The final rule
contains other provisions that are designed to address such hazards.
(See, e.g., Sec.  1926.1404(e).) Therefore, the Agency is not
incorporating the commenter's suggestion into Sec.  1926.1404(q) and is
promulgating the provision largely as proposed.
Paragraph (r) Rigging
    This paragraph specifies requirements regarding rigging during the
crane assembly/disassembly process. It includes a requirement for a
qualified rigger and sets forth specifications regarding the use of
synthetic slings.
    C-DAC did not focus on the proper use of synthetic sling rigging
during the crane assembly/disassembly process, primarily because
another standard--29 CFR 1926 Subpart H (Materials handling, storage,
use, and disposal)--already addresses some of the hazards associated
with the use of synthetic slings in construction.
    However, after C-DAC completed its work, a catastrophic crane
collapse resulted in a reevaluation of subparts N and H with regard to
synthetic slings and rigging expertise. On March 15, 2008, a tower
crane in New York City collapsed, killing six construction workers.
OSHA's investigation of that incident focused on the use of synthetic
slings to hold a bracing collar that was being installed.
    The Agency determined that neither subpart H (Rigging equipment for
material handling) nor subpart N specifically address the hazard posed
when a synthetic sling is used in a manner causing compression or
distortion of a sling, or when the sling is in contact with a sharp
edge. The Agency asked for public comment on whether to prohibit using
synthetic slings altogether in the assembly/disassembly process or,
alternatively, to

require padding or similar measures to protect the slings from being
damaged (see 73 FR 59742, Oct. 9, 2008).
    Commenters generally opposed prohibiting the use of synthetic
slings during assembly/disassembly, as long as appropriate precautions
are taken. (See, e.g., ID-0205.1; -0213.1; -0343.) Specifically,
commenters stated that synthetic slings have the advantage of helping
to prevent damage to equipment components, but need to be protected
from cuts, compression, distortion and reduction of capacity, by the
use of ``softeners'' (i.e., padding). (See, e.g., ID-0187.1; -0343.)
One commenter testified that it does not oppose synthetic slings if
they are listed in the manufacturer's procedures or if they are not
specifically prohibited by the manufacturer. (ID-0343.) Some commenters
also emphasized the need for such slings to be properly rated and
inspected. (See, e.g., ID-0226.) Another commenter recommended
requiring rigging equipment for material handling to be inspected. One
commenter advocated prohibiting synthetic slings used in conjunction
with tower crane erection, unless the manufacturer specifically allows
their use. (ID-0156.)
    Commenters also suggested adding requirements regarding the
qualifications and training of riggers. Specifically, several
commenters suggested requiring certification of riggers similar to
operator certification requirements in Sec.  1926.1427. (ID-0126; -
0132.1; -0136; -0204.1; -0311.1; -0362.1.) One commenter opposed
certification, but supported requiring training. Another suggested
third party certification or licensing of supervisors. (ID-0156.1.)
Another advocated employer qualification of riggers. (ID-0197.1.)
    OSHA acknowledges that synthetic slings have certain advantages,
such as preventing damage to equipment components, and no commenters
advocated a prohibition in all instances. OSHA has therefore decided
not to prohibit the use of synthetic slings in assembly/disassembly.
There must, however, be adequate safeguards for their use.
    OSHA agrees with the comment that stressed the importance of
inspecting slings. However, as Sec.  1926.251(a)(1) already requires
that all rigging equipment be inspected, no additional requirement is
needed in subpart CC regarding the inspection and removal of synthetic
slings.
    The Agency finds that it is vital that synthetic slings be
protected from abrasive, sharp or acute edges, since any of those
conditions can damage a synthetic sling, resulting in a failure. Also,
based on its review of the record, the Agency concludes that such
slings must be protected from configurations that could cause
compression or distortion of the sling, since that can also cause
failure. For example, wrapping a synthetic sling through a V-angled
junction point of steel members in a tower mast section can cause the
sling to compress and distort under load, compromising its capacity.
    As was demonstrated by the March 2008 collapse in New York City,
such protection is needed whenever the object that is in contact with
the sling--whether it is a load or something else, such as a crane
component used to anchor the sling--has such an edge or configuration.
Therefore, OSHA is including a requirement in the final Sec.
1926.1404(r)(2) to protect employees from such synthetic slings hazards
when used in assembly/disassembly.
    OSHA also learned from its investigation of the March 2008 collapse
that it is vital that synthetic slings be selected and used properly.
In particular, the sling manufacturer's recommendations must be
observed strictly as the capacity ratings set by the manufacturer are
highly dependent on the sling being used as specified by the
manufacturer. (See ID-0336.) Consequently, employers, even with the
assistance of a qualified rigger, will typically not have the ability
to develop safe alternative procedures regarding their use. Therefore,
the Agency is including a requirement in the final Sec.
1926.1404(r)(3) (also noted in Sec.  1926.1403(b)) that when a
synthetic sling is used during assembly/disassembly, the sling
manufacturer's instructions, limitations, specifications and
recommendations must be followed.
    Note that Sec.  1926.1403 requires that the employer ``comply with
all applicable manufacturer prohibitions.'' Therefore, if a
manufacturer prohibits the use of synthetic slings during assembly/
disassembly, OSHA prohibits that use of such slings. Furthermore, while
Sec.  1926.1403 requires the employer to comply with either the
manufacturer's or the employer's assembly/disassembly procedures (see
Sec.  1926.1403(a) and (b)), employer procedures may be used only if
the employer meets a two-prong test. First, the employer must not be
using synthetic slings. Second, the employer must demonstrate that its
procedures meet the requirements in Sec.  1926.1406.
    There may be cases in which the equipment manufacturer does not
prohibit the use of synthetic slings during assembly/disassembly, but
identifies wire rope slings in its procedures. In such cases, the
employer may only use synthetic slings if it establishes and implements
its own procedures under Sec.  1926.1403(b) and can demonstrate that
those procedures, including the use of synthetic slings, meet the
criteria requirements in Sec.  1926.1406.
    As noted above, several commenters advocated adding a requirement
that rigging be performed by qualified riggers. One local government
stated that although rigging operations are critical to completing
crane work, rigging operations involve a high level of risk if not
performed properly. (ID-0362.1.) The local government's experience
supports the proposition that human error causes most rigging
accidents. (ID-0362.1.) The New York crane collapse and the subsequent
OSHA investigation further highlight the dangers associated with
improper rigging during assembly/disassembly, and the need to address
this hazard was supported by all of the commenters who addressed this
issue. OSHA notes that although several commenters pointed to the need
for qualified riggers early on in the comment process, and again during
the hearing, no one expressed any disagreement about the need to
address the hazard by requiring riggers to be qualified. This means of
addressing the hazard is consistent with the means that C-DAC applied
when it identified a hazard related to rigging in Sec.  1926.1425(c),
and the Agency relies on C-DAC's expertise in selecting the appropriate
method to address a rigging hazard. OSHA is therefore requiring in
Sec.  1926.1404(r)(1) that all rigging for crane assembly/disassembly
be performed by a qualified rigger.
    Finally, the fact that the commenters did not limit their
suggestions on rigging qualifications to rigging synthetic slings leads
the Agency to conclude that all rigging done for assembly/disassembly,
irrespective of type, is a safety-critical function. One person
testified about how he was involved with improper rigging which led to
the death of his coworker. He stressed the importance of having
qualified riggers, stating that in his experience most of the accidents
he has seen and been involved with or investigated have involved
problems with rigging. (ID-0343.)
    After considering the record, OSHA is including the qualified
rigger requirement in the final rule and it applies to all rigging used
for assembly/disassembly.

Section 1926.1405 Disassembly--Additional Requirements for Disassembly
of Booms and Jibs (Applies to Both the Use of Manufacturer Procedures
and Employer Procedures)
    Section 1926.1405 requires that none of the pins in the pendants be
removed (partly or completely) when the pendants are in tension. In
addition, none of the pins (top or bottom) on boom sections located
between the pendant attachment points and the crane/derrick body are to
be removed, partly or completely, when the pendants are in tension.
None of the pins (top or bottom) on boom sections located between the
uppermost boom section and the crane/derrick body are to be removed,
partly or completely, when the boom is being supported by the uppermost
boom section resting on the ground (or other support). Finally, none of
the top pins on boom sections located on the cantilevered portion of
the boom being removed (the portion being removed ahead of the pendant
attachment points) are to be removed (partly or completely) until the
cantilevered section to be removed is fully supported. (See the
discussion of these requirements at 73 FR 59748, Oct. 9, 2008.)
    The Committee determined that many of the accidents associated with
cranes occur during the removal of pendant, boom and jib pins. The
Committee determined that accidents typically occur because of a
failure to recognize that, in certain situations, particular pins are
``in tension.'' If partly or fully removed while in that state the
result can be unplanned movement of a component or the collapse of the
boom or jib.
    Consequently, the Committee concluded that the removal of pendant,
boom section and jib pins warrants heightened attention. This section
focuses on protecting employees from these hazards during the
dismantling of booms and jibs, either when disassembling the crane/
derrick or when changing the length of a boom or jib. To make clear
that ``dismantling'' includes activities such as shortening a boom,
final Sec.  1926.1401 defines ``dismantling'' to include ``partial
dismantling (such as dismantling to shorten a boom or substitute a
different component).''
    In this section, the Committee identified particular scenarios
that, in the experience of many of the Committee members, pose specific
hazards in disassembly if the wrong pins (that is, pins that are in
tension) are partly or completely removed. The Committee concluded that
the failure to follow the provisions would very likely result in
unintended movement and/or collapse of the components. OSHA agrees that
these requirements will help to prevent unintended movement or collapse
of booms or jibs as they are being disassembled.
    Several comments were received regarding the illustrations in this
section of the proposed rule. Two commenters noted the illustration of
a tower crane in figure 2 of the proposed rule and suggested it be
replaced with a mobile crane. (ID-0205.1;-0213.1.) Two commenters
recommended that figures 4 and 6 be changed such that no pins would be
permitted to be removed without blocking the entire boom. (ID-0131.1; -
0292.) Specifically, these commenters did not believe that the bottom
boom connecting pins could be removed due to the weight of the
cantilevered boom exerting force on these bottom connecting pins. They
stated that if there was sufficient clearance between the connecting
lugs to enable the pins to be removed, the boom could move downward
upon the removal of the pins.
    Based upon C-DAC's expertise, OSHA determines that figures 2, 4 and
6 in the proposed rule were accurate depictions as to blocking, but the
proposed arrows may have been confusing to the extent that commenters
incorrectly understood that the removal of pins would be allowed where
arrows did not appear. To avoid confusion, OSHA is not including any of
the assembly/disassembly figures from the proposed rule in the final
rule.
Section 1926.1406 Assembly/Disassembly--Employer Procedures--General
Requirements
    Section 1926.1406 sets requirements that must be met if an employer
elects to use its own procedures for assembling and disassembling a
crane/derrick instead of those of the manufacturer. (See the discussion
of this provision at 73 FR 59748, Oct. 9, 2008.)
    One commenter wrote that, to ensure safe assembly and disassembly,
employer procedures must not be allowed. In the preamble to the
proposed rule, OSHA explained its rationale and the basis of C-DAC's
recommendation that employer procedures be allowed where they meet the
specified criteria in Sec.  1926.1406. (See full discussion at 73 FR
59742, 59748, Oct. 9, 2008). The commenter did not challenge the
rationale or provide any evidence of why employer procedures that
comply with Sec.  1926.1406 would be insufficient. The Agency is
therefore adopting Sec.  1926.1406 as proposed for the reasons
explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, with several minor
clarifications.
    In Sec.  1926.1406(a), the phrase ``assembly/disassembly'' replaces
``assembling or disassembling'' to make this section consistent with
other sections of the rule. Also in Sec.  1926.1406(a), OSHA has
removed the phrase ``are designed to'' to increase clarity. In Sec.
1926.1406(a)(1), the phrase ``any part'' replaces ``all parts'' to make
it clear the duty to prevent dangerous movement in any part of the
equipment. This provision is otherwise promulgated as proposed with
several grammatical corrections.
Sections 1926.1407-1926.1411 Power Lines
Introduction
    Final Sec. Sec.  1926.1407 through 1926.1411 contain requirements
designed to help ensure the safety of employees while cranes/derricks
are being assembled, disassembled, operated, or while they travel under
power lines.
    Previously, subpart N, in former Sec.  1926.550(a)(15), addressed
power line hazards by specifying the minimum distance that must be
maintained between a crane and an energized power line. For lines rated
50 kilovolts (kV) or below, the minimum distance was 10 feet; for lines
over 50 kV, the minimum distance was generally 10 feet plus 0.4 inches
for each 1 kV over 50 kV (we will refer to this subpart N requirement
in this preamble as the ``10-foot rule'').
    However, the subpart N provisions, which instructed employers to
maintain a minimum clearance distance, did little by way of requiring
employers to implement measures to help prevent operators from
inadvertently breaching that distance. The only preventative measure in
subpart N was a requirement, in former Sec.  1926.550(a)(15)(iv), to
use a spotter ``where it is difficult for the operator to maintain the
desired clearance by visual means.'' In discussing how to reduce power
line fatalities, the Committee determined that a systematic, proactive
approach to preventing power line contact is needed (see the Agency's
explanation for the need for these provisions in the proposed rule
preamble at 73 FR 59748-59750, Oct. 9, 2008).
Brief Overview of Requirements
    The standard requires the implementation of a systematic, proactive
approach to dealing with the hazard of power lines. This approach is
comprised of the following steps: (1)

Identify the work zone and assess it for power lines--determine how
close the crane could get to them. The employer has the option of doing
this assessment for the area 360 degrees around the crane or for a more
limited, demarcated area; (2) If the assessment shows that the crane
could get closer than a trigger distance--20 feet for lines rated up to
350 kV (50 feet for lines rated over 350 kV)--then requirements for
additional action will be triggered.
    The voltages given in the final rule are phase-to-phase system
voltages on the power lines. It should be noted that the system
voltages for power lines generally take three forms. First, there is
the actual voltage on the line. This voltage varies from one moment to
the next as conditions on the power line change. Second, there is the
nominal voltage on the line that is used to designate its voltage. The
actual operating voltage varies above and below this voltage. (See the
definition of ``voltage, nominal'' in subpart K of the Construction
Standards, Sec.  1926.449.) Third, there is the maximum operating
voltage on the line. This represents the maximum voltage that can
appear on a power line and is 5 percent above the nominal voltage on
the line. (See IEEE Std. 516-2009.) For purposes of the final rule, the
power line voltage is the maximum operating voltage for that line. This
approach, which is consistent with the determination of minimum
approach distances in Sec.  1910.269,\22\ ensures that the minimum
clearance distance is appropriate when the voltage on the line rises to
its maximum. The following table lists the maximum operating voltages
over 50 kV for power line systems commonly found in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For further information, see Appendix B to Sec.  1910.269.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Maximum
                                                            operating
               Nominal voltage range (kV)                  voltage (kV)
                                                               \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.1 to 72.5...........................................             72.5
72.6 to 121............................................            121
138 to 145.............................................            145
161 to 169.............................................            169
230 to 242.............................................            242
345 to 362.............................................            362
500 to 550.............................................            550
765 to 800.............................................            800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 29 CFR 1910.269 Table R-6 and Appendix B to that section.
Note 1: This is the ``voltage'' of the power line for the purposes of
  the final rule.

    Unless the power lines are deenergized and grounded, encroachment/
electrocution prevention measures have to be implemented to prevent the
crane from breaching a minimum clearance distance and protect against
electrocution. The employer is allowed to choose among several minimum
clearance distance options.
    For example, for lines up to 350kV, the minimum clearance distance
options would be: (1) 20 feet; or (2) the distance specified in Table A
of Sec.  1926.1408 for the line's voltage (Table A is the ``10-foot
rule''; see discussion of Table A in discussion of Sec.  1926.1408); or
(3) a distance closer than what is specified in Table A.
    However, there are limitations to the availability of some of these
options, and the number of mandatory encroachment prevention (and
other) measures increases when using a clearance distance closer than
Table A.
    A commenter stated that use of the term ``employer'' was confusing
when there are multiple employers on a given construction site, and
raised the issue of whether each employer was responsible for employing
its own dedicated spotter and its own set of barricades and similar
safety measures. (ID-0143.1.)
    In general, except where otherwise specified in this standard, the
requirements of this standard apply to employers whose employees are
exposed to hazards addressed by this standard, and also to other
employers in certain situations as explained in OSHA's multi-employer
policy (see OSHA CPL 02-00-124, Multi-Employer Citation Policy, Dec.
10, 1999). For example, with respect to situations in which barricades,
a dedicated spotter, or other measures are required under Sec. Sec.
1926.1407-1926.1411, each such employer is responsible for ensuring
that the required measures are in place. However, that does not mean
that each employer is required to install or provide duplicate sets of
those measures. In multiple employer worksites, one employer may rely
on measures provided by another employer as long as those measures meet
the requirements of the standard.
    Several commenters asked that OSHA specify in the standard that
utility owner/operators may charge fees for the services they are
required to perform under the standard. (ID-0155.1; -0203.1.) For
example, where the employer uses Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)'s Option
(3) for setting the clearance distance (i.e., the clearance distance
under Table A), under Sec.  1926.1408(c), the utility owner/operator
must provide requested voltage information within two working days of
the request.
    The standard does not address the issue of fees; the Agency
determined that fees will generally be addressed as a contractual
matter between the parties involved.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Note that in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, OSHA has
assumed that the cost of providing this information would be passed
on to the employer requesting the information, not the utility
owner/operator. See section V.B of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1926.1407 Power Line Safety (Up to 350 kV)--Assembly and
Disassembly
    The requirements in Sec.  1926.1407 address the hazards of
assembling and disassembling equipment near power lines up to 350 kV.
The requirements in Sec.  1926.1407 are similar in most respects to the
requirements in Sec.  1926.1408, which address operations of equipment
near power lines.
    One commenter suggested that OSHA amend Sec.  1926.1407 to include
cranes used to assist the assembly and disassembly of other cranes.
(ID-0131.) As OSHA noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, when an
assist crane is used during the assembly or disassembly of another
crane/derrick, the use of the assist crane, with respect to power line
safety, would be considered ``operations'' and therefore covered by
Sec.  1926.1408 (or, for power lines over 350 kV, Sec.  1926.1409).
This is because the assist crane has already been assembled and is
being used for a crane operation. Therefore, use of the assist crane
must comply with Sec.  1926.1408 during the assembly/disassembly
process rather than with Sec.  1926.1407.
    In contrast, a crane that is not yet fully assembled is often used
to complete its own assembly. For example, a crane is often used to
load its own counterweights. Similarly, it may unload its
counterweights in its own disassembly process. Such activities would be
covered under Sec.  1926.1407 since it is being assembled/disassembled.
Therefore, the provision is promulgated in the final rule without
change.
Paragraph (a)
    Under this paragraph, before beginning assembly or disassembly, the
employer must determine if any part of the crane, load or load line
(including rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in the direction
or area of assembly, closer than 20 feet to a power line.
    As stated in the preamble of the proposed rule, the phrase ``in the
direction or area of assembly/disassembly'' was included to address the
fact that, in some cases, the assembly or disassembly of a crane takes
place not just in an ``area,'' that is, a fixed portion of the work
site, but also in a ``direction.'' For example, when

disassembling a crane, the disassembly process takes place in an area
that includes the area under and around the boom's path as it is
lowered to the ground (in most, but not all cases, the boom is lowered
to the ground for the disassembly process). Under this provision, the
employer must assess the proximity that the boom will be in to the
power line in its path of travel to (and on) the ground.
    Two commenters expressed confusion about the meaning of the phrase
``in the direction or area of assembly/disassembly.'' (ID-0122; -
0178.1.) C-DAC's intent in including this phrase was to ensure that
employers make the initial 20-foot clearance assessment based on not
only the area which the crane equipment occupies at the beginning of
the assembly/disassembly process, but also with respect to other areas
radiating from the initial area, both horizontally and vertically, that
will be occupied as the equipment components are added, removed,
raised, and lowered during the assembly/disassembly process. For
example, when assembling a lattice boom crane, the ``area'' involved
will expand as boom sections are added.\24\ This area expands in the
``direction'' in which the boom sections are added. The power line
assessment has to be made for the portion of the site that will be
involved as these boom sections are added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This also occurs with telescopic extensible boom cranes
when a ``dead man section'' is added to the boom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, ``direction''
includes the direction that, for example, the boom will move as it
rises into the air after the boom has been assembled on the ground. For
example, the boom, when fully assembled on the ground, may be more than
20 feet from a power line. However, when raising it from the ground, it
may get closer than 20 feet. Accordingly, under this language, the
``direction'' that the boom will travel as it is raised must also be
evaluated for proximity to power lines.
    Another example is the assembly of a tower crane. As tower sections
are added, the assembly process may reach a point where components are
closer to power lines than when the process began. That ``direction''
of assembly upwards must also be evaluated.
    If an employer determines that the 20 foot ``trigger''
determination is positive, then the employer is required to take
additional steps. Specifically, the employer must meet the requirements
under either Option (1), Option (2), or Option (3) of Sec.
1926.1407(a).\25\ Some commenters were concerned that the three
compliance options in Sec.  1926.1407(a) could be construed as a
prioritization of compliance preferences, e.g., a preference for
deenergization over the other options. (ID-0203.1; -0214.1.) In
response, OSHA wishes to clarify that the three options are in no
particular order. In the Agency's view they represent three adequately
protective compliance methods. The standard offers employers the
flexibility to select the method most suitable for each specific work
situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ If no part of the crane, load or load line could come
closer than 20 feet to a power line, the employer is not required to
take any further action under this section. However, the employer
may encounter a situation where it needs to get closer than
anticipated to the power lines during the assembly/disassembly
process. In such a case the employer is required to go back and
conduct a new 20 foot ``trigger assessment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (a)(1) Option (1)
    An employer choosing Option (1) of this section will protect
against electrocution by having the power lines deenergized and visibly
grounded. Where the employer elects this option, it will not have to
implement any of the encroachment/electrocution prevention measures
listed in Sec.  1926.1407(b). This option helps to minimize the
electrical hazards posed by power lines.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Grounding the lines helps minimize the electrical hazard
from possible reenergizing of the lines; however, some voltage will
still appear on the line until the circuit protective devices open
the circuit. In addition, under certain conditions, the circuit
protective devices will not open the line, and the voltage will
remain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of commenters confirmed the Committee's determination that
because of the time and cost considerations in arranging for the
utility owner/operator \27\ to deenergize and ground the line,
deenergizing and grounding has not been routinely done. (ID-0155; -
0203; see the discussion in the proposed rule preamble of deenergizing
and grounding with regard to proposed Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(i), 73 FR
59755, Oct. 9, 2008.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ OSHA notes that the phrase ``utility owner/operator''
reflects scenarios where utilities may not be operated by an owner
but by some entity other than the owner. Therefore wherever the
phrase ``utility owner/operator'' is used in the standard or in the
preamble it is meant to apply to utility owners or utility
operators. The final rule also uses the word ``utility'' in its
broadest sense. It includes traditional utilities as well as other
entities (such as steel or paper companies) that own or operate the
power lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, OSHA continues to conclude that providing other safe and
practical options in the final rule will help to reduce unsafe
practices in the industry. Those other options (Options (2) and (3) in
Sec.  1926.1407(a)) combined with Sec.  1926.1407(b) are designed to be
effective protection against the hazards of electrocution.
    One commenter requested that OSHA provide guidance on whether
written confirmation of deenergization and grounding from the utility
owner/operator will be required. (ID-0214.1.) He further recommended
that the requested guidance should be set forth in the regulatory text
rather than in the preamble if OSHA expects employers to obtain a
written confirmation. OSHA did not determine that written confirmation
is necessary. As long as the utility owner/operator confirms that the
line is deenergized and it is visibly grounded, employee safety is
assured. Thus, the final rule does not require written confirmation
that the line is deenergized.
    For a discussion of comments related to the requirement for visible
grounding, see the section later in this preamble addressing Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2)(i).
    One commenter suggested that in some situations deenergizing and
grounding could place the utility owner/operator in conflict with other
Federal and State regulatory requirements. (ID-0203.1.) The commenter
did not provide information for OSHA to consider regarding any specific
conflicts, and OSHA has not identified any such conflicts. Moreover, in
the event that such a conflict does arise, the employer could choose,
as an alternative to deenergizing, Options (2) or (3) as described
below.
    This paragraph is being adopted without change from the proposal.
Paragraph (a)(2) Option (2)
    Under Option (2) (Sec.  1926.1407(a)(2)), the employer is required
to maintain a minimum clearance distance of 20 feet. To help ensure
that this distance is not breached, the employer has to implement the
encroachment prevention measures in Sec.  1926.1407(b). Under this
option, no part of the equipment, load or load line, including rigging
and lifting accessories, is permitted closer than 20 feet to the power
line.
    Employers using this option will have to stay further away from the
power line than had been required under subpart N's 10-foot rule
(employers wanting to use the 10-foot rule would have to use Option
(3), discussed below).\28\ However, an advantage of this option to many
employers is that they do not have to determine the voltage of the
power line; they only have to determine that the line voltage is no
more than 350 kV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ As discussed above, the 10-foot rule requires varying
clearance distances increasing with voltage with clearance distances
that begin at 10 feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the old subpart N formula, an employee was required at most
to

maintain a 20-foot distance away from a power line. Under the new
option, employees are required to stay at least 20 feet away from the
power line, so the Committee determined that there would be no
diminution of safety under this new option. In fact, in the Committee's
experience, most power lines encountered by most employers have
voltages that, under the current subpart N formula, require a minimum
clearance distance of 10 feet. Therefore, use of this option will
result in a higher margin of safety. Employers who do not need to get
closer than 20 feet to assemble/disassemble the crane could use this
option and would be saved the step of obtaining the line voltage.
    As noted above, in addition to maintaining a minimum clearance
distance of 20 feet, employers using this option are required to
implement the encroachment prevention and other measures specified in
Sec.  1926.1407(b).
Paragraph (a)(3) Option (3)
    Under Option (3) (Sec.  1926.1407(a)(3)), the employer is required
to maintain a minimum clearance distance in accordance with Table A of
Sec.  1926.1408. Under Table A, depending on the voltage of the power
line, the minimum clearance distance ranges from 10 feet to 20 feet for
lines up to 350 kV. Under this option the employer is required to
determine the line's voltage.
    As a practical matter, in the Committee's experience, the power
lines most typically encountered by most employers would require a
minimum clearance distance of 10 feet under Table A. As a result,
employers can assemble/disassemble equipment closer to power lines
under this option than under Option (2).
    Table A is based upon the same formula that was used in subpart N
(the 10-foot rule) and is similar to Table 1 in ASME B30.5-2004. Unlike
subpart N, which had required employers to calculate the minimum
clearance distance from a formula, Table A sets forth specified
clearance distances in a readily understood table and requires no
calculations. In addition to maintaining the minimum clearance distance
specified in the Table, employers using this option are required to
implement the encroachment prevention and other measures specified in
proposed Sec.  1926.1407(b).
    Several commenters verified C-DAC's determination that obtaining
voltage information in practice can often be difficult and time-
consuming. (ID-0118; -0143.1; -0146.1; -0155.1.) OSHA determines that
providing a mechanism under Sec.  1926.1407(a)(2) (``Option (2)'') to
proceed with construction operations without having to obtain voltage
information from utilities provides employers with a viable alternative
to obtaining voltage information without compromising the safety of
workers. This section of the final rule provides a mechanism by which
employers can, using Table A, perform work with clearance distances of
less than 20 feet. It is promulgated as proposed.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The proposed regulatory text for Sec.  1926.1407(a)(3)(i)
used the phrase ``minimum clearance distance'' while that for Sec.
1926.1407(a)(3)(ii) used ``minimum approach distance.'' For
consistency, OSHA has, in Sec.  1926.1407(a)(3)(ii), changed the
phrase ``minimum approach distance'' to ``minimum clearance
distance.'' Provisions in Sec.  1910.269 and proposed subpart V of
29 CFR 1926 use the phrase ``minimum approach distance.'' OSHA
believes that employers who are covered by those standards are
familiar with that term. In contrast, the Agency believes that
employers that do not perform electric power work will better
understand the term ``minimum clearance distances.'' OSHA considers
the terms ``approach distance'' and ``clearance distance'' to be
interchangeable; no substantive distinctions are intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (b) Preventing Eencroachment/Electrocution
    Once an employer has determined that some part of the crane, load
or load line could come within the trigger distance of 20 feet of a
power line (see Sec.  1926.1407(a)), if it chooses either Option (2) or
(3) of Sec.  1926.1407(a) it is required to implement encroachment
prevention measures to help ensure that the applicable minimum
clearance distance (20 feet under Option (2) or the Table A distance
under Option (3) is not breached.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Alternatively, under Option (1), the employer could have
the lines deenergized and grounded. If Option (1) were selected, no
further action under this section would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the measures in this paragraph are designed to help the
employer maintain the appropriate clearance distance and thereby
prevent electrical contact while in the process of assembling or
disassembling equipment. One of the measures is designed to prevent
electrocution in the event of electrical contact.
Paragraph (b)(1)
    Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the employer is required to
conduct a planning meeting with the Assembly/Disassembly Director \31\
(A/D Director), operator, assembly/disassembly crew and other workers
who will be in the assembly/disassembly area (including the area of the
load). This planning meeting must include reviewing the location of the
power line(s) and the steps that will be implemented to prevent
encroachment and electrocution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ As explained in the preamble accompanying Sec.  1926.1404,
the term ``assembly/disassembly director'' replaces the proposed
term ``assembly/disassembly supervisor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the planning meeting, the employer is required to select a
protective measure from paragraph (b)(3) of this section (see
discussion below) and review all the measures that will be used to
comply with this section.
    The purpose of the meeting requirement is to ensure that the
operator and other workers who will be in the area understand these
measures and how they will be implemented. That understanding is
important to their successful implementation. Because of the critical
nature of these measures, and the seriousness of the consequences to
the safety of the employees if they are not implemented correctly, the
Committee concluded that it is necessary for there to be a structured
process by which the employer communicates this information.
    As noted below, a planning meeting to discuss implementing
encroachment prevention measures is also required under Sec.
1926.1408(b)(1). Refer to the preamble section related to that
provision for a discussion about public comments received regarding
responsibilities for ensuring that such a meeting takes place. That
discussion is equally relevant to this section. With the exception of
the use of the term ``director'' instead of ``supervisor,'' as
explained above, this section is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (b)(2)
    Paragraph (b)(2) of this section requires that where tag lines are
used they must be nonconductive. This provision uses two terms that are
defined in Sec.  1926.1401. ``Tag lines'' is defined as ``a rope
(usually fiber) attached to a lifted load for purposes of controlling
load spinning and pendular motions or used to stabilize a bucket or
magnet during material handling operations.'' Thus, one end of a tag
line is attached to the load and the other end is held by an employee
who controls the load's motion by exerting force on the line.
    If the equipment or load were to make electrical contact with a
power line while an employee was holding a tag line that was able to
conduct electricity, the employee could be electrocuted. The
requirement that the tag line be nonconductive is designed to protect
against such an event. Section 1926.1401 defines ``nonconductive'' as
meaning that, ``because of the nature and conditions of the materials
used, and the conditions of use (including environmental conditions and
condition of the material), the object in question has the property of
not becoming

energized (that is, it has high dielectric properties offering a high
resistance to the passage of current under the conditions of use).''
    This definition recognizes that it is not only the inherent
property of the tag line material that results in it being
nonconductive but also the conditions of use. For example, in some
cases, if an otherwise nonconductive material were to become wet and
therefore able to conduct electricity, it would no longer qualify as
nonconductive under this paragraph.
    One commenter requested that OSHA specify test procedures to assist
employers in making the determination of whether a tag line is
nonconductive. (ID-0178.1.) C-DAC considered the utility of setting
specifications for materials required to be nonconductive but
determined that it would be impractical. American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) Standard Specification for Unused Polypropylene
Rope With Special Electrical Properties, ASTM F1701-05 contains
specifications and test methods for live-line rope used in electric
power work. These ropes are used to insulate power line workers from
energized power lines. Tag lines meeting this standard are acceptable
under the final rule. However, to meet the requirement for
``nonconductive'' tag lines, they need not meet this standard, which
requires a degree of insulation beyond that intended by the final rule.
In addition, several other OSHA general industry and construction
standards call for nonconductive materials, including Sec.
1910.268(n)(13)(ii) (requiring nonconductive measuring devices to
measure clearance distances from overhead power lines), Sec. Sec.
1910.269(l)(6)(i) and 1910.333(c)(8) (requiring metal articles worn by
employees to be rendered nonconductive), and Sec.  1926.955(a)(8)
(requiring nonconductive tag lines). In general these and other
standards that call for nonconductive materials require the use of
insulating material that does not have a voltage rating; thus, there is
no need to specify a test method. In fact, setting test criteria for
these materials would produce a voltage rating and render them
insulating rather than nonconductive. (Because nonconductive materials
have no voltage rating, there is still a risk of injury from electric
shock should contact occur. However, these materials reduce that risk
substantially.) In practice, under dry conditions nonmetallic fiber
rope typically satisfies the definition for nonconductive.\32\ The
Agency concludes that this guidance is sufficient to help employers
determine whether their tag lines meet the definition and has
therefore, declined to specify test procedures in the final rule. The
provision is promulgated as proposed, without change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Wet, muddy, or high humidity conditions can cause such rope
to stop being nonconductive. Similarly, the presence of metal or
other conductive fibers or conductive sheaths or reinforcement would
render the tag line conductive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (b)(3)
    Under this paragraph the employer is required to implement one of
five listed encroachment prevention measures (Sec.  1926.1407(b)(3)(i)
through (v)). The Committee concluded that the use of any one of these
measures, in combination with the required measures listed elsewhere in
Sec.  1926.1407(b), would be feasible and effective in protecting
against encroachment. Specifically, the employer is required to choose
either: (i) The use of a dedicated spotter; (ii) a proximity alarm;
(iii) a device that automatically warns the operator when to stop
(i.e., a range control warning device); (iv) a device that
automatically limits the range of movement of the equipment; or (v) an
elevated: warning line, barricade, or line of signs, in view of the
operator, equipped with flags or similar high-visibility markings.
Providing the ability to choose among these options gives the employer
flexibility so that it can pick one that is well suited and efficient
in the circumstances.
    A definition of ``dedicated spotter (power lines)'' is included in
Sec.  1926.1401, Definitions. A dedicated spotter must meet the signal
person qualification requirements of Sec.  1926.1428 and his/her sole
responsibility must be to watch the separation between the power line
and the equipment, load line, and load, and to ensure through
communication with the operator that the applicable minimum distance is
not breached.
    When the employer uses a dedicated spotter to prevent encroachment
under this section, that person has the critical responsibility of
ensuring, through communication with the operator, that the equipment
maintains a specified minimum clearance distance from a power line.
This definition makes clear that the dedicated spotter cannot have any
other responsibilities.\33\ The dedicated spotter must have the
qualifications required of a signal person under Sec.  1926.1428,
discussed below. Those qualifications will ensure that the signal
person can communicate effectively with the operator. They also ensure
that the signal person is knowledgeable about crane dynamics and
therefore is able to recognize situations in which the minimum
clearance distance may inadvertently be breached if, for example, the
load is stopped quickly while it is being moved near a power line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The preamble language of the proposed rule stated that
``the dedicated spotter cannot have any other responsibilities that
detract him/her from this task.'' (73 FR 59752, Oct. 9, 2008.) The
phrase ``that detract him/her from this task'' incorrectly implied
that a dedicated spotter could have other tasks provided those other
tasks did not distract the dedicated spotter from his/her task of
maintaining the required separation between the power line and the
equipment, the load, and the load line. This implication was
incorrect. As stated in the definition section, the dedicated
spotter's duty to maintain the required separation from the power
line must be his/her ``sole responsibility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter requested that OSHA include a clarification that the
dedicated spotter can also be the signal person. (ID-0292.1.) As noted
in the definition of ``dedicated spotter'' quoted above, although the
dedicated spotter must be a qualified signal person under the
requirements of Sec.  1926.1428, that definition also mandates that the
sole responsibility of the dedicated spotter be to ensure the required
separation between the power line and the equipment, the load line, and
the load (including loading and lifting accessories). Thus, in
situations where the equipment operator requires the assistance of a
signal person to provide signals related to maneuvering the equipment
or the load other than maintaining the required power line clearance
distance, a different person must serve as signal person.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ If a dedicated spotter also served as a signal person for
purposes other than maintaining the clearance distance, the
dedicated spotter would be vulnerable to a typical cause of power
line contact--focusing on something else and forgetting about, or
being distracted from, maintaining the clearance distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The devices listed in Sec. Sec.  1926.1407(b)(3)(ii) and (iii) are
also defined in Sec.  1926.1401. A ``proximity alarm,'' is a device
that warns of proximity to a power line and must be listed, labeled, or
accepted by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory in accordance
with Sec.  1910.7.\35\ A Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory is an
organization that has been recognized by OSHA pursuant to Sec.  1910.7
as competent to evaluate equipment for conformance to appropriate test
standards for that type of equipment. Thus, approval of a

proximity alarm by a nationally recognized testing laboratory provides
assurance that the device will work as intended. (For a discussion of
public comments submitted relating to proximity alarms, see discussion
of Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4).) A ``range control warning device,'' is
defined in Sec.  1926.1401 and is a device that can be set by an
equipment operator to warn that the boom or jib tip is at a plane or
multiple planes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The C-DAC version of this provision defined proximity alarm
as: ``a device that provides a warning of proximity to a power line
that has been approved by a Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory.'' OSHA has modified the provision to conform its
language to that used in Sec.  1910.7, the OSHA rule governing
nationally recognized testing laboratories, and to explicitly refer
to Sec.  1910.7 to make clear that the listing, labeling, or
acceptance of a device under this rule must be accord with Sec.
1910.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA realized that some of the devices listed in Sec.
1926.1407(b)(3) would not be operational or effective against
electrocution during certain phases of the assembly or disassembly
process of certain types of cranes. For example, for lattice boom
cranes, proximity alarm devices may not be able to be used when the
boom is not yet fully assembled; at that point the proximity alarm
typically cannot be connected and functioning. Therefore, during
certain phases of assembly/disassembly, one of the other options would
need to be used (such as a dedicated spotter) to provide the needed
protection.
    However, the proposed regulatory text would have permitted an
employer to select an option under paragraph (b)(3) of this section
irrespective of whether it would be effective under the circumstances.
To address this concern, OSHA requested public comment on whether to
modify proposed Sec.  1926.1407(b)(3) to preclude the employer from
selecting an option that, in the employer's situation, would be
ineffective, such as by revising the provision to read:

    (3) At least one of the additional measures listed in this
paragraph must be in place. The measure selected from this list must
be effective in preventing encroachment. The additional measures
are: * * *.

    Two of four commenters on this issue supported amending the
language of this provision as described above. (ID-0067; -0118.) The
two commenters who disagreed with requiring that the chosen method be
effective in preventing encroachment thought that this provision would
prove problematic for employers; they favored the original wording from
the Committee that did not specifically require efficacy. (ID-0205.1; -
0213.1.) These latter two commenters did not present any evidence to
counter OSHA's concern that some of the listed encroachment prevention
measures may not be fully effective under all circumstances. OSHA
concludes that prudence dictates amending this provision to require
that the selected measure be effective in preventing encroachment; the
final rule therefore reflects the change described above.
    In situations where an employer chooses the option of using a
dedicated spotter to prevent encroachment under Sec.  1926.1407(b)(3),
the employer is required to meet the requirements for spotters in Sec.
1926.1407(b)(3)(i). As specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this
section, the spotter must be equipped with a visual aid to assist in
identifying the minimum clearance distance. The Committee concluded
that a visual aid is needed for the spotter because of the difficulty
in visualizing the minimum clearance distance boundary in the air.
    Under paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(B)-(D) of this section, the spotter must
be positioned so that he/she can effectively gauge the clearance
distance from the power line; the spotter, where necessary, must use
equipment that enables him/her to communicate directly with the
equipment operator; and the spotter must give timely information to the
operator so that the required clearance distance can be maintained. C-
DAC determined that each criterion is needed for the spotter to be able
to be effective.
    One commenter on this provision asked whether an airhorn is
appropriate communication equipment for purposes of paragraph (C). (ID-
0120.) OSHA determines that an airhorn would not enable the dedicated
spotter to communicate with the operator as effectively as a radio,
telephone, or other electronic communication device, and, in any event,
might not be an effective means of communication on a noisy
construction site; therefore, OSHA does not consider use of an airhorn
to constitute compliance with paragraph (C).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The cross-reference to Sec.  1926.1420 originally included
in this provision as proposed was deleted in the final rule for
consistency with the parallel provisions for dedicated spotters in
Sec. Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(C) and 1926.1410(d)(2)(iii). This is
a ministerial change not intended to have any substantive
enforcement implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (c) Assembly/Disassembly Below Power Lines Prohibited
    This paragraph precludes employers from assembling or disassembling
cranes/derricks beneath energized power lines. The Agency agreed with
the Committee's conclusion that assembly/disassembly below energized
power lines presents an extreme risk and needs to be prohibited. The
assembly/disassembly process necessarily involves moving and hoisting
parts of the equipment into place. If some of this work takes place
beneath a power line, the risk that a part, load, load line, or other
equipment would make electrical contact is very high. Also, in both
assembly and disassembly, maneuvering an assembled crane out from under
the power lines, or maneuvering a crane that is about to be
disassembled under them, itself poses a high risk of such contact.
    C-DAC's agreement on this provision indicates a determination by
the Committee that, in almost all cases, the employer can plan the
assembly/disassembly so that there will be no need to be beneath power
lines. The Committee and OSHA also concluded that, in the very few
instances where this is not possible, in light of the extreme risk
involved, it is essential that the lines be deenergized and visibly
grounded. No comments were received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d) Assembly/Disassembly Closer Than Table A Clearance
Prohibited
    Assembly and disassembly of cranes/derricks closer than the minimum
clearance distance in proposed Table A of Sec.  1926.1408 to an
energized power line is prohibited under this paragraph. If assembly or
disassembly needs to take place closer than that distance, the employer
is required to have the line deenergized and visibly grounded. The
rationale for this provision is similar to that discussed above for
assembly/disassembly beneath power lines (that rationale is set forth
in the discussion in the proposed rule preamble of proposed Sec.
1926.1407(c), 73 FR 59753, Oct. 9, 2008). Engaging in assembly/
disassembly activity closer to an energized power line than the Table A
distance was considered by the Committee to be too hazardous to be
permitted under any circumstances.
    This reflects certain inherent characteristics of the assembly/
disassembly process that preclude the employer from being able to
reliably maintain clearance distances closer than Table A of Sec.
1926.1408. For example, when disassembling a lattice boom, pins that
hold boom sections together are removed. Even when done properly, this
can release stored kinetic energy and cause the boom section being
removed, as well as the remaining sections, to move. It is too
difficult to estimate the amount of such potential movement with the
precision that would be necessary when working closer than the Table A
distances.
    Another example is when assembling a boom, an error in the assembly
process may similarly cause unanticipated movement. Using clearances
closer than those in Table A would not allow sufficient room in light
of the difficulty

of predicting the amount of such movement.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ In this respect this provision differs from Sec.
1926.1410. As discussed below, Sec.  1926.1410 allows use of minimum
clearance distances closer than Table A in some circumstances for
crane ``operations.'' In contrast, Sec.  1926.1407(d) reflects a
determination by the Committee that there are no circumstances for
``assembly/disassembly'' when it would be safe for any part of the
crane, load or load line (including rigging and lifting accessories)
to get closer than the Table A minimum clearance distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This paragraph is being adopted as proposed.
Paragraph (e) Voltage Information
    This section operates in conjunction with Sec.  1926.1407(a)(3).
Under Sec.  1926.1407(a)(3), employers who elect to use Option (3) of
Sec.  1926.1407(a) must determine the line's voltage. Under Sec.
1926.1407(e), where the employer asks the utility owner/operator for
that voltage information, the utility owner/operator of the line is
required to provide the voltage information within two working days of
the request.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ One commenter suggested that utility owners/operators be
required to label all power lines with voltage information. (ID-
0143.1.) OSHA rejected this suggestion because it believes the cost
of labeling every overhead power line in the country would be
prohibitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This reflects a conclusion of the Committee that, in the absence of
such a time limitation on the utility owner/operator, in many instances
Option (3) Sec.  1926.1407(b) would not be useful because the employer
would not be able to get the voltage information in sufficient time to
be able to use it. Many employers will rely on the utility owner/
operator to get this information. The Committee was concerned that an
extended delay in getting it would result in employers, to some extent,
doing the work anyway without the information. Therefore, for Option
(3) Sec.  1926.1407(b) to be viable, the Committee concluded that a
reasonable time limitation for the utility owner/operator to respond
was needed.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ As noted in the introduction, C-DAC included two members
from the electric utility industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some utility owner/operators asserted that OSHA cannot require them
to provide voltage information because OSHA does not have authority to
impose such requirements on an electric utility that does not have
employees at the construction site in question. (ID-0166.1; -0203.1; -
0226.1.)
    OSHA's authority to require that electric utilities disclose
voltage information derives from secs. 6(b) and 8(g)(2) of the Act.
While sec. 6(b) generally authorizes the Secretary to promulgate and
enforce occupational safety and health standards, sec. 6(b)(7)
specifically permits the Secretary to ``prescribe the use of labels or
other appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to insure that
employees are apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed * * *
and proper conditions and precautions of safe use or exposure.'' 29
U.S.C. 655(b)(7). Thus, OSHA may include information-gathering
requirements among the provisions of a standard. Section 1926.1407(e)
falls within the scope of sec. 6(b)(7), because voltage information is
necessary to the determination of safe clearance distances for
employees who work near power lines.
    The Agency previously exercised its authority under sec. 6(b)(7) of
the Act to promulgate the Hazard Communication Standard, which requires
that chemical manufacturers and importers provide information for the
benefit of downstream employees (see Sec.  1910.1200). As a rationale
for these provisions, OSHA explained that chemical manufacturers and
importers are in the best position to develop, disseminate, or obtain
information about their products (see 48 FR 53280, 53322, Nov. 25,
1983). Similarly, in an early case discussing sec. 6(b)(7), the Fifth
Circuit found that ``[t]he ability of downstream employers to protect
their own employees is also an appropriate consideration in determining
where the duty to warn should lie.'' American Petroleum Institute v.
OSHA, 581 F.2d 493, 509 (5th Cir. 1978).
    Section 8(g)(2) of the Act affords the Secretary additional
authority for Sec.  1926.1407(e). According to this section, the
Secretary may ``prescribe such rules and regulations as he may deem
necessary to carry out responsibilities under the Act.'' The enumerated
purposes of the Act indicate that the Secretary's responsibilities
include:

    -- Setting mandatory occupational safety and health standards
applicable to businesses affecting interstate commerce (29 U.S.C.
651(b)(3));
    --Developing innovative methods, techniques, and approaches for
dealing with occupational safety and health problems (29 U.S.C.
651(b)(5)); and
    --Providing for appropriate reporting procedures with respect to
occupational safety and health which procedures will help achieve the
objectives of this Act and accurately describe the nature of the
occupational safety and health problem (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(12)).

    An electric utility representative asserted that, because employees
of electric utilities are not likely to perform work under the
circumstances that the standard contemplates, sec. 4(a) prevents OSHA
from including requirements that target electric utilities. OSHA
disagrees. Section 4(a) broadly provides that the OSH Act applies
``with respect to employment performed in a workplace,'' 29 U.S.C.
653(a), and does not bar the statute's application to any class of
employers. Section 4(a) contains no language to suggest that the Act's
application depends on the relationship between the employees at risk
and the employer with the power to reduce their risk.
    Additionally, the commenter stated that Sec.  1910.12(a) precludes
OSHA from regulating electric utilities, because employees of electric
utilities will not be present at construction worksites and therefore
will not be ``engaged in construction.'' \40\ The commenter cites Reich
v. Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., 3 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir. 1993), in
which the First Circuit relied on the second sentence of Sec.
1910.12(a) as a basis for vacating citations that OSHA had issued to an
engineering firm under the multi-employer worksite doctrine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ It should be noted that utility employees will be at these
worksites from time to time to perform work on the power lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Simpson, Gumpertz is inapposite; the multi-employer worksite
doctrine has no bearing on the validity of Sec.  1926.1407(e), which
explicitly holds electric utilities responsible for the distribution of
voltage information. A more relevant case is Sec'y of Labor v. Trinity
Indus., Inc., 504 F.3d 397 (3d Cir. 2007), in which the Third Circuit
upheld information disclosure requirements that are analogous to those
in Sec.  1926.1407(e). In Trinity, the Third Circuit affirmed OSHA's
authority for provisions in the Asbestos Standard for the Construction
Industry that require building owners to communicate the presence of
asbestos or presumed asbestos-containing materials to certain
prospective employers. Id. at 402. The court distinguished OSHA's
authority to require that specific employers disclose information from
the Agency's authority under the multi-employer doctrine to cite a
general contractor for violations committed by a subcontractor:

    Unlike the regulations at issue in Summit Contractors, Inc., the
regulation at issue here specifically applies to building owners * *
*. We are not convinced that the Secretary is powerless to regulate
in this field, especially given the findings she has made regarding
the importance of building owners in the discovery and communication
of asbestos hazards.

Id. As Trinity confirms, the multi-employer worksite doctrine does not
govern the validity of regulatory provisions that require specific
employers to provide information. As a

result, the interpretation that the multi-employer case law has given
to Sec.  1910.12(a) is not controlling in relation to Sec.
1926.1407(e). Moreover, the requirement that electric utilities provide
voltage information is not in conflict with the plain language of Sec.
1910.12(a), which states:

    The standards prescribed in part 1926 of this chapter are
adopted as occupational safety and health standards under section 6
of the Act and shall apply, according to the provisions thereof, to
every employment and place of employment of every employee engaged
in construction work. Each employer shall protect the employment and
places of employment of each of his employees engaged in
construction work by complying with the appropriate standards
prescribed in this paragraph.

    As the Agency noted in the proposal, the first sentence in Sec.
1910.12(a) makes the construction standards applicable to every
employment and to every ``place of employment'' of every construction
employee. The second sentence of Sec.  1910.12(a), by providing that
each employer must protect the employment and the places of employment
of each of his employees, does not negate the broad reach of the first
sentence. The Secretary did not include language to indicate that an
employer has obligations only toward his employees and the worksites of
his employees.
    Furthermore, the history of Sec.  1910.12(a) reveals that the
Secretary did not intend for it to limit her authority. Indeed, Sec.
1910.12(a) is located within a subpart entitled ``Adoption and
Extension of Federal Standards,'' which the Secretary created to extend
her jurisdiction through the adoption of the Construction Safety Act's
standards. Sec.  1910.11(a), subpart B. The opening paragraph of
subpart B states that the subpart's provisions ``adopt and extend the
applicability of established Federal standards * * * with respect to
every employer, employee, and employment covered by the Act.'' Sec.
1910.11(a). Thus, neither the language nor the context of Sec.
1910.12(a) suggest a conflict with the requirement that electric
utilities provide voltage information when employers request it.
    The commenter also cites United States v. MYR Group, Inc., in which
the Seventh Circuit held that OSHA could not cite a parent corporation
for the failure of a subsidiary to train its employees. 361 F.3d 364
(7th Cir. 2004). Yet the court distinguished the facts of that case
from circumstances where ``[e]ach employer at the worksite controls a
part of the dangerous activities occurring at the site and is the
logical person to be made responsible for protecting everyone at the
site from the dangers that are within his power to control.'' Id. at
367. Consistent with the Seventh Circuit's reasoning, OSHA has placed
on utilities the responsibility to inform construction workers about
power line voltage, as electric utilities are in the best position to
disseminate voltage information.
    In summary, OSHA has firmly-established precedent, under part 1926
and beyond, for requiring that an employer with special knowledge of
occupational hazards provide information to protect workers. Like the
provisions of the Hazard Communication Standard and the Asbestos
Standard for the Construction Industry, Sec.  1926.1407(e) imposes
requirements on employers who possess essential information and are in
the best position to distribute it.
    The Committee determined that two business days would be a
reasonable amount of time to allow the utility owners/operator to
respond and be sufficiently short to be useful to the employer
requesting the information. Most of the utility owner/operators who
submitted comments or testimony on this issue did not indicate that a
two-day requirement was unworkable so long as weekends and holidays
were excluded from the two-day calculation.\41\ (ID-0203.1; -0205.1; -
0213.1.) Similarly, although one contractor indicated a desire to be
able to obtain power line voltage information immediately at all times
through Internet services provided by the utility owner/operator (ID-
0118.1), other contractors indicated that a two working day time frame
was manageable from a construction planning standpoint (ID-0205.1; -
0213.1). In light of these comments, OSHA concludes that the proposed
two-day requirement to fulfill voltage information requests was a
reasonable time frame for both contractors and utility owners/
operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ One electric utility representative at the public hearing
did request, however, that the time period for responding to a
request be changed to four business days. (ID-0342.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposed rule preamble, the Agency noted that the C-DAC
provision read:

    Voltage information. Where Option (3) is used, owner/operators
of power lines must provide the requested voltage information within
two working days of the employer's request.

In a different context--determining the timeliness of notices of
contest to OSHA citations--OSHA defines ``working days'' to mean
``Mondays through Fridays but shall not include Saturdays, Sundays, or
Federal holidays.'' 29 CFR 1903.22(c). Since the term is already
defined in an OSHA regulation, the Agency stated that it would apply
the same definition here unless this rule were to specify a different
definition and solicited comments on whether the phrase ``working
days'' should be defined differently for purposes of this rule than it
is in Sec.  1903.22(c). All comments received on this issue indicated
that the Sec.  1903.22(c) definition was appropriate in this context.
(ID-0203.1; -0205.1; -0213.1.) Although OSHA is not specifically
incorporating the Sec.  1903.22 definition by reference, the Agency
intends to rely on that definition for purposes of enforcing Sec.
1926.1407(e). One commenter sought clarification that the two working
day time period would start to run on the first full business day after
the request for information is received. (ID-0215.1.) This is, in fact,
an accurate representation of how this provision will be enforced. If,
for example, the utility receives a request for voltage information on
Monday, it will have until the end of the business day on Wednesday to
provide the necessary information.
    Another commenter asked OSHA to provide guidance on whether the
voltage information needed to be provided in written form. (ID-0214.1.)
Given the inherent difficulties of obtaining written information
expeditiously in many construction sites, OSHA concurs with C-DAC's
recommendation not to require that voltage information be provided in
writing.
Paragraph (f) Power Lines Presumed Energized
    This paragraph requires that employers always assume that all power
lines are energized unless the utility owner/operator confirms that the
power line has been and continues to be deenergized and visibly
grounded at the worksite. No adverse comments were received on this
provision; it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (g) Posting of Electrocution Warnings
    This paragraph requires the posting of electrocution warnings as
follows: one inside the cab in view of the operator and (except for
overhead gantry and tower cranes) at least two on the outside of the
equipment. The Committee concluded and OSHA agrees that these
electrocution warnings are necessary to protect the operator as well as
any employees working in the area around the crane by increasing their
awareness of the hazard. This provision is similar to sec. 5-<IP_ADDRESS>(d)
of ASME B30.5-

2004. No adverse comments were received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
Section 1926.1408 Power Line Safety (Up to 350 kV)--Operations
    As discussed with respect to power line safety in assembly/
disassembly, the standard requires the implementation of a systematic
approach to power line safety for crane/derrick operations. This
approach consists of two basic steps. First, the employer must identify
the work zone, assess it for power lines, and determine how close the
crane could get to them. The employer has the option of doing this
assessment for the area 360 degrees around the crane or for a more
limited, demarcated area. Second, if the assessment shows that the
crane could get closer than a trigger distance--20 feet for lines rated
up to 350 kV--then requirements for additional action are triggered.
    Specifically, unless the power lines are deenergized and grounded,
encroachment prevention measures have to be implemented to prevent the
crane from breaching a minimum clearance distance. The employer is
allowed to choose among three minimum clearance distance options. For
example, for lines up to 350 kV, the minimum clearance distance options
are 20 feet, or the distance specified in Table A of this section for
the line's voltage (Table A is the ``10-foot rule''; see discussion of
Table A below), or a distance closer than what is specified in Table A.
However, there are limitations to the availability of some of these
options, and the number of mandatory encroachment prevention (and
other) measures increases when using a clearance distance closer than
Table A.
Paragraph (a) Hazard Assessments and Precautions Inside the Work Zone
    Before beginning crane/derrick operations, the employer is required
to determine if power lines would pose a hazard. The first step in this
process is to identify the work zone for which this hazard assessment
will be made (Sec.  1926.1408(a)(1)). The employer has two options for
defining the work zone.
    Under the first option (Sec.  1926.1408(a)(1)(i)), the employer is
required to define the work zone by marking boundaries and prohibiting
the operator from operating the equipment past those boundaries.
Examples of how to demarcate the boundaries include using flags or
devices such as a range limit device or range control warning device.
``Range control warning device'' is defined in Sec.  1926.1401 as ``a
device that can be set by an equipment operator to warn that the boom
or jib tip is at a plane or multiple planes.''
    OSHA noted in the proposed rule that the term ``range limit
device'' was used in proposed Sec.  1926.1408(a)(1)(i) but that no
definition of this term was provided in proposed Sec.  1926.1401. OSHA
stated that it determined that C-DAC understood a range limit device to
be a device that physically limits how far a crane can boom out and the
angle within which the boom can swing. OSHA requested public comment on
whether a definition of ``range limit device'' should be added to Sec.
1926.1401 and, if so, whether the definition described in the proposed
rule preamble is appropriate (73 FR 59759, Oct. 9, 2008).
    Three commenters responded, endorsing the need for a definition and
suggesting language along the lines discussed in the proposed rule.
(ID-0118; -0205.1; -0213.1.) OSHA has added a definition for a ``range
control limit device'' that defines it as ``a device that can be set by
an equipment operator to limit movement of the boom or jib tip to a
plane or multiple planes.''
    Employers are not permitted to use existing landmarks to demarcate
work zone boundaries unless they are marked. For example, a line of
trees would be insufficient. Without anything more the trees would not
signal a reminder to the operator of there being a boundary that must
be maintained. However, adding flags to those trees would be sufficient
because the flags would serve as a reminder that the trees are located
along a boundary that the operator must not breach.
    The boundaries must mark the limits of all crane movement. For
example, a work zone could be defined by demarcating boundaries: (1) To
the left and right of the operator, to limit the lateral movement of
the boom, and (2) in front of the operator, in a line connecting the
side boundaries, limiting the boom's radius.
    In identifying the work zone, the employer must consider the entire
area in which the crane will need to operate. If the crane will need to
be positioned in more than one spot to accomplish its work, or to
travel with a load, the employer must consider the total area in which
it will need to operate and set the boundaries accordingly.
    The second option for identifying the work zone (Sec.
1926.1408(a)(1)(ii)) is to define the work zone as the area 360 degrees
around the crane, up to the crane's maximum working radius. In other
words, under this option, the work zone is the area within a circle,
with the crane at the center, and the radius defined by the maximum
working radius of the crane. No boundaries would have to be marked
under this option since the crane would be permitted to operate in the
entire area that it could reach.
Paragraph (a)(2)
    Once the employer has identified the work zone according to Sec.
1926.1408(a)(1), it is then required to make the power line hazard
assessment. Specifically, it must determine if any part of the crane,
load or load line (including rigging and lifting accessories) could
come within a ``trigger'' distance--20 feet of a power line. This
determination must be made based upon the assumption that the crane
would be operated up to its maximum working radius (or, if a demarcated
boundary is used, the assessment must be made with the assumption that
the crane would be operated up to that boundary).
    Three commenters expressed concern over OSHA's use of the term
``maximum working radius'' in describing the methodology for defining
the work zone. (ID-0146.1; -0206.1; -0209.1.) Their concern is that
using ``maximum working radius'' would trigger the encroachment-
prevention requirements of Sec.  1926.1408(b) on construction sites
where the equipment operator has no intention of using the equipment up
to the equipment's maximum working distance. Another commenter
questioned whether the phrase ``any part of the equipment'' would
include the boom if the boom ``could be lowered within 20 feet of a
power line even though the working radius will not require encroachment
into the 20-foot zone.'' (ID-0178.1.)
    OSHA notes that these concerns are already addressed through a
mechanism in the provision as proposed: the employer's ability, under
Sec.  1926.1408(a)(1)(i), to define the work zone boundaries and then
prohibit operation of the equipment beyond those boundaries. In other
words, employers may define the boundary of a work zone at the outer
boundary of the intended working radius of any part of the equipment,
including the boom.
    To illustrate, if an employer is using a crane with a maximum
working radius of 100 feet, but intends to extend the crane boom out
only 75 feet beyond the center point of the crane, that employer can
demarcate the outer boundary of the work zone using such measures as a
line of flags, and then prohibit crane operations beyond that 75-foot
work zone boundary. Therefore, in the one commenter's example of where
the boom could come within 20 feet of a power line but the work does
not

require it, the employer need not take encroachment-prevention measures
if it prohibits working beyond a radius that would bring the boom
within 20 feet of the line. OSHA concludes, therefore, that no change
to the proposed regulatory language is needed to address these concerns
and is promulgating this paragraph as proposed.
    If, after defining a work zone, an employer determines that the 20
foot ``trigger'' determination is positive, then the employer is
required to take additional steps. Specifically, the employer must meet
the requirements under either, Option (1), Option (2), or Option (3) of
Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2).\42\ See above discussion of Sec.  1926.1407(a)
for additional information about how OSHA intends to enforce these
compliance options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ If no part of the crane, load or load line could come
closer than 20 feet to a power line, the employer is not required to
take any further action under this section. However, the employer
may encounter a situation where it unexpectedly needs to increase
the size of the work zone. This may occur, for example, as a result
of an unanticipated need to change the crane's position or to have
the crane operate beyond the original work zone boundaries. In such
a case the employer is required to go back to the first step under
Sec.  1926.1408(a)(1), re-identify a work zone and conduct a new 20
foot ``trigger'' assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1926.1408(a)(2) is adopted without change from the
proposal.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i) Option (1)
    An employer choosing Option (1) of this section will protect
against electrocution by having the power lines deenergized and visibly
grounded at the worksite. This option minimizes the probability that
equipment that contacts the power line will become energized. The power
line must be ``visibly grounded at the worksite.''
    One commenter believed that the requirement for visible grounding
was ``impractical and overly burdensome.'' (ID-0146.1.) A second
commenter believed that this requirement was needed to permit the
employer to visually verify that the power line has been deenergized.
(ID-0190.0.)
    After reviewing these comments, OSHA continues to conclude, as C-
DAC did, that visible grounding of the deenergized line is necessary to
protect workers. First, it minimizes the voltage that can appear on the
power line from a number of causes, including induced current and
capacitive coupling, lightning, other energized lines falling onto the
power line (for example, where there is a traffic accident involving a
motor vehicle striking a utility pole supporting the power line), and
accidental reenergizing of the lines. It also facilitates the operation
of circuit protective devices to deenergize the line after it is
reenergized from the last two causes. It also serves as a visual
confirmation that the power line has been deenergized. (See discussion
of Sec.  1926.1407(a)(1) where OSHA declines to amend the proposal to
require written confirmation that the power line has been deenergized.)
    Where the employer elects to deenergize the power line, it will not
have to implement any of the encroachment/electrocution prevention
measures listed in Sec.  1926.1408(b). However, some amount of time is
needed to arrange for the utility owner/operator to deenergize and
ground the line. Also, in some instances, especially where the
construction project is small, the cost of deenergizing and grounding
may be a substantial portion of the cost of the project. Because of
these factors, deenergizing and grounding, which was also a permissible
option under former Sec.  1926.550(a)(15), has not been routinely done.
Accordingly, the rule provides other safe and practical options to
reduce unsafe practices in the industry. Those other options (Options
(2) and (3) in Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) and (iii), discussed below)
combined with Sec.  1926.1408(b) are designed to afford effective
protection against the hazard of electrocution.
    Section 1926.1408(a)(2)(i) is adopted as proposed.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) Option (2)
    Under Option (2) (Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)), the employer is
required to maintain a minimum clearance distance of 20 feet. To help
ensure that this distance is not breached and that employees are
protected from electrocution, the employer is required to implement the
encroachment/electrocution prevention measures in Sec.  1926.1408(b).
    Employers using this option will have to stay further away from the
power line than had been required under subpart N's 10-foot rule
(employers wanting to use the 10-foot rule will have to use Option (3)
of this section, discussed below).\43\ However, an advantage of this
option to many employers is that they do not have to determine the
voltage of the power line; they only have to determine that the line
voltage is not more than 350 kV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ As discussed above, the 10-foot rule requires varying
clearance distances increase with voltage with clearance distances
that begin at 10 feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters verified the Committee's conclusion that
obtaining voltage information from utilities can often be difficult and
time-consuming. (ID-0118.1; -0143.1; -0146.1; -0155.1.) OSHA determines
that by providing a mechanism under Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) for
employers to proceed with construction operations without having to
obtain voltage information, employers will have more flexibility
without compromising the safety of workers.
    One commenter believed that the maximum clearance distance for this
option should be 15 feet instead of the proposed 20 feet because it
believed such a distance would be safe for what it described as
``relatively small cranes.'' (ID-0184.1.) However, OSHA does not agree
that a distinction based on crane size is justified. When smaller
cranes operate near power lines, they present the same hazard as larger
cranes and need to take similar precautions. OSHA further notes that
smaller cranes, i.e., cranes with shorter booms, will have a smaller
work zone than larger cranes and therefore should be better able to
avoid coming within the permitted 20-foot clearance and, as a result,
may be less likely to trigger the protective steps required under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section in any event. Moreover, if OSHA were
to adopt a 15-foot minimum clearance distance for this option as
advocated by the commenter, it would have to make a corresponding
reduction in the maximum voltage covered by Sec. Sec.  1926.1407 and
1926.1408 and a corresponding increase in the minimum voltage covered
by Sec.  1926.1409 to retain the protection afforded by the 10-foot
rule previously contained in subpart N. Therefore, OSHA has concluded
that it would be inappropriate to decrease the proposed 20 foot minimum
clearance distance under Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(ii); this paragraph is
therefore promulgated as proposed.
    As noted above, in addition to maintaining a minimum clearance
distance of 20 feet, employers using this option are required to
implement the encroachment prevention and other measures specified in
Sec.  1926.1408(b).
Paragraph (a)(2)(iii) Option (3)
    Under Option (3) (Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)), the employer is
required to maintain a minimum clearance distance \44\ in accordance
with

Table A of this section.\45\ Under Table A, depending on the voltage of
the power line, the minimum clearance distance ranges from 10 feet to
20 feet.\46\ Under this option the employer is required to determine
the line's voltage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The proposed regulatory text for this section used the
phrase ``minimum approach distance'' instead of ``minimum clearance
distance.'' As pointed out by two commenters the latter phrase is
what was used in the proposed Sec.  1926.1407(a)(3)(i) regulatory
text. (ID-0205.1; -0213.1.) For consistency, OSHA has, in this
section, changed the phrase ``minimum approach distance'' to
``minimum clearance distance.'' Provisions in Sec.  1910.269 and
proposed subpart V of 29 CFR 1926 use the phrase ``minimum approach
distance.'' OSHA believes that employers who are covered by those
standards are familiar with that term. In contrast, the Agency
believes that employers that do not perform electric power work will
better understand the term ``minimum clearance distances.'' OSHA
considers the terms ``approach distance'' and ``clearance distance''
to be interchangeable; no substantive distinctions are intended.
    \45\ The information in Table A of the final rule is similar to
information in Table 1 of ASME B30.5-2004. A table with specified
clearance distances is more easily applied than the formula set out
in former Sec.  1926.550(a)(15). Table A is intended to be a clear
way of conveying the minimum clearance distances.
    \46\ The range referred to here is the range in the part of the
table that is applicable up to 350 kV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to maintaining the minimum clearance distance specified
in the Table, employers using this option are required to implement the
encroachment prevention and other measures specified in Sec.
1926.1408(b).
    A labor representative urged OSHA to require a minimum clearance
distance of 20 feet rather than the lower clearance distances allowed
under Table A, in essence eliminating Option (3). (ID-0201.1.) The 20-
foot clearance is needed because, in the commenter's view, under the
options in the proposal, crane operations can easily encroach on an
absolute safe distance from power lines. OSHA does not agree. The
clearance distances permitted under Table A are ``safe'' distances, as
indicated by their inclusion in ASME B30.5-2004 as well as the
consensus reached by C-DAC. As discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the 10-foot rule was not effective under prior subpart N
because subpart N provided little guidance as to how to maintain the
required clearance. In the proposed rule, OSHA discussed how the
provisions of this rule addressed two major problems employers faced in
complying with the minimum clearance requirements of former subpart N:
(1) The lack of a means to enable operators to judge when the crane was
breaching the minimum required clearance distance; and (2) the problem
of temporary operator inattention to a power line as he/she
concentrated on tasks related to moving the load. (73 FR 59749, Oct. 9,
2008.) The provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, discussed
below, are designed to overcome these two problems and ensure
compliance with the minimum clearance distances in this rule. Even
where Table A permits the clearance distance to be the same as the 10-
foot rule of former subpart N, this final rule provides far greater
protection against equipment violating the allowed clearance. It does
not allow a crane ``to very easily encroach'' on a safe clearance
distance, as IBEW suggests.
    The labor representative also proposed more stringent requirements
than those currently contained in Sec.  1926.1410 when it is infeasible
to maintain the Table A clearances. OSHA addresses this issue below in
the discussion of Sec.  1926.1410. Accordingly, paragraph (a)(2)(iii)
is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (b) Preventing Encroachment/Electrocution
    Once the employer has determined that some part of the crane, load
or load line could come within the work zone assessment trigger
distance of 20 feet of a power line (see Sec.  1926.1408(a)), if it
chooses either Option (2) or (3) (of Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) and