other instructions). However, the Committee concluded that the chance
of miscommunication could nonetheless be reduced if certain parameters
were established for the type of information and order of information
that would be given.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would require the crane operator, signal
person, and lift supervisor (if there is one) to be able to effectively
communicate in the language used. Voice signals will not serve their
intended purpose if they cannot be understood, or can be
misinterpreted. The inability of these workers to understand each other
could lead to accidents caused, for example, by the crane operator
moving a load in a different direction than the signal person intends.

Section 1422 Signals--Hand Signal Chart

    This proposed paragraph would require that hand signal charts be
either posted on the equipment or be readily available at the site. The
purpose of this proposed provision is to serve as a reference for
operators and signal persons of the mandatory hand signals and thereby
help avoid miscommunication.

Section 1423 Fall Protection

    This proposed section contains provisions designed to protect
workers on equipment covered by this Subpart from fall hazards. (See
proposed Sec.  1926.1431, Hoisting Personnel, for fall protection
provisions that would apply when equipment is used to hoist personnel).
Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N contains certain fall protection
requirements but does not address fall protection for cranes and
derricks comprehensively. Where Subpart N does not specifically address

a fall protection issue, the general fall protection provisions of 29
CFR part 1926 subpart M apply. As OSHA explained when it issued subpart
M, ``while Subpart N contains requirements for fall protection when
certain cranes are used, it does not address other equipment or working
conditions otherwise covered by subpart N which may also expose
employees to a fall hazard.''59 FR 40672, 40675 (Aug. 9, 1994).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ In Subpart M, Sec.  1926.500(a)(2) states: ``Section
1926.501 sets forth those workplaces, conditions, operations, and
circumstances for which fall protection shall be provided except as
follows: * * * (ii) Requirements relating to fall protection for
employees working on certain cranes and derricks are provided in
Subpart N of this part.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fall protection requirements in Subpart M apply where an
employee is on a ``walking/working surface.'' 29 CFR 1926.501. In Sec.
1926.500(b), the definition of walking/working surface excludes
``vehicles.'' That definition effectively excludes many cranes (for
example, mobile cranes would be considered ``vehicles'').
    The Committee believed that safety would be enhanced by addressing
the problem of fall hazards associated with cranes and derricks
comprehensively. In addition, it believed that putting all such
requirements under the cranes and derricks standard would make it
easier for employers to readily determine the applicable fall
protection requirements. Accordingly, under this proposed standard,
Subpart M would not apply to equipment covered by this proposed subpart
except where it incorporates requirements of Subpart M by reference. In
this regard, note that the Agency is proposing to amend Subpart M at
Sec.  1926.500(a)(2)(ii) to remove the word ``certain.''

Definition of Fall Protection Equipment

    ``Fall protection equipment'' is defined in proposed Sec.
1926.1401 as ``guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall
arrest systems, positioning device systems, or fall restraint
systems.'' The first four listed systems are described, and their
specifications listed, in 29 CFR Part 1926. Subpart M of this part,
OSHA's general fall protection standard for construction work. See
Sec.  1926.502(b) (guardrail systems); Sec.  1926.502(c) (safety net
systems); Sec.  1926.502(d) (personal fall arrest systems); and Sec.
1926.502(e) (positioning device systems).
    The fifth category of fall protection equipment, ``fall restraint
system,'' is defined in Sec.  1926.1401 as ``a fall protection system
that prevents the user from falling any distance. The system is
comprised of either a body belt or body harness, along with an
anchorage, connectors and other necessary equipment. The other
components typically include a lanyard, and may also include a lifeline
and other devices.'' This definition is found in 29 CFR part 1926.
Subpart R of this part, OSHA's steel erection standard.
    By defining ``fall protection equipment'' to include the same types
of fall protection equipment required under other OSHA standards, C-DAC
sought to ensure that employers would be familiar with the types of
fall protection required under this standard and thereby promote
compliance.
Paragraph 1423(a) Application
    Falls have traditionally been the leading cause of deaths among
construction workers. BLS data for 2004 and 2005, the latest years for
which complete figures are available, shows 445 fatalities from falls
in 2004 (OSHA-2007-0066-0023), and 394 in 2005 (OSHA-2007-0066-0024).
In 2004, 20 fatalities resulted from falls from nonmoving vehicles and
in 2005, such falls caused 18 deaths. A recent study of crane-related
fatalities in the U.S. construction industry found that 2% resulted
from falls. J.E. Beavers, J.R. Moore, R. Rinehart, and W.R. Schriver,
``Crane-Related Fatalities in the Construction Industry,'' 132 Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 901 (Sept. 2006) (OSHA-2007-
0066-0012). Falls from cranes, particularly when the operator is
entering or leaving the crane, also cause numerous non-fatal injuries
to construction workers. (OSHA-S030-2006-0663-0422).
    Under proposed paragraph (a), certain proposed provisions in this
section (proposed Sec.  1926.1423(c)(1), (f) and (h)) would apply to
all equipment, including tower cranes; certain provisions (proposed
Sec.  1926.1423(b), (c)(2), (d) and (e)) would apply to all equipment
except tower cranes; and certain provisions (proposed paragraph (g)
would apply only to tower cranes).
Paragraph 1423(b) Boom Walkways
    Proposed paragraph (b) would establish when walkways must be
incorporated into lattice booms and the criteria for such walkways.
Boom walkways are not currently required by subpart N of this part.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would require that equipment manufactured
more than one year after the effective date of this standard with a
lattice boom be equipped with walkways on the boom if the vertical
profile of the boom (from cord centerline to cord centerline) is 6 or
more feet. C-DAC believed that the installation of walkways on booms
would decrease the number of falls which occur during assembly/
disassembly, inspection, and maintenance of booms and attached devices.
Without a walkway, employees walking the boom must step from lattice to
lattice. C-DAC believed it is safer to walk the boom if the boom is
equipped with a walkway.
    C-DAC considered the technical difficulty of equipping a boom with
a vertical profile of less than 6 feet. Such booms would not
accommodate the addition of a walkway into their design because the
added weight of the walkway would significantly compromise their
hoisting capacity. For that reason, C-DAC limited the requirement for
boom walkways to equipment with lattice booms where the vertical
profile of the boom is 6 feet or more.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2), Boom walkway criteria, would establish a
minimum width for boom walkways and address safety issues associated
with guardrails, railings and other attachments.\55\ Proposed Sec.
1926.1423(b)(2)(i) would require that walkways on booms be at least 12
inches wide. C-DAC considered requiring boom walkways to be at least 18
inches wide to remain consistent with Sec.  1926.451(b)(2) of the
scaffold standard (Subpart L). However, C-DAC determined that there are
engineering limitations applicable to booms that are not applicable to
scaffolds. Specifically, the Committee found that an 18 inch
requirement would present feasibility problems, especially on smaller
booms. In such cases an 18 inch walkway's added weight would unduly
impinge upon the equipment's capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ These criteria would apply to all boom walkways, not just
those on lattice booms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C-DAC believed that a walkway with a 12 inch width, while not as
easy to use as an 18 inch walkway, would provide enough space for an
employee to maintain his/her balance while walking from point to point
on the boom when the boom is positioned horizontally. This would be a
significant improvement over having to step across the open space
between the boom's lattice-work and onto the lattice. In sum, the
Committee concluded that the benefits obtained by providing a walkway
on booms outweigh any drawbacks associated with a minimum width of 12
inches. Note that, in many circumstances, the safety benefits afforded
by this walkway would be supplemented by fall protection equipment (see
the discussion below of proposed paragraphs (d) and (e)).

    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) would address the use of guardrails,
railings and other permanent fall protection attachments along
walkways. The general fall protection standard for construction work at
Sec.  1926.501(b)(6) requires that walkways be equipped with guardrail
systems to protect workers against falling 6 feet or more. This
proposed section would retain the general requirement for fall
protection at or above 6 feet for certain work (see discussion below of
Sec.  1926.1423(d)), but C-DAC believed that guardrails should not be a
required form of fall protection on boom walkways because of the
feasibility constraints discussed below.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) states that guardrails, railings
and other permanent fall protection attachments along boom walkways
would not be required. For some equipment, the added weight of fixed
railings, combined with the walkway's weight, would unduly impinge upon
the lift capacity of the boom. In addition, as discussed in relation to
Sec.  1926.1423(b)(2)(ii)(B) below, in some boom designs pendant ropes
and bars (where present) could become snagged on such railings.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) would prohibit guardrails,
railings and other permanent fall protection attachments along walkways
on booms supported by pendant ropes or bars if the guardrails, railings
or attachments could be snagged by the ropes or bars. Such snagging
could cause instability or a collapse. Whether the potential for
snagging is present on a boom supported by pendant ropes or bars would
depend on the design of the equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C) would prohibit removable-type
guardrails, railings, and other permanent fall protection along
walkways. For purposes of this paragraph, ``removable-type'' means
designed to be installed and removed each time the boom is assembled/
disassembled. One of the Committee's concerns was that such devices may
be left installed by mistake, which could damage the equipment and
cause unexpected movement or a failure during its operation.
    Under proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D), where guardrails or
railings are not prohibited, they would be permitted to be of any
height up to, but not more than, 45 inches. C-DAC believed that
requiring all guardrails and handrails to comply with the height
criteria in Subpart M of this part, which generally requires them to be
39 to 45 inches high, could deter manufacturers from equipping their
products with guardrails and handrails. That is because meeting Subpart
M's height criteria could make the device incompatible with the design
and operation of the boom. For boom walkway applications, C-DAC
concluded that using guardrails lower than 39 inches when higher
guardrails are infeasible was preferable to not having any guardrails
at all.
Paragraph 1423(c) Steps, Handholds, Grabrails, Guardrails and Railings
    Proposed paragraph (c) would specify criteria for the use and
maintenance of steps, handholds, grabrails, guardrails and railings.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require that the employer maintain
originally-equipped steps, handholds, ladders and guardrails/railings/
grabrails in good condition. The failure to properly maintain such
devices could pose dangers to the employees who use them. For example,
a grabrail that has become weakened from rust could fail when an
employee uses it, which could cause the employee to fall. Another
example is a missing railing. A manufacturer that integrated a railing
into its design may have provided a walking surface that would
otherwise be too narrow to be safe.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require that equipment manufactured
more than one year after the effective date of this standard be
equipped to provide safe access and egress between the ground and the
operator work station(s), including the forward and rear operator
positions, by the provision of devices such as steps, handholds,
ladders, and guardrails/railings/grabrails. As discussed below,
proposed Sec.  1926.1423(c)(2)(i) would require these devices to meet
updated design criteria.
    Currently, Sec.  1926.550(a)(13)(i) in Subpart N requires that
guardrails, handholds, and steps be provided on cranes for easy access
to the car and cab and specifies that these devices conform to ANSI
B30.5. The 1968 version of ANSI B30.5, which was in effect at the time
Subpart N was issued, specifies that the construction of these devices
must conform to the 1946 U.S. Safety Appliance Standard. C-DAC
recognized that many pieces of equipment now in use would have been
manufactured with handholds and steps but was concerned that the
handholds and steps may have been designed to meet outdated criteria.
    The Committee believed that it would be unduly burdensome to
require all equipment to be retrofitted with new steps, handholds, and
railings simply because the existing design may vary from what would be
required under this proposal. Accordingly, the proposal would allow one
year from the date of the published final rule for equipment to be
manufactured with devices that conform to proposed 1926.1423(c)(2)(i),
discussed next. This would give equipment manufacturers adequate time
to incorporate the requirements of Sec.  1926.1423(c)(2)(i) into their
products.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require that steps, ladders and
guardrails/railings/ grabrails meet the requirements of SAE J185 (May
2003) or ISO 11660-2 (1994). OSHA's construction standards contain
specifications for stairways and ladders in 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart X,
but C-DAC believed that the Subpart X requirements do not take into
account the characteristics of the equipment covered by this proposed
standard. The specifications in SAE J185 are referenced in industry
consensus standards, such as ASME B30.5-2004, ``Mobile and Locomotive
Cranes,'' and crane manufacturers are familiar with those requirements.
C-DAC recommended alternatively allowing compliance with ISO 11660-2
since employers also use equipment built by foreign manufacturers who
have been following that standard.
    Under proposed paragraph (a) of this section, the requirements in
proposed paragraph Sec.  1926.1423(c)(2) do not apply to tower cranes.
It is the Agency's understanding that C-DAC excluded tower cranes from
these requirements because the SAE and ISO standards referenced in
Sec.  1926.1423(c)(2)(i) are designed for, and only address, mobile
cranes. The Agency also believes that the lack of a similar provision
in the C-DAC document designed for tower cranes was an oversight; tower
cranes also need to be equipped with safe stairways and ladders to
enable the operator to ascend to the cab and descend safely.\56\
Accordingly, OSHA plans to include a requirement similar to Sec.
1926.1423(c)(2) that would be applicable to, and designed for, tower
cranes, and requests public comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Note that section 3-1.17.2 of both the 1996 and 2004
versions of ASME B30.3, ``Construction Tower Cranes,'' calls for
access ladders to the cab, machinery platform, and tower to conform
to ANSI A14.3 or to SAE J185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would require that walking/stepping
surfaces, except for crawler treads, have slip-resistant features/
properties (such as diamond plate metal, strategically placed grip
tape, expanded metal, or slip-resistant paint). Section
1926.550(a)(13)(iii) of Subpart N of this part requires platforms and
walkways to have anti-skid surfaces. C-DAC

recommended that OSHA retain this requirement as a complement to the
use of guardrails, handholds, grabrails, ladders and other engineered
safety features that would be required by this proposed section. OSHA
continues to believe that compliance with this provision would minimize
the number of slips and falls for employees who must travel point to
point to access the operator workstations on equipment covered by this
proposed section.
Paragraph 1423(d) Fall Protection Requirements for Non-Assembly/
Disassembly Work
    Proposed paragraph (d) addresses fall protection requirements for
employees engaged in work other than assembly/disassembly work (``non-
A/D'' work). For such work, in certain circumstances, employers would
be required to provide and ensure the use of fall protection equipment
for employees who are on a walking/working surface with an unprotected
side or edge more than 6 feet above a lower level.
    C-DAC discussed different trigger heights for fall protection
requirements for particular types of cranes and derricks. Ultimately,
C-DAC concluded that the requirements for fall protection should remain
consistent with 29 CFR Part subpart M, which generally requires fall
protection at heights at and above 6 feet, as much as possible. (As
discussed below, for A/D work, the Committee recommended fall
protection beginning at 15 feet). C-DAC also believed that, in its
view, operators do not need to be tied off while moving to and from
their cabs, and the proposal would make this clear by requiring fall
protection equipment only when employees are moving point-to-point on
booms or while at a work station (with certain exceptions). The
Committee believed that the steps, handholds, and railings required
under proposed Sec.  1926.1423(c) would protect operators moving to and
from their workstations and eliminate the need for additional fall
protection equipment.
Paragraph 1423(d)(1) Non-Assembly/Disassembly: Moving Point to Point
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i) would require employers to provide and
ensure the use of fall protection equipment at 6 feet and above when an
employee is moving point to point on non-lattice booms (whether
horizontal or not horizontal). As defined in Sec.  1926.1401, ``moving
point to point'' means ``the times during which an employee is in the
process of going to or from a work station.''
    C-DAC believed that non-lattice booms generally present more
hazards to workers who must walk them to reach other work areas,
devices, and equipment attached to it than lattice booms. Non-lattice
booms are typically of the extensible type. As a result, as members
noted, the walking/working surfaces on these types of booms are often
oily (from the hydraulic mechanisms). Also, since the boom sections
extend and retract, it is typically infeasible to provide boom walkways
and other safety features. Because they tend to be slippery from oil,
the Committee concluded that they are especially hazardous to move
across even when horizontal. Therefore, where an employee is required
to move point to point on a non-lattice boom, the proposal would
require fall protection above 6 feet in height.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) would require employers to provide
and ensure the use of fall protection, beginning at 6 feet, when
employees must move point to point on lattice booms that are not in a
horizontal position. In non-A/D work, an employee may, for example,
need to move point-to-point on a lattice boom to inspect a part that is
suspected to need repair, or to make a repair (such as replacing a
broken or missing cotter pin). In many of these situations, the boom
will not be horizontal, since space limitations often make it difficult
to lower the boom to do this work.
    The Committee believed that it is both necessary and feasible for
fall protection to be used in such instances. Typically, the fall
protection that would be used would consist of a double-lanyard or
similar personal fall arrest system. Since the boom in these instances
would be elevated, there would usually be a point on the boom above the
level of the employee's feet to which the lanyard could be attached.
    It is the Agency's understanding that, in contrast, it is uncommon
for an employee to need to move point-to-point on a horizontal lattice
boom for non-A/D work. If work does need to be done, such as making an
inspection or repair as discussed above, the employee would usually get
access to their work station with a ladder. In those instances when the
employee must traverse the boom itself, the Committee concluded that it
would be inappropriate to require fall protection for the reasons
discussed below.
    The key difficulty in providing fall protection in such instances
stems from the lack of a tie-off point above the level of the
employee's feet. Most lattice booms when horizontal would be less than
15 feet above the next lower level. At heights below 15 feet, a
personal fall arrest system tied off at the level of the employee's
feet, with a lanyard long enough to afford the employee the range of
movement necessary for this work, might not prevent the employee from
falling to the next lower level. In construction work the problem of
providing personal fall protection in this height range, when there is
no higher tie-off point, is usually solved in one of three ways (apart
from the use of ladders, scaffolds, aerial lifts, and similar devices).
One way is to use a restraint system, which is anchored at a point that
prevents the employee from moving past an edge. This type of system
could not be used while on a boom because the boom is too narrow.
    Another method is to set up a personal fall arrest system that
would arrest the employee's fall before hitting the next lower level by
using stanchions to support an elevated, horizontal life-line. However,
such stanchions must be securely fastened and whatever they are
fastened to must be able to withstand considerable forces in an
arrested fall. On a crane's lattice boom, the stanchions would have to
be attached either to the chords or the lacings.
    The chords and lacings are engineered to be as light as possible,
and an engineering analysis would be needed in each case to determine
if the attachment point was sufficiently strong to withstand those
forces. Also, the Agency believes that manufacturers would be unlikely
to approve clamp-on type systems because of the likelihood of the
clamping forces damaging these critical structural components.
Similarly, the Agency believes that manufacturers would not approve the
repeated weld/removal/re-weld cycles that would be involved in
attaching and removing stanchions because this could adversely affect
the boom's structural components.
    The third method commonly used in construction work is a temporary
guardrail system, but that also would require attaching stanchions to
the boom, which would be infeasible for these same reasons.
    The Committee concluded that, in light of such factors, it would
not be appropriate to require fall protection when an employee moves
point-to-point on horizontal lattice booms. However, the Agency notes
that, although it may rarely be necessary for an employee moving point-
to-point on a horizontal lattice boom to be 15 feet or more above the
next lower level, there is the possibility of such an occurrence, such
as where a horizontal boom spans a large gap in the ground surface. At
such heights a personal fall arrest system tied off at the level of the
employee's feet would allow sufficient room for the arrest system to
operate without

allowing the employee to strike the next lower level. Therefore, the
Agency requests public comment on whether proposed Sec.
1926.1423(d)(1)(ii) should be expanded to require fall protection when
an employee, engaged in non-A/D work, is moving point-to-point on a
boom that is horizontal and the fall distance is 15 feet or more.
Paragraph 1423(d)(2) Non-Assembly/Disassembly: While at a Work Station
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would require employers to provide and
ensure the use of fall protection while an employee is at a work
station on any part of the equipment (including the boom, of any type),
except when the employee is at or near draw-works (when the equipment
is running), in the cab, or on the deck. An example of being at a work
station is the following: An employee is assigned to replace a cotter
pin for a sheave at the end of a boom. The employee's ``work station''
on the boom for this task will be the point where, after the employee
has traversed the boom or climbed on from a ladder, the employee
performs that task. Because the employee is using one or both hands to
perform the task, there is a heightened risk of falling.
    Since the work is typically done while the employee is sitting or
lying on or inside the boom and is stationary while doing the task,
there is normally no difficulty in setting up the personal fall
protection system so that it would prevent the worker from contacting
the next lower level. Therefore, this proposed provision does not
distinguish between work stations based on boom type or whether the
boom is horizontal or elevated. For work stations on other parts of the
equipment, the Committee concluded that there is normally some suitable
point available to which a personal fall arrest system can be anchored.
    Fall protection would not be required near draw-works when the
equipment is running because of the danger that moving parts could
catch a safety lanyard and pull the worker into moving machinery. This
danger is present when parts in the draw works are moving. It is also
present when the equipment is running and the draw works parts are not
moving because of the potential that someone will activate those parts.
    Fall protection would not be required when the employee is in a cab
because the employee is not exposed to a fall hazard in that instance.
Fall protection would also not be required for employees on decks,
since the Committee believed that equipment is typically designed so
that employees on the deck are not exposed to a fall hazard.
    As discussed earlier, C-DAC was convinced that the steps and
railings required by this proposed standard would provide adequate fall
protection to operators going to and from their workstations.
Therefore, fall protection (apart from those devices) would not be
required for operators while moving point-to-point between the ground
and the operator work station(s).
Paragraph 1423(e) Assembly/Disassembly
    Proposed paragraph (e) would require the employer to provide and
ensure the use of fall protection equipment during A/D work for
employees who are on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side
or edge more than 15 feet above a lower level, except when the employee
is at or near draw-works (when the equipment is running), in the cab,
or on the deck.
    The principal problem with the use of fall protection during
assembly/disassembly below 15 feet is the difficulty in setting up a
personal fall protection system that allows a significant degree of
movement on a boom in this height range (which is usually of the
lattice type) and also prevents the employee from contacting the next
lower level. Unlike employees who work at a stationary work station,
employees engaged in assembly/disassembly work typically have to move a
significant amount to accomplish the work.
    Consequently, the degree of movement that the protection system
needs to provide to the employee is more similar to what is needed when
moving point-to-point on a boom than working at a work station. As
discussed above, the characteristics of lattice booms make it more
difficult to set up such systems than in other situations.
    The exception to the requirement for fall protection when the
employee is at or near draw-works (when the equipment is running), in
the cab, or on the deck is based on the same considerations discussed
above with respect to proposed Sec.  1926.1423(d)(2).
Paragraph 1423(f) Anchorage Criteria
    Proposed paragraph (f) would specify criteria for anchorage points
used in personal fall protection systems.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ ``Personal fall arrest system'' is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 of this proposed standard as ``a system used to arrest an
employee in a fall from a working level. It consists of an
anchorage, connectors, a body harness and may include a lanyard,
deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combination of these.''
This definition is taken from Sec.  1926.500(b) of Subpart M. As
with other definitions applicable to this section, C-DAC used
terminology that is familiar to the industry to provide clear notice
of the standard's requirements and promote compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (f)(1), Anchorages for fall arrest and
positioning device systems, contains requirements for anchorage points
used in fall arrest and positioning device systems. Proposed Sec.
1926.1423(f)(1)(i) would permit personal fall arrest systems and
positioning systems to be anchored to any apparently substantial part
of the equipment unless a competent person, from a visual inspection,
without an engineering analysis, would conclude that the applicable
criteria in Sec.  1926.502 of Subpart M of this part would not be met.
The Subpart M criteria include, for personal fall arrest systems, 5,000
pounds per employee or twice the potential impact load of an employee's
fall (in addition to other requirements) (Sec.  1926.502(d)(15)); for a
positioning device, 3,000 pounds or twice the potential impact load of
an employee's fall, whichever is greater (in addition to other
requirements) (Sec.  1926.502(e)(2)).
    Most of the equipment covered by the proposed standard are designed
to lift and support weights much heavier than these. Apparently
substantial parts of the equipment are, therefore, typically capable of
meeting the Subpart M capacities. Consequently, C-DAC believed that the
proposed Sec.  1926.1423(f)(1)(i) criteria was appropriate and would
avoid burdening employers with what it considered to be the unnecessary
expense of obtaining engineering analyses for each part that would
serve as an anchor.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii) would require that attachable anchor
devices (portable anchor devices that are attached to the equipment)
meet the applicable anchorage criteria in Sec.  1926.502. These
criteria are the same as those discussed in the previous paragraph for
fall arrest and fall positioning systems.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2), Anchorages for restraint systems, would
require restraint systems to be anchored to any part of the equipment
that is capable of withstanding twice the maximum load that a worker
may impose on it during reasonably anticipated conditions of use. Since
restraint systems do not arrest a worker's fall (instead they prevent a
fall from occurring), the anchorage does not need to be able to support
the significantly greater force generated during an arrested fall. C-
DAC believed that having the anchorage support twice the maximum
anticipated load will provide an adequate margin of safety when a
restraint system is used.

Paragraph 1423(g) Tower Cranes
    Proposed paragraph (g) would specify fall protection requirements
specific to tower cranes. Note that the terminology ``erecting'' and
``dismantling'' is used with regard to tower cranes rather than
``assembly'' and ``disassembly''; this terminology reflects the
industry's use of these terms.
Paragraph 1423(g)(1) Non-Erecting/Dismantling
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1) addresses fall protection requirements
for non-erecting/dismantling work. The employer would be required to
provide and ensure the use of fall protection equipment for employees
who are on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge
more than 6 feet above a lower level. The exceptions to this
requirement would be when the employee is at or near draw-works (when
the equipment is running), in the cab, or on the deck.
    As discussed above, for equipment other than tower cranes, there
were various factors that prompted C-DAC to agree on different
requirements for moving point-to-point than when working at a work
station. Those factors, however, are not present in tower cranes.
    For example, when moving point-to-point on the jib (or boom) or on
the tower, there are no feasibility constraints to being protected.
There are numerous areas on the jib to which an employee can anchor
personal fall arrest equipment as the employee walks out and back on
the jib (or boom) on a tower crane. Also, by standard industry
practice, the counter-jib \58\ is usually equipped with a walkway and
railings. If the employee needs to traverse in an area that is off the
walkway, other fall protection can be used, such as a personal fall
arrest system. Since the jib (or boom) once erected is much higher than
6 feet from the next lower level, there is plenty of room for the
arrest system to operate without allowing the employee to strike the
next lower level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ At the top of the tower, there is a long horizontal
structure that supports the load (the ``jib'' or, if the luffing
type, the ``boom''), and a shorter horizontal structure that
supports the counterweights, which is referred to as the ``counter-
jib.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moving point-to-point on the tower is typically done either using
the ladder or stair system provided within the tower, or (in some
situations) moving on a tower section. When moving on a tower section,
because the sections are vertical, there is always a point above the
employee's feet to which the arrest system can be anchored. There is
therefore no need for stanchions or other equipment to set up the
system to prevent the employee from striking the next lower level.
    The exception to the proposed provision for fall protection when
the employee is at or near draw-works (when the equipment is running),
in the cab, or on the deck is based on the same considerations
discussed above with respect to proposed Sec.  1926.1423(d)(2). The
Agency notes that its understanding of the location of ``the deck'' on
a tower crane is the walking/working area on the counter-jib.
Paragraph 1423(g)(2) Erecting/Dismantling
    This proposed paragraph specifies that, for erecting/dismantling
work, employers must provide, and ensure use of, fall protection
equipment for employees who are on a walking/working surface with an
unprotected side or edge more than 15 feet above a lower level.
    On tower cranes, almost all of the erecting/dismantling work that
takes place below 15 feet occurs in connection with erecting or
dismantling the sections of the jib (or boom), which is usually done on
the ground. In this respect the erecting/dismantling process is similar
to the assembly/disassembly of other types of cranes. Therefore, the
same reasons for setting a 15-foot threshold for requiring fall
protection for assembling/disassembling non-tower cranes (see
discussion of proposed paragraph (e) above) are also the basis for
proposing to require fall protection beginning at 15 feet for erecting
and dismantling tower cranes.
    The Agency notes that C-DAC did not include the exceptions that
were included in proposed Sec.  1926.1423(g)(1) for when the employee
is at or near draw-works (when the equipment is running), in the cab,
or on the deck. OSHA is unaware of any reason why these exceptions
would not be equally applicable here, and asks for public comment on
whether they should be added to proposed Sec.  1926.1423(g)(2).
Paragraph 1423(h) Anchoring to the Load Line
    Proposed paragraph (h) would permit an employer, under prescribed
conditions, to anchor a fall arrest system to the hook or other part of
a load line of a crane or derrick. Currently, in Subpart M of this
part, Sec.  1926.502(d)(23) prohibits personal fall arrest systems to
be attached to ``hoists except as specified in other subparts of this
part.'' Subpart N does not contain any provisions specifically
addressing this issue. Therefore, since the hook or other part of a
load line is connected to a hoist in the crane or for the derrick,
attaching a personal fall arrest system in this manner is currently
prohibited by Subpart M.
    OSHA has received a number of inquiries asking whether a crane's
hook or load line may be used as an anchorage point for fall
protection. Using a crane for such purpose would be particularly useful
in many situations, especially where establishing a suitable anchor
point would be otherwise very difficult. OSHA asked C-DAC to consider
whether there is any reason to prohibit using a crane or derrick for
such purpose. C-DAC believed that the hook or load line of a crane
could be used safely as an anchor point under the conditions proposed
in the rest of this paragraph.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(1) would allow the hook or load line to be
used as an anchorage point when a qualified person has determined that
the set-up and rated capacity of the crane/derrick (including the hook,
load line and rigging) meets or exceeds the requirements in Sec.
1926.502(d)(15). C-DAC concluded that, as long as the crane or derrick
had sufficient capacity to meet those criteria, there is no reason to
prohibit its use for this purpose.
    The criteria in Sec.  1926.502(d)(15) were developed to ensure that
fall protection anchorages provide adequate employee protection. A
number of factors related to the crane's capacity in the particular
configuration and set-up involved would need to be considered,
including, in some cases, the angle of the fall arrest lanyard to the
boom if a fall were to occur. In C-DAC's view, determining whether
those criteria are met when anchoring to the hook or load line requires
the expertise of a qualified person.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require that the equipment operator
be at the work site and informed that the equipment is being used to
anchor a fall arrest system. This would ensure that the operator is
available to make any necessary adjustments, such as moving the boom or
load lines. Further, in the event of an emergency that results in a
tied-off employee being suspended from the hook or load line, the
operator would be available to bring the worker to the ground safely.

Section 1424 Work Area Control

    Proposed paragraph (a) addresses the hazard of employees being
struck, pinched-between or crushed when within the swing radius of the
equipment's rotating superstructure. Proposed 1926.1424(a)(1) states
that the precautions in Sec.  1926.1424(a)(2) must be

taken when there are accessible areas in which the equipment's rotating
superstructure (whether permanently or temporarily mounted) poses a
reasonably foreseeable risk of either: (i) Striking and injuring an
employee; or (ii) pinching/crushing an employee against another part of
the equipment or another object.
    Currently, Sec.  1926.550(a)(9) provides: ``Accessible areas within
the swing radius of the rear of the rotating superstructure of the
crane, either permanently or temporarily mounted, shall be barricaded
in such a manner as to prevent an employee from being struck or crushed
by the crane.'' In proposed Sec.  1926.1401, ``superstructure'' is
defined as a synonym for ``upperworks'' and ``upperstructure.'' Under
this definition, all three terms mean the following: ``the revolving
frame of equipment on which the engine and operating machinery are
mounted along with the operator's cab. The counterweight is typically
supported on the rear of the upperstructure and the boom or other front
end attachment is mounted on the front.''
    The Committee agreed that barriers around danger areas are a
viable, safe option, but they also agreed that such barriers are not
always feasible and that, in such cases, there needs to be alternative
means of protecting the employees. In addition, C-DAC was concerned
that the language ``accessible areas within the swing radius . * * *''
would require that all areas accessible to an employee within the swing
radius would have to be protected, irrespective of whether an employee
could be injured while in such an area. C-DAC viewed such a requirement
as overly broad and unnecessary.
    The Committee drafted the proposed requirement so that protective
measures would be required for accessible areas that pose a
``reasonably foreseeable risk'' that an employee would be struck or
pinched/crushed. The principle of reasonably foreseeable risk is one
that is well established in Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission caselaw and in the courts of appeals. For example, in Pete
Miller Inc., 19 O.S.H.C. (BNA) 1257, 1258 (Rev. Comm'n 2000), the
Review Commission stated that a violation occurs when ``it is
reasonably predictable either by operational necessity or otherwise
(including inadvertence), that employees have been, are, or will be in
the zone of danger.'' \59\ The following are two illustrative examples
of the application of this principle to the swing radius provision:

    \59\ See also, Daniel Int'l Corp. v. Donovan, 705 F.2d 382, 388
(10th Cir. 1983); Mineral Indus. & Heavy Constr. Group v. OSHRC, 639
F.2d 1289, 1294 (5th Cir. 1981).

    Illustrative example #1: The bottom of the rear of the rotating
superstructure of crane A is 12 feet above the ground. An employee
standing on the ground within that swing radius could not be struck
by the rotating superstructure since the rotating superstructure
would swing well above him/her. There is nothing within that area on
which the employee could stand. In this example the area does not
pose a reasonably foreseeable risk of the employee being struck or
pinched/crushed.
    Illustrative example #2: Same scenario as example 1
above, except that a truck with material that is to be unloaded from
its bed is within the swing radius. If an employee were to stand on
the truck bed the employee would be within the swing radius. In this
example there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of an employee being
struck or pinched/crushed.

    Under proposed paragraph (a)(2), the employer would be required to
institute two types of measures to prevent employees from entering
these hazard areas. Specifically, under proposed Sec.
1926.1424(a)(2)(i), the employer would have to train employees assigned
to work on or near the equipment in how to recognize these areas. The
Committee believed that employees need to understand and appreciate the
risk posed by the rotating superstructure for the other precautions
required by Sec.  1926.1424(a)(2)(ii) to be effective.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would require the employer to erect
and maintain control lines, warning lines, railings, or similar
barriers to mark the boundaries of the hazard areas, but contains an
exception when such a precaution is infeasible. If it is neither
feasible to erect such barriers on the ground nor on the equipment, the
employer would be required to mark the danger zone with a combination
of warning signs and high visibility markings on the equipment that
identify the hazard areas. In addition, the employer would have to
train employees to understand what those markings signify.
    To help prevent struck-by and crushed-by injuries and fatalities,
C-DAC concluded that it is necessary to address the protection of
employees who must sometimes enter the hazard area to perform work.
Proposed Sec.  1926.1424(a)(3) is designed to help protect such
employees by ensuring that there is adequate communication and
coordination between the operator and the employee in the danger area.
    Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i), if an employee is going to go
to a location in a hazard area that is out of view of the operator,
before that employee goes in that area the employee (or someone
instructed by the employee) would have to ensure that the operator is
informed that the employee is going to that location. Since the
operator will typically be under the assumption that no one is in that
area, informing the operator that an employee is going to enter the
hazard area is an essential first step in preventing the operator from
moving the superstructure and causing injury to that employee.
    Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii), once informed that an employee
is going to enter a hazard area out of the operator's view, the
operator would be prohibited from rotating the superstructure unless
and until he/she gives a warning that the employee understands is a
signal that the superstructure is about to be rotated and gives the
employee time to get clear.
    Alternatively, the operator may rotate the superstructure if
informed in accordance with a pre-arranged system of communication that
the employee 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 would need to be designed so that this
all-clear signal could not be confused with a horn signal from some
other employee for another purpose.
    Proposed paragraph (b) addresses situations where multiple pieces
of equipment are located in such proximity that their working radii
overlap. Such situations pose the danger of employees being pinched/
crushed between the equipment and being injured as a result of
unintended movement or collapse when pieces of equipment collide. To
prevent such accidents, the controlling entity would be required to
coordinate the operations of these pieces of equipment. In the event
that there is no controlling entity, the employer or employers
operating the equipment would be required to institute a coordination
system.
    C-DAC's language for proposed paragraph (b) refers to ``employers
operating the equipment'' but does not address a situation in which
only one employer is operating the multiple pieces of equipment. It
appears to the Agency that a coordination system is also needed in that
situation. OSHA is considering revising the C-DAC

language to make clear that such an employer would be required to
institute a coordination system. Proposed Sec.  1926.1424(b) could be
revised in this regard as follows:

    (b) Multiple equipment coordination. Where any part of a crane/
derrick is within the working radius of another crane/derrick, the
controlling entity shall institute a system to coordinate
operations. If there is no controlling entity, the employer (if
there is only one employer operating the multiple pieces of
equipment), or employers, shall institute such a system.

    OSHA requests public comment on whether such a revision should be
made.

Section 1425 Keeping Clear of the Load

    Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N at Sec.  1926.550(a)(19)
states: ``All employees shall be kept clear of loads about to be lifted
and of suspended loads.'' C-DAC believed that compliance with this
provision is infeasible in certain circumstances. For example, many
urban construction sites have a relatively small footprint with
numerous construction employees throughout the site. These sites are
typically bounded on all sides by roads and sidewalks with high
concentrations of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. In such
circumstances it is not always possible to route a suspended load in
such a way that all employees will be clear of the load at all times.
In addition, meeting that objective may sometimes conflict with meeting
local requirements regarding public safety.
    C-DAC also believed that employers have a greater ability to avoid
having static suspended loads over employees than moving loads, since a
static suspended load usually affects a much smaller area. Furthermore,
in a static situation, it is possible to limit the number of employees
in the fall zone to only those whose jobs involve the handling of the
load and therefore require them to be in that area at that time.
Accordingly, this proposed section is designed to account for these
considerations and protect employees to the extent feasible.
Paragraph 1425(a)
    Proposed paragraph (a) would require the employer to use hoisting
routes that minimize employee exposure to hoisted loads to the extent
consistent with public safety. This provision addresses the fact that
in many situations, especially urban construction sites with high
concentrations of employees throughout the site, it is not feasible to
prevent all employees from being exposed to hoisted loads that are
moving at all times (see discussion above).
    Also, C-DAC recognized that there could be situations where
minimizing employee exposure to hoisted loads would be in conflict with
local requirements regarding public safety, as when an alternative
route would take the load over a street with public traffic. The
Committee wanted to make clear that choosing a route that would
endanger the public was not required.
Paragraph 1425(b)
    Proposed paragraph (b) addresses those situations where the
equipment operator is not actually engaging the controls to move the
load. In such situations, the load affects a more limited area then
when it is moved up or horizontally. Consequently, C-DAC determined
that, in these static situations, it is feasible to preclude most
employee exposure to the load's fall zone. The only exceptions are
employees engaged in the types of activities specified in proposed
Sec.  1926.1425(b)(1) through (3).
    ``Fall zone'' is defined in Sec.  1926.1401 as ``the area
(including but not limited to the area directly beneath the load) in
which it is reasonably foreseeable that partially or completely
suspended materials could fall in the event of an accident.'' The
``fall zone'' thus includes both the area directly under the load as
well as other areas into which it is ``reasonably foreseeable'' that
suspended materials could fall. For example, if wind is causing the
load to swing, the employer would need to consider the extent to which
the load is or may swing in determining the extent of the fall zone.
Another example is where a bundle of materials is suspended, and some
loose materials at the top of the bundle may slide off sideways. In
such a case those materials would foreseeably fall outside the area
directly beneath the load. As discussed above in relation to Sec.
1926.1424, Work area control, the concept of ``reasonably foreseeable''
risk is well established in OSHA law.
    Proposed paragraph 1425(b)(1) would permit employees engaged in
hooking, unhooking or guiding a load to be within the fall zone while
engaged in these activities. Hooking or unhooking a load sometimes
requires an employee to be within the fall zone of a load. For example,
where a lifting accessory is used, the employee will typically be under
the fall zone of the lifting accessory when attaching or unhooking the
load. Also, guiding a load, even with a tag line, sometimes
necessitates that the employee be positioned within the fall zone,
especially when the work area below is restricted in size.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would permit employees engaged in the
initial attachment of the load to a component or structure to be within
the fall zone. One example is the following scenario: A subassembly of
steel members is hoisted for attachment to a structure. When initially
attaching the lower portion of that subassembly, an employee is within
the fall zone of the load. In this example, the employee engaged in the
initial attachment of the subassembly to the structure would be
permitted to be within the fall zone; that work cannot be done
otherwise.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would allow workers to be present in the
fall zone when operating a concrete hopper or concrete bucket. The
employee operating the hopper or bucket is necessarily in the fall zone
since the hopper or bucket is suspended while the employee operates the
releasing mechanism.
Paragraph 1425(c)
    Proposed paragraph (c) deals with the situations addressed in
paragraphs 1425(b)(1) and (b)(2). The Committee felt that additional
requirements were necessary to ensure employee safety in these
situations, given the additional risks posed while loads are being
connected to equipment or structures.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require that the load be rigged to
prevent unintentional displacement, so that workers in the fall zone
are less likely to be struck by shifting materials.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require the use of hooks with self-
closing latches or their equivalent be used, to prevent accidental
failure of the hooks. However, ``J'' type hooks would be permitted for
setting wooden trusses. This exception is designed to enable the truss
to be unhooked without the need for an employee to go out on the truss.
This avoids the additional exposure to fall hazards that would
otherwise occur from going out on the truss to release a latched hook.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would require the use of a qualified
rigger in the rigging of materials in the situations addressed by
proposed Sec.  1926.1425(c). By ensuring that the load is rigged in as
safe a manner as possible, this requirement serves to reduce the risk
of injury to workers who cannot perform their duties outside of the
fall zone, and reduces the potential size of the fall zone.
    Section 1401 of this proposed standard defines a ``qualified
rigger'' as a rigger who meets the criteria for a qualified person. The
same definition is

found in subpart R of 29 CFR Part 1926, Steel Erection at Sec.
1926.753(c)(2).
Paragraph 1425(d) Receiving a Load
    Proposed paragraph (d) would prohibit all employees except those
needed to receive a load from being in the fall zone when it is being
landed. An employee receiving a load will typically need to be within
the fall zone when it is being landed because that is the time when the
load needs to be guided to a specific landing point.
Paragraph 1425(e)
    Proposed paragraph (e) concerns tilt-up and tilt-down operations.
In these operations, one end of a component, such as a precast panel,
is either raised, tilting the component up, usually from a horizontal
position (often on the ground) to a vertical position; or lowered,
tilting the component down, usually from a vertical position to a
horizontal position on the ground or other surface.\60\ Note that the
requirements in this proposed paragraph would not apply when receiving
a load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Proposed Sec.  1926.1401 defines ``tilt up or tilt down
operation'' as ``raising/lowering a load from the horizontal to
vertical or vertical to horizontal.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with any other suspended load, it is dangerous to be directly
beneath the load because of the possibility of a failure or error that
would cause the load to fall or be accidentally lowered onto an
employee. To minimize the risk of such accidents, proposed Sec.
1926.1425(e)(1) provides that no employee shall be directly under the
load during a tilt-up or tilt-down operation. Section 1926.1401 defines
``directly under the load'' to mean ``a part or all of an employee is
directly beneath the load.'' This provision will avoid having employees
in the area that presents the greatest danger in the event of a loss of
control of the load.
    While C-DAC determined that tilt-up and tilt-down operations can be
accomplished without anyone being directly under the load, it also
found that the operation is at times infeasible unless one or more
employees ``essential to the operation'' needs to be elsewhere within
the fall zone. Proposed Sec.  1926.1425(e)(2) therefore provides that
employees ``essential to the operation'' may be in the fall zone (but
not directly under the load) during a tilt up or tilt down operation.
    The C-DAC document does not contain a definition of ``essential to
the operation.'' Consequently, the proposed provision does not specify
what job functions would be permitted to be performed from within the
fall zone. OSHA believes that examples of an employee ``essential to
the operation'' is an employee who must be within the fall zone because
it is infeasible to conduct the following operations from outside the
fall zone: (1) Physically guide the load; (2) closely monitor and give
instructions regarding the load's movement; and/or (3) either detach it
from or initially attach it to another component or structure. OSHA
requests public comment on whether there are other activities that are
essential to this operation and are infeasible to be done from outside
the fall zone, and whether it would be appropriate to add a definition
of ``essential to the operation'' to the standard.
    A note to paragraph (e) refers to Sec.  1926.1426, which addresses
free fall of the boom and the load. As discussed below, it specifies
that employees may not be anywhere in the fall zone of a boom that is
designed to free fall, and that employees are never to be directly
under the load during free fall of the load line hoist.

Section 1426 Free Fall and Controlled Load Lowering

    This proposed section addresses the hazards that can arise from
free fall of the boom (live boom) during lifts. Live booms are those in
which the rate of lowering can be controlled only by a brake; a failure
of the brake will result in a free fall (i.e., unrestricted lowering)
of the boom. In contrast, in equipment that has a boom that is not
``live,'' there is a mechanism or device other than the brake which
slows the boom's lowering speed.
    The uncontrolled lowering of a boom could result in an accident
which could injure or kill workers in proximity of the load or hoisting
equipment. This proposed section would prohibit use of live booms in
most circumstances. An exception is provided for older equipment
manufactured before the ANSI B30.5 series prohibited free fall of the
boom for all hoisting operations, but only under limited conditions
that do not create hazards to employees. A limited exception is also
provided for floating cranes/derricks. This proposed section includes
many of the modern protective methods and mechanisms included in ASME
B30.5-2004.
    This section also, in Sec.  1926.1426(d), would specify the
circumstances under which free fall of the load line would be
prohibited.
Paragraph 1426(a) Boom Free Fall Prohibitions
    Under proposed paragraph (a)(1), the use of equipment in which the
boom is designed to free fall would be prohibited under six specified
conditions. C-DAC concluded that, in these six circumstances, free fall
of the boom needs to be prohibited regardless of what type of equipment
is used and when that equipment was manufactured.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) would prohibit the use of a live boom
when an employee is in the fall zone of the boom or load (see the
explanation of ``fall zone'' in the discussion above of proposed Sec.
1926.1425(b). Section 1926.1425, Keeping clear of the load, of this
proposed standard recognizes that there are some situations in which
certain employees need to be positioned in the fall zone in order to
perform their assigned duties. However, the likelihood that an employee
would sustain a serious injury or be killed in the event of a falling
boom is very high when an employee is in the fall zone of the boom or
load.
    Because the likelihood of a falling boom is higher when a live boom
is in use, C-DAC believed it was necessary to prohibit employees from
being in the fall zone whenever a live boom is being used, without
exception. Therefore, the exceptions listed in proposed Sec.  1926.1425
that would permit employees to be in the fall zone in certain
circumstances apply only where a non-live boom is being used.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would prohibit use of a live boom
when an employee is being hoisted. This continues the current
prohibition in Sec.  1926.550(g)(3)(i)(F) of subpart N of this part,
which is designed to prevent hoisted employees from being seriously
injured or killed if the boom were to fall.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would prohibit the use of a live
boom where the load or boom is directly over a power line, or over any
part of the area extending the Table A ( of proposed Sec.  1926.1408)
clearance distance to each side of the power line. The diagram below
illustrates a situation in which a load on a live boom is over the area
extending the Table A clearance distance to each side of the power
line:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC08.000

    As discussed above in relation to proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.1407
through 1926.1411, equipment making electrical contact with power lines
is one of the primary causes of equipment-related deaths on
construction sites and, to prevent such contact, those sections would
require equipment to maintain minimum distances from power lines.
    C-DAC recognized that a live boom that is over a power line, or
that is suspending a load that is over any part of the area extending
the Table A clearance distance to each side of the power line, could
fall or cause the load to fall into electrical contact with a power
line.
    The C-DAC draft of this provision stated: ``The load or boom is
directly over a power line, or over the area extending the Table A
clearance distance to each side of the power line.'' Since C-DAC's
intent was to prohibit the boom or load from being over any part of the
area extending the Table A clearance distance to each side of the line,
OSHA has changed this language to make clear that the prohibition
applies with respect to the boom or load being above ``any part of''
that area.
    In reviewing this provision, OSHA realized that there appears to be
another circumstance when a fall of the boom could cause the load or
boom to breach the Table A clearance distance. This would occur as
follows: Neither the boom nor load is over the power line or over the
Table A clearance area. However, the Table A clearance distance is
within the radius of vertical travel of the boom or load. This
circumstance is depicted in the following illustrations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC08.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC08.002

    In Illustration A, neither the boom nor the load is above the power
line or any part of the Table A zone. However, if the boom were to
fall, the boom would cross into the Table A zone. In Illustration B,
neither the boom nor load is above the power line or any part of the
Table A zone. However, if the boom were to fall, the load would cross
into the Table A zone.
    The Agency therefore requests public comment on whether proposed
Sec.  1926.1426(a)(1)(iii) should be modified to also prohibit the
equipment from being positioned such that the fall path of the boom or
load would breach the Table A clearance distance.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would prohibit use of a live boom
where the load is over a shaft. As discussed in relation to Sec.
1926.1426(a)(1)(i) of this proposed section, C-DAC recognized that
there are situations where employees must be in the fall zone of a
suspended load. One particular scenario is when employees must receive
a load that is lowered into a shaft. Such employees would be at a
particularly high risk of being killed or injured by a free falling
boom because the shaft severely limits or eliminates any ability to get
out of the way.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(v) would prohibit free fall of a boom
when the load is over a cofferdam, except where there are no employees
\61\ in the fall zone. Much like employees who must receive a suspended
load in a shaft, employees have limited ability to escape a free
falling boom or load in a cofferdam. However, because cofferdams are
typically much larger work spaces than shafts, the fall zone of a
falling boom or load may only affect one part of the cofferdam.
Therefore, this provision contains an exception for situations where
there are no employees in the fall zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The C-DAC draft of this provision used the term
``workers;'' this has been changed to ``employees,'' which is the
more appropriate term in light of the language in the Occupational
Safety and Health Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) would prohibit use of a live boom for
lifting operations in a refinery or tank farm. C-DAC was concerned that
a free falling boom could strike pipes or a tank in a refinery or tank
farm. Such accidental impact could cause a release of toxic materials
or conflagration.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) is an exclusive list of conditions under
which the use of cranes with live booms would be permitted. C-DAC
believed that cranes with live booms could be used safely under some
circumstances and did not believe that the cost of replacing or
retrofitting all existing such equipment was justified as long as the
use of live boom equipment was limited to those circumstances.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) would allow the use of equipment with
a live boom if that equipment was manufactured prior to October 31,
1984 and none of the circumstances listed in proposed Sec.
1926.1426(a)(1) are present. C-DAC noted that ANSI B30.5 first
prohibited live booms in its 1972 version and reiterated the
prohibition in the 1982 edition, which was published on October 31,
1983 and became effective on October 31, 1984.
    C-DAC concluded that manufacturers would have begun to phase out
live-boom equipment when ANSI first prohibited its use in 1972 and that
little, if any, live boom equipment would have been manufactured after
October 31, 1984. Moreover, during this period, hydraulic hoisting
equipment, the design of which typically precluded boom free fall even
in its early designs, became more prevalent.
    In light of these factors, C-DAC concluded that most equipment
manufactured after October 31, 1984 would not have live booms. Proposed
Sec.  1926.1426(a)(2) thus allows the older live boom equipment to be
phased out safely by restricting its use to situations in which none of
the circumstances listed in Sec.  1926.1426(a)(1) are present.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would allow use of a live boom if the
equipment is a floating crane/derrick or is a land crane/derrick on a
vessel/flotation device and none of the circumstances listed in
proposed Sec.  1926.1426(a)(1) are present.\62\ C-DAC noted that
equipment used on the water commonly has a live boom. This is because
the dynamics of load transfer while on water (from side to side), as
well as unexpected wave action, which can cause rapid changes in list
and trim, sometimes necessitates that the operator have a free fall
boom system to compensate for these effects. Non-live systems are not
fast enough for this purpose. As a result, C-DAC concluded that there
is no need to alter current industry practice in this regard as long as
none of the circumstances listed in Sec.  1926.1426(a)(1) are present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ OSHA has modified the language used in the C-DAC version of
this provision to conform to the terminology used in proposed Sec.
1926.1437, Floating cranes and land cranes on barges.

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

Paragraph (b) Preventing Boom Free Fall
    Proposed paragraph (b) sets criteria for preventing boom free fall.
A boom that meets this criteria is considered to be designed to not
free fall. The criteria consist of requirements for a secondary system
for controlling the boom's descent in addition to the equipment's
primary system. The Committee believed that the hazard posed by a
failure of the primary system for holding or regulating the boom is so
significant that the availability of a secondary mechanism needs to be
required.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i) specifies that a friction drum must
have both a friction clutch and a braking device, to allow for
controlled boom lowering. These provisions are similar to those in
section 5-1.3.2(a)(1) and (a)(4) of ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-
2004. Proposed Sec.  1926.1426(b)(1)(ii) would require friction drums
to also have a secondary braking or locking device, which is manually
or automatically engaged, to back-up the primary brake while the boom
is held (such as a secondary friction brake or a ratchet and pawl
device). In the view of the Committee these have been well established
as effective for this purpose.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require hydraulic drums to have an
integrally mounted holding device or internal static brake to prevent
boom hoist movement in the event of hydraulic failure. The requirements
of this proposed paragraph are similar to those in section 5-1.3.1(d)
of ASME B30.5-2004. The hazard presented by this type of hoisting
system is that once the hydraulic system fails, the boom hoist drum
could free spin and allow the boom to free fall.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) states that clutches or hydraulic motors
do not qualify as brakes or locking devices for purposes of this
subpart. C-DAC believed the use of clutches or hydraulic motors for
such purposes would accelerate the wear of these systems and increase
the risk they will fail when they are needed to control the lowering of
the boom.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would require hydraulic boom cylinders to
have an integrally mounted holding device. An integrally mounted
holding device would secure the boom from pivoting down in the event
that hydraulic pressure is lost. This requirement is similar to section
5-1.3.1(d) of ASME B30.5-2004.
Paragraph 1426(c) Preventing Uncontrolled Retraction
    Proposed paragraph (c) would require hydraulic telescoping booms
(which are also referred to as hydraulic extensible booms) to have an
integrally mounted holding device to prevent the boom from retracting
in the event of hydraulic failure. This proposed provision is similar
to section 5-1.3.3(c) of ASME B30.5-2004.
    The C-DAC draft of this provision stated that the purpose of this
device was ``to prevent boom movement in the event of hydraulic
failure.'' OSHA believes that this language was unintentionally broad
in that it refers to any ``boom movement.'' The purpose of proposed
Sec.  1926.1426(b)(4) is, as discussed above, to prevent the boom from
pivoting down in the event of hydraulic failure. Therefore, there is no
need for proposed Sec.  1926.1426(c) to also require a device to
prevent that type of boom movement.
    The Agency's understanding is that the purpose of proposed Sec.
1926.1426(c) is, as reflected in C-DAC's heading (``Preventing
uncontrolled retraction''), to prevent a telescoping hydraulic boom
from retracting in the event of hydraulic failure. Therefore, OSHA has
modified the language to state that the purpose of the integrally
mounted holding device is ``to prevent the boom from retracting'' in
the event of hydraulic failure. OSHA requests public comment on the
appropriateness of this change.
Paragraph1426(d) Load Line Free Fall
    Proposed paragraph (d) lists circumstances under which free fall of
the load line hoist is prohibited and controlled load lowering is
required. ``Free fall (of the load line)'' is defined in Sec.
1926.1401 to mean ``where only the brake is used to regulate the
descent of the load line (the drive mechanism is not used to drive the
load down faster or retard its lowering).'' ``Free fall'' is contrasted
with ``controlled load lowering,'' which Sec.  1926.1401 defines as
``lowering a load by means of a mechanical hoist drum device that
allows a hoisted load to be lowered with maximum control using the gear
train or hydraulic components of the hoist mechanism. Controlled load
lowering requires the use of the hoist drive motor, rather than the
load hoist brake, to lower the load.''
    As with free fall of the boom, free fall of the load line hoist
presents a struck-by hazard to employees. One difference with boom free
fall, however, is that free fall of the load line endangers a smaller
area. When a boom free falls, its tip (and any attached load) moves
both downward and outward. Because the load will moving in at least two
directions simultaneously, the area that will be affected by the fall
is comparatively large.
    In contrast, if a load line free falls, the load will tend to fall
in a relatively straight path downward (as long as the boom is not
being moved and the load is not significantly affected by winds). Thus
the area affected will typically be smaller. C-DAC therefore concluded
that it would be appropriate to have a more limited prohibition
compared with use of a live boom. This is reflected in the prohibition
in proposed Sec.  1926.1426(d)(1) against an employee being directly
under the load. That provision is more limited than proposed Sec.
1926.1426(a)(1)(i), which would prohibit an employee from being in the
fall zone of the boom or load.
    Similarly, unlike the live boom provisions, proposed Sec.
1926.1426(d) does not include a prohibition against use of load line
hoist free fall in a refinery or tank farm. Because of the more limited
affected area, the operator can more readily set up the equipment so
that, in the event of a load line free fall, the affected area will not
include safety critical refinery or tank equipment.
    However, paragraphs (d)(2), (3), and (4) are similar to the boom
free fall prohibitions in that they prohibit free fall of the load line
when (1) an employee is being hoisted; (2) the load is directly over a
power line or over any part of the area extending the Table A (of
proposed Sec.  1926.1408) clearance distance to each side of the power
line; and (3) the load is over a shaft or cofferdam.
    The C-DAC draft of proposed paragraph (d)(3) stated: ``The load is
directly over a power line, or over the area extending the Table A
clearance distance to each side of the power line.'' As discussed
above, C-DAC's intent was to prohibit the load from being over any part
of the area extending the Table A clearance distance to each side of
the line, and OSHA has therefore changed this language to make clear
that the prohibition applies with respect to the load being above ``any
part of'' that area.
    In reviewing proposed paragraph (d)(4), OSHA noted that it would
prohibit load line free fall over a shaft or cofferdam, but contains no
exception regarding cofferdams in which there is no employee in the
fall zone. In this respect this provision is broader than the live boom
provision in proposed Sec.  1926.1426(a)(1)(v), which does contain such
an exception. OSHA requests public comment on whether proposed Sec.
1926.1426(d)(4) should be modified to include such an exception.

Section 1427 Operator Qualification and Certification

    Proposed Sec.  1926.1427 addresses the safety concerns created by
under-qualified crane operators. In the Committee's experience, human
error resulting from insufficient operator knowledge and capability is
a significant cause of fatal crane/derrick accidents. It concluded that
a verified testing process is essential for ensuring sufficient
knowledge and capability of crane/derrick operators and would be an
effective and efficient way to reduce these accidents.
    The Committee's view was based on the extensive collective
experience of the Committee members. Members expressed the belief that
crane/derrick safety depends heavily on the operator having the
knowledge and ability to implement safe operation practices. For
example, an operator who does not know how to properly use load charts
could miscalculate the capacity of the crane and inadvertently overload
the equipment. An operator who lacks the knowledge and skill to control
and manipulate a load could lose control of it, causing other employees
to be struck by the load or the equipment.
    In addition, knowledge and skill are needed to prevent electrical
contact with power lines (see the discussion above regarding proposed
Sec. Sec.  1926.1407-1926.1411). For example, an operator who does not
understand an operational/performance characteristic such as dynamic
loading may inadvertently allow the boom to get too close to a power
line. This could occur where the operator failed to account for the
fact that, under certain conditions, the boom would flex and so
continue to move towards the line after the operator had stopped the
superstructure's rotation.
    Similarly, understanding and being able to minimize such effects is
important in situations such as blind picks, where the operator will be
relying on information relayed to him/her by a signal person.
    The Committee considered whether it would be sufficient to set
testing criteria without a third-party (that is, independent)
verification mechanism, and determined that such an approach was not
likely to be effective in ensuring sufficient operator qualifications.
During the Committee's deliberations, members expressed a concern that
testing conducted without a check on the quality of the test, with
respect to both its content and administration, has been ineffective in
ensuring that crane operators are qualified to operate the equipment
safely. Members noted that operator ``certification'' cards are easily
obtained from various Internet sites without having to pass a credible
test. They also noted that the current OSHA standards, which require
employers to instruct employees on the hazards involved with crane
operation, and require the employer to permit only those employees
qualified by training or experience to operate equipment,\63\ but do
not require testing verified by a third party, have been generally
ineffective in ensuring an adequate degree of consistency with respect
to crane operator knowledge and ability. The Committee concluded that
significant advances in crane/derrick safety would not be achieved
unless such testing was required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Section 1926.20(b)(4) states that ``the employer shall
permit only those employees qualified by training or experience to
operate equipment and machinery''; Sec.  1926.21(b)(2) states that
``the employer shall instruct each employee in the recognition and
avoidance of unsafe conditions.* * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee was aware that testing of equipment operators by an
impartial party has been used in the past to prevent fatal and other
serious accidents that result when operators lack the knowledge and
skills needed to operate safely. An example is the Department of
Transportation's requirements for over-the-road commercial drivers'
licenses (``CDL''). These are designed to reduce the incidence of
serious accidents caused by unqualified drivers of vehicles such as
trucks and buses. These requirements, codified at 40 CFR part 383,
require drivers of commercial motor vehicles to have state licenses
that are issued in accordance with federal standards for qualification,
training, and testing. To receive a license, the driver must pass
knowledge and skills tests administered either by the state or by a
third party whose examiners meet the same qualification and training
standards as state examiners. 40 CFR 383.75(a).
    The Committee's view of the importance of independent testing is
further buttressed by a study conducted over a 34-year period (1969-
2002), by the Construction Safety Association of Ontario. (OSHA-2007-
0066-0009). The study showed a substantial decrease in crane and
rigging fatalities in Ontario beginning in 1979, when mandatory
training and certification requirements for Ontario crane operators
went into effect.
    The Ontario system requires prospective or current crane operators
(referred to in Ontario as ``hoisting engineers'') to either
successfully complete an apprenticeship program or demonstrate
sufficient previous experience before seeking certification as a
hoisting engineer. The apprenticeship program includes in-school
training in a number of topics determined by the Ministry of Education,
a practical examination administered at Ministry-designated sites, and
a written examination administered by the Ministry. Upon passing this
examination and proving completion of the requisite work hours, an
apprentice receives a certificate of qualification as one of three
types of hoisting engineer from the Ministry. (OSHA-2007-0066-0010).
    Hoisting engineers already qualified elsewhere must also obtain a
certification from the Ministry to operate cranes in the province.
These candidates must sit for the written examination and complete the
practical skills assessment required for qualification of apprentices,
but may demonstrate sufficient previous experience instead of
completing the number of work/training hours required by the
apprenticeship program, to receive a certificate of qualification from
the Ministry in one of the three hoisting engineer categories. (OSHA-
2007-0066-0011).
    In the ten year period from 1969 through 1978, before Ontario's
requirements went into effect, 85 Ontario construction workers suffered
crane and rigging fatalities, amounting to 8.5 per year, or 19.8% of
all construction fatalities in Ontario. In the 24 year period from 1979
through 2002, there were 51 crane and rigging fatalities, or slightly
more than two per year. For this period, crane and rigging fatalities
equaled 9.6% of all Ontario construction fatalities. In the 12-year
period from 1991 through 2002, the total number of crane and rigging
fatalities was 9, or fewer than one per year. During this period, crane
and rigging fatalities amounted to 4.1% of total construction
fatalities. (OSHA-2007-0066-0009).
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1427 would afford employers several options for
ensuring that operators have obtained sufficient knowledge and ability.
These options are designed to provide employers flexibility for meeting
the proposed requirement and to accommodate the needs of the U.S.
military.
Paragraph 1427(a)
    As drafted by C-DAC, proposed paragraph (a) would have required the
employer to ensure that the operator of any equipment covered under
Sec.  1926.1400 is either qualified or certified to operate the
equipment in accordance with the provisions of this section or is
operating the equipment

during a training period. OSHA notes, however, that C-DAC provided for
exceptions to the general rule for operator qualification/certification
in proposed Sec. Sec.  1436, Derricks; 1926.1440, Sideboom cranes; and
1926.1441, Equipment with a rated hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000
pounds or less. To make proposed Sec.  1926.1427(a) reflect the
exceptions provided in these sections, OSHA has added the following
language to proposed Sec.  1926.1427(a):

    Exceptions: Operator qualification or certification under this
section is not required for operators of derricks (see Sec.
1926.1436), sideboom cranes (see Sec.  1926.1440), and equipment
with a rated hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or less (see
Sec.  1926.1441).
Paragraph 1427(b) Option 1: Certification by an Accredited Crane/
Derrick Operator Testing Organization
    Proposed paragraph (b) sets out Option 1, in which the employee
becomes certified to operate equipment of a certain type and capacity
by passing an examination administered by an accredited testing
organization. Certification under this option would be ``portable,''
which means that any employer covered by the proposed standard could
meet the requirements of proposed Sec.  1926.1427 by using an operator
who had this certification. These certifications would be valid for
five years.
    Proposed section Sec.  1926.1427(b) incorporates a number of
safeguards to ensure that the Option 1 certification could be relied
upon by any employer to meet the requirements of Sec.  1926.1427, and
adequately establishes the employee's ability to operate the types and
capacities of crane for which he/she is certified. The first of these
safeguards is proposed Sec.  1926.1427(b)(1)(i), which would require
that the testing organization be accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting agency.
    As defined in Sec.  1926.1401, a ``nationally recognized
accrediting agency'' is ``an organization that, due to its independence
and expertise, is widely recognized as competent to accredit testing
organizations.'' The Agency notes that, under this definition, new
accrediting organizations would meet this definition upon establishing
a national reputation based on independence, use of widely recognized
criteria, and demonstrated competence in applying those criteria.
    For a testing organization to be accredited, the accrediting agency
would have to determine that the testing organization meets industry
recognized criteria for written testing materials, practical
examinations, test administration, grading, facilities/equipment and
personnel.
    In its deliberations, the Committee expressed concern about the
need for independent evaluation of certification programs. It believed
such evaluation is necessary to ensure that the certification programs
are adequately and consistently applying the requisite criteria for
safe crane operation when testing operators. This accreditation would
ensure that the testing procedures would accurately measure whether the
operator has met the knowledge and skill criteria specified in proposed
Sec.  1926.1427(j) (discussed below).
    Under proposed Sec.  1926.1427(b)(1)(v), the accreditation would be
required to be reviewed every three years, to ensure continuing quality
of testing materials and administration. The Committee believed that an
entity that meets the proposed definition for a nationally recognized
accrediting agency (``an organization that, due to its independence and
expertise, is widely recognized as competent to accredit testing
organizations''), would have both the expertise and independence needed
to provide reliable assurance that a testing organization meets the
proposed standard's criteria.
    The use of a nationally recognized accrediting agency to provide an
independent, authoritative assurance of a testing organization's
competence is a well-established practice. For example, for a number of
years, the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), the
accreditation body of the National Organization for Competency
Assurance (NOCA), has accredited testing organizations in a wide
variety of fields, including those that provide crane operator
certification. (OSHA-2007-0066-0021). Also, in 2003, the American
National Standards Institute began accrediting personnel certification
entities. (OSHA-2007-0066-0022).
    Another safeguard is in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(A),
under which a testing organization would be required to administer both
written and practical tests addressing the criteria set forth in
proposed Sec.  1926.1427(j). The Committee believed that operator
ability cannot be assessed reliably unless both written and practical
tests are used. In its view, operator ability depends both on knowledge
of a variety of subjects, which the written test would address, and the
ability to apply that knowledge, which would be addressed by the
practical test.
    Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) would require that different
levels of certification be provided, based on varying equipment
capacities and types. This proposed requirement is designed to ensure
that the extent of knowledge and skill required is commensurate with
the type and capacity of equipment the employee operates. For example,
an employee who only operates a hydraulic truck crane would not need to
also have the additional knowledge and skills necessary to operate a
lattice boom crawler crane. Similarly, an employee who operates only a
22 ton capacity hydraulic truck crane would not need to also have the
additional knowledge and skills necessary to operate a 300 ton
hydraulic truck crane.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Note that certification on a more complex and/or higher
capacity piece of equipment would typically qualify an operator to
operate less complex/lower capacity equipment of the same type. For
example, an operator certified for a 300 ton hydraulic truck crane
would not need a separate certification to operate a 22 ton
hydraulic truck crane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its deliberations, the Committee determined that requiring the
certification to be model-specific would be unnecessarily restrictive,
and instead agreed on the term ``type.'' In the SBREFA Panel Report,
the Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public comment on whether the
term ``type'' is sufficiently clear for this purpose. OSHA requests
public comment on whether this term is appropriate, whether it needs to
be defined (and if so, what that definition should be),\65\ and
suggestions as to what other terms may be better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ One possible approach, referred to by the SBREFA Panel,
would define ``type'' by using the categories of equipment
represented in Figures 1-10 of the ASME B30.5-2004 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the SBREFA process, several SERs described situations in
which an operator is very knowledgeable and skillful with respect to
one particular model of crane, but has very limited knowledge and
ability regarding other models and types of cranes. These SERs were
concerned that such operators would be unable to obtain a certification
based on equipment capacity and type. They believe that, since these
operators are well qualified to operate a particular crane model, there
should be a mechanism for them to become certified to operate that
model. The Panel recommended that OSHA consider and solicit public
comment on expanding the levels of certification so as to allow an
operator to be certified on a specific brand's model of crane.
Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, OSHA seeks public comment
on this issue.
    The SBREFA Panel also received comments from some SERs suggesting
that the standard should accommodate crane operators who were fully
capable

of operating particular equipment in a limited set of circumstances but
who would be unable to pass certification tests that required knowledge
and abilities beyond those circumstances. The Panel recommended that
OSHA consider and solicit public comment on expanding the levels of
operator qualification/certification to allow such operators to be
certified for a specific, limited type of circumstance defined by a set
of parameters that, taken together, would describe an operation
characterized by simplicity and relatively low risk. In response to the
Panel's recommendation, OSHA requests public comment on whether such
parameters could be identified in a way that would result in a clear,
easily understood provision that could be effectively enforced.
    Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(iii) would require that the testing
organization have procedures for operators to re-apply and be re-tested
in the event an applicant fails a test. This would help ensure that if
the employee initially failed to pass the test, the employee would be
able to retake the test and still have the opportunity to obtain the
certification.
    Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(iii) would also require that the
testing organization have procedures for operators to re-apply and be
re-tested in the event an operator was decertified. This would
similarly help protect an employer's expenditures for training and
certification testing.
    Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(iv) would require that the testing
organization have procedures for re-certifying operators designed to
ensure that the operator continues to meet the requirements of proposed
Sec.  1926.1427(j). The Committee believed that testing for
recertification would not need to be as rigorous as for initial
certification. This proposed provision was therefore included so that
recertification procedures appropriate for those who have already been
certified would be available.
    Under proposed paragraph (b)(2), the certification would be
``portable,'' which means that any employer of an operator certified
under Option 1 would meet the requirements of proposed Sec.  1926.1427
with respect to that operator.\66\ The Committee believed that
accredited testing organizations could be relied upon to consistently
adhere to the criteria in Sec.  1926.1427, since they would be fully
independent and their business interest would depend on their continued
accreditation. Therefore, it would be appropriate for all employers to
be able to rely on their certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See the explanation of the proposed definition of
``portable'' below in the discussion of proposed Sec.  1926.1427(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed Sec.  1926.1427(b)(3), the certification would be
valid for five years. The Committee believed that this is an
appropriate length of time to assume that, absent a specific indication
to the contrary, an employee would retain the knowledge and proficiency
demonstrated through the testing process.
    In the SBREFA Panel Report, the Panel indicated that some Small
Entity Representatives were concerned that there would be an
insufficient number of accredited crane operator testing organizations
and that many employers would not be able to set up and maintain an
audited employer program under Option 2 (see discussion of Option 2
below). At present, there are two testing organizations that have been
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting organization to
certify crane operators.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ These organizations are the National Commission for the
Certification of Crane Operators (NCCCO), which is accredited by the
National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) (OSHA-2007-0066-
0021) and by ANSI (OSHA-2007-0066-0025), and the Southern California
Crane & Hoisting Certification Program (SCCHCP), which is accredited
by NCCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C-DAC considered this issue and was of the view that, with a four-
year phase-in period, there would be sufficient time for the market to
respond to an increased demand for certification services. Some SERs
expressed a similar expectation. Nonetheless, the Panel recommended
that OSHA solicit public comment on whether it would be appropriate to
expand Option 1 so that an accredited educational institution could be
used to ``administer'' tests. In other words, under this concept,
Option 1 would be expanded so that an accredited educational
institution could administer written and practical tests that were
developed or approved by an accredited crane/derrick testing
organization. Many educational institutions currently have an
accreditation through a national or regional accrediting agency that is
listed by the U.S. Secretary of Education (SOE) or have an
accreditation by a State agency that has been recognized by the SOE for
approval of public post-secondary vocational education. Such an
expansion could broaden the availability of certification services.
    C-DAC considered a related concept in which an educational
institution or program accredited in this manner could both develop and
administer tests. However, it rejected that concept because the SOE-
related type of accreditation would be more broadly based on the
institution as a whole, rather than on its operator certification
program in particular.
    It is the Agency's understanding that much of the Committee's
concern in this regard was related to the development of the tests
rather than their administration. In other words, while considerable
subject-specific expertise is needed to develop accurate and reliable
crane operator tests, the expertise needed to administer such tests may
be similar to the expertise needed to administer tests in general.
However, there is a question as to whether this is equally true for
written and practical tests.
    Therefore, OSHA solicits public comment on these issues.
Specifically, the Agency seeks comment on whether Option 1 should be
expanded so that an accredited educational institution could administer
written and practical tests that were developed or approved by an
accredited crane/derrick testing organization.
Paragraph 1427(c) Option 2: Qualification by an Audited Employer
Program
    Proposed paragraph (c) sets out Option 2, in which the employer
would determine, through its own audited testing program, that its
employee is qualified to operate the equipment. The Committee
recognized that some employers, including those that have already
established in-house testing programs, may want to do their own testing
to meet the proposed Sec.  1926.1427 requirements. The Committee also
recognized that, for there to be a significant improvement in the
industry with respect to operator qualifications, it is essential that
there be a mechanism to ensure that such testing is accurate and
reliable. Therefore, under Option 2, the tests would be required to be
either developed by an accredited crane operator testing organization,
or approved by an auditor who is certified by an accredited crane
operator testing organization. In addition, the administration of the
tests would be audited.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) sets forth the requirements that would
apply to the contents and design of the tests (requirements for the
administration of the tests is dealt with separately in proposed Sec.
1926.1427(c)(2), discussed below) used in an audited employer program.
To ensure that the tests meet the industry standards for written and
practical examinations, they would have to be developed by an
accredited testing organization (as described in proposed

[[Continued on page 59813]]

]

[[pp. 59813-59862]] Cranes and Derricks in Construction

[[Continued from page 59812]]

Sec.  1926.1427(b)), or approved by an auditor in accordance with the
requirements of proposed Sec.  1926.1427(c)(1)(ii).
    An employer choosing to use tests other than those developed by an
accredited testing organization under proposed Sec.  1926.1427(c)(1)(i)
would be required to have the tests approved by an auditor in
accordance with the criteria in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(c)(1)(ii). The
auditor would have to be certified as a test evaluator by an accredited
testing organization. To ensure that the auditor's evaluation is
independent and impartial, the auditor would be prohibited from being
employed by the employer seeking evaluation of its qualification
program. Also, the audit would need to determine that the program meets
nationally recognized test development criteria and adequately assesses
the criteria in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(j).
    The Committee believed that these requirements are necessary to
ensure that the contents and design of the tests meet the criteria in
proposed Sec.  1926.1427(j) and generate valid and reliable results.
    The requirements for test administration that would apply under
Option 2 of this section are set forth in proposed Sec.
1926.1427(c)(2). Proposed Sec.  1926.1427(c)(2)(i) would require that
the auditor find that the administration procedures meet nationally
recognized test administration standards. The Committee believed that
this proposed provision is needed to ensure that the test results would
be valid and reliable.
    Under proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (c)(2)(iii), the auditor
would have to be certified by an accredited certifying organization as
described in Sec.  1926.1427(b), and would be prohibited from being
employed by the employer seeking the auditor's approval for its
operator qualification program. Finally, proposed paragraph Sec.
1926.1427(c)(2)(iv) would require that the audit be conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized auditing standards. The Committee
believed that, to avoid a conflict of interest and assure the integrity
of the audit, it is necessary to have the auditor be independent of the
employer and apply well recognized procedures for conducting the audit.
    The Agency notes that the proposed requirement that the audit be
conducted in accordance with nationally recognized auditing standards
would apply only to the audit of the administration of the tests, and
not to the audit of the contents of the written and practical tests. It
appears to the Agency that this was a drafting error, and that the
Committee intended that the entire audit be conducted in accordance
with nationally recognized auditing standards. Therefore, the Agency
solicits public comment on whether a new Sec.  1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(D),
reading as follows, should be added:

    (D) The audit shall be conducted in accordance with nationally
recognized auditing standards.

    Proposed paragraph (c)(3) addresses the need for an audit of an
employer's operator qualification program shortly after its inception,
as well as periodically thereafter. This would ensure regular and
independent oversight of employer-run qualification programs to verify
that operators are being tested according to nationally recognized
standards, on at least those qualifications set forth in proposed Sec.
1926.1427(j).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(4) would require an employer's program to
include re-qualification procedures, which would have to be audited as
described in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(c)(1) and (c)(2). The Committee
believed that this is necessary to ensure the operators' continued
proficiency with, at a minimum, the criteria set forth in proposed
Sec.  1926.1427(j).
    In the event an auditor discovers a deficiency in an employer's
operator qualification program, the employer would have to meet the
requirements set forth in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(c)(5). Proposed
Sec.  1926.1427(c)(5)(i) requires that no additional operators be
qualified until the auditor determines that the deficiency has been
corrected. Under Sec.  1926.1427(c)(5)(ii), the program would also have
to be re-audited within 180 days of the deficiency's correction to
ensure that the minimum qualifications in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(j)
were being adequately and consistently tested.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(iii) would require the auditor to file a
report of any such deficiency with the appropriate OSHA Regional Office
within 15 days of discovery. In addition, records of the employer's
qualification program audits would be required to be maintained by the
auditor for three years and, under Sec.  1926.1427(c)(5)(iv), would
have to be made available at the request of the Secretary of Labor or a
designated representative. The Committee believed that these provisions
are necessary to facilitate enforcement of the Option 2 requirements.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(6)(i), a qualification by an
employer's operator qualification program (Option 2) of this section
would not be portable. It was the Committee's view that the degree of
consistency in adhering to the proposed requirements of Sec.  1926.1427
is likely to be highest among accredited crane operator testing
organizations, since they would be fully independent and their business
interest would depend on their continued accreditation. That view is
reflected in full portability being restricted to certification under
Option 1 of this section.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(6)(ii), a qualification by an
employer's operator qualification program would be valid for five
years. The Committee believed that this is an appropriate length of
time to assume that, absent a specific indication to the contrary, an
employee would retain the knowledge and proficiency demonstrated
through the testing process.
Paragraph 1926.1427(d) Option 3: Qualification by the U.S. Military
    Proposed paragraph (d) provides that an operator would be deemed
qualified if he/she had a current qualification issued by the United
States military. Under proposed Sec.  1926.1427(d)(2), such a
qualification would be considered valid for the length of time
stipulated by the United States military, and would not be portable.
    At the C-DAC meetings a representative of the United States Navy
explained that, because of a variety of potential exigencies associated
with the mission of the United States military, i.e., national defense,
the military needs to be able to use its own qualification program, the
criteria for which may have to vary based on the circumstances.
Consequently, the criteria for qualification under Option 3 would be
left to the military to determine, including the length of time for
which such a qualification would be valid.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1427(d) must be read in light of Executive
Order (E.O.) 12196 (Feb. 26, 1980) and 29 CFR Part 1960, which exclude
military personnel (uniformed members of the Armed Forces) and uniquely
military equipment, systems, and operations from OSHA coverage.
Consequently, uniformed military personnel would not be covered by any
of this proposed standard and there would be no obligation under this
standard or E.O. 12196 for uniformed military personnel operating
cranes to be certified. Civilian employees of the Defense Department
and Armed Forces engaged in work encompassed by ``uniquely military
equipment, systems and operations'' similarly would not be covered by
any of the provisions of this proposed standard, including the
certification provisions. Therefore, even in the absence of Option 3,
the Department of Defense is free to impose whatever

qualifications it requires for crane operators who are military
personnel or civilian employees engaged in such work.
    Under E.O. 12196, OSHA standards apply with respect to a civilian
employee of the Department of Defense and Armed Forces who is engaged
in work that falls beyond ``uniquely military equipment, systems and
operations.'' Under that executive order, proposed Sec.  1926.1427
would be applicable to those employees. Therefore, the U.S. military
could use Option 3 by qualifying its own civilian employee operators
engaged in work that falls beyond ``uniquely military equipment,
systems and operations.''
    In reviewing this part of the C-DAC consensus document, the Agency
has determined that there is an ambiguity in the text of Option 3 in
that it does not clearly indicate whether it would also cover employees
of private contractors of the Armed Forces or Defense Department. With
respect to such private contractor employees, E.O. 12196 is
inapplicable and OSHA has the authority to promulgate qualification/
certification requirements regarding them.
    The Agency believes that C-DAC's intent was to have Option 3 be
applicable only with respect to civilian employees of the U.S.
military; it was not intended to include private contractor employees.
This intent is reflected in C-DAC's use of the term ``Not portable'' in
Option 3 and that term's definition. Proposed Sec.  1926.1427(d)(2)(i)
specifies that an operator's U.S. military-issued qualification is not
portable. Under the definition of that term in Sec.  1926.1427(m)(2),
such a qualification is valid ``only where the operator is employed by
(and operating the equipment for) the employer that issued the
qualification.'' Since private contractor employees are not ``employed
by'' the U.S. military, this indicates that Option 3 was not intended
to apply to them. Instead, Option 3 was intended to apply only with
respect to the U.S. military's own employees.
    Accordingly, OSHA is planning on changing the regulatory language
in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(d) to more clearly reflect this intent.
Specifically, the Agency is considering making the following changes to
proposed Sec.  1926.1427(d)(1):

    (1) For purposes of this section, an operator who is an employee
of the U.S. military is considered qualified if he/she has a current
operator qualification issued by the U.S. military for operation of
the equipment.

    In addition, in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(m)(Definitions), the
following definition would be added:

    (3) An ``employee of the U.S. military'' is a federal employee
of the Department of Defense or Armed Forces and does not include
employees of private contractors.

    OSHA requests public comment on this issue.
Paragraph 1427(e) Option 4: Licensing by a Government Entity
    This option would allow a government licensing department/office to
qualify crane operators. The Committee included this option because it
believed that some States have effective, reliable licensing
procedures, and that making use of them for purposes of proposed Sec.
1926.1427 would provide additional flexibility to employers. However,
in the experience of Committee members, there is significant
variability in criteria and administrative practices among government
licensing entities. Therefore, under this option, the license could be
used to meet the requirements of proposed Sec.  1926.1427 only if the
government entity meets the licensing criteria in proposed
1926.1427(e)(2).
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i) would require that the criteria used
by the licensing department/office address the knowledge and skill
requirements listed in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(j). Proposed Sec.
1926.1427(e)(2)(ii) would require that the government entity follow the
same test content, test administration and related criteria as required
under Option 1. Proposed Sec.  1926.1427(e)(2)(iii) would require that
the office with authority over the licensing department/office assess
the tests and procedures used by the licensing office/department and
determine that the requirements of proposed Sec.  1926.1427(e)(2)(ii)
and (e)(2)(iii) have been met. Also, the government licensing office
would have to have re-certification procedures in place as discussed in
proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.1427(b)(1)(iv) and 1926.1427(c)(4). The
Committee believed that these provisions are necessary to ensure that
the government licensing criteria and procedures yield valid and
reliable results.
    Under proposed paragraph (e)(3)(i), this qualification would be
valid only within the geographic jurisdiction of the licensing entity.
For reasons of federal-local government comity, the Committee decided
not to include a provision requiring the government entity to be
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency for purposes
of Option 4. In the absence of such accreditation, there is an
increased potential for variability in the degree to which the criteria
in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(e)(2) will be met. Consequently, the
Committee believed that, for purposes of meeting the requirements in
proposed Sec.  1926.1427, the validity of the qualification under
Option 4 should not extend beyond the geographical jurisdiction of the
government entity.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii) provides that the licensing entity
may determine the time period for which the qualification is valid, but
cannot issue a qualification intended to be valid for more than five
years. The five year maximum was included in the provision because the
Committee believed that this is an appropriate length of time to assume
that, absent a specific indication to the contrary, an employee would
retain the knowledge and proficiency demonstrated through the testing
process.
Paragraph 1427(f) Pre-Qualification/Certification Training Period
    This proposed paragraph addresses the requirements that would have
to be met for a trainee to operate a crane on the job while preparing
for qualification/certification assessment. Proposed Sec.
1926.1427(f)(1) would allow for the operation of cranes by employees
who are not qualified or certified, provided that they meet the
requirements in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(f)(2). Proposed Sec.
1926.1427(f)(2) would allow those undergoing training in preparation
for qualification/certification tests to operate equipment under the
conditions outlined in Sec.  1926.1427(f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(v). The
Committee believed that it is necessary for there to be a process by
which operators who are not certified or qualified can get experience
working with the equipment to help prepare for obtaining a
certification/qualification. This proposed paragraph would require
appropriate oversight of such trainees to ensure worksite safety.
    In the C-DAC consensus document, Sec.  1926.1427(f)(2) states that,

    An employee who has passed neither the written nor practical
tests required under this section is permitted to operate equipment
as part of his/her training where the following requirements are
met. * * *

    It is the Agency's understanding that the intent of the Committee
was to allow trainees who had not yet obtained a certification or
qualification to operate equipment on the job as part of the training
process as long as the criteria in Sec.  1926.1427(f)(2) were met.
However, the C-DAC language would allow such an operator to do this
only if the

operator had passed not yet passed both the written and practical
tests.
    The anomalous result of that language would have been that an
operator who had passed one of those tests but not both would have been
prohibited from operating the crane as a trainee under this provision.
Since that would have been contrary to the Committee's intent, the
Agency has modified that language for the proposed rule, which now
reads:

    An employee who has not passed both the written and practical
tests required under this section is permitted to operate equipment
as part of his/her training where the following requirements are
met. * * *

    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) would require that the trainee/
apprentice be provided with sufficient training prior to operating the
equipment to enable him/her to operate it safely under the limitations
listed in this proposed section and any additional limitations
established by the employer. This would ensure that, before beginning
to operate the equipment at the site, the trainee/apprentice would have
attained sufficient knowledge and skills to operate the equipment
safely as a trainee/apprentice.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(ii) would restrict the trainee/
apprentice's operation of the equipment to those tasks currently within
his/her ability. The Committee believed that this is necessary to
ensure that, throughout the training period, the tasks the trainee/
apprentice performs are always commensurate with his/her ability. This
provision would also allow the trainee/apprentice to perform
progressively more complex tasks as the trainee/apprentice develops the
necessary ability.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii) sets forth the requirements that an
employee would have to meet to be permitted to supervise the trainee/
apprentice's operation of the crane. The Committee believed that
setting the criteria for such supervision is necessary to ensure that
the equipment is operated safely during the training/apprenticeship
period.
    Under proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(A), the trainee/apprentice's
supervisor would have to be an employee or agent of the trainee's/
apprentice's employer. The Committee believed that this is necessary to
ensure that the supervisor would have the authority to direct the
actions of the trainee/apprentice.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(B) would require that the trainee/
apprentice's supervisor be either a certified operator (in accordance
with proposed Sec.  1926.1427), or have passed the written portion of a
certification test under one of the Options in proposed Sec.
1926.1427. In addition, whether the supervisor is a certified operator
or has passed the written test, the supervisor would have to be
familiar with the proper use of the equipment's controls.
    The SBREFA panel recommended that OSHA consider whether the
trainee/apprentice's supervisor should have additional training beyond
the qualifications required under proposed Sec.
1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B). This recommendation is addressed below in the
discussion of Sec.  1926.1430, Training.
    The Committee believed that this provision is necessary to ensure
that the supervisor has sufficient knowledge about the equipment to
enable him/her to effectively oversee the safe operation of the crane.
The Committee determined that a supervisor who had passed the written
portion of a certification test would not need to be sufficiently
proficient to pass the practical portion in order to effectively
supervise a trainee/apprentice. However, both in the instance where the
supervisor is certified and in the instance where he/she is not
certified but has passed the written portion of the certification test,
the Committee believed that it is necessary that he/she be familiar
with the proper use of the equipment's controls, since such knowledge
is essential to being able to effectively supervise a trainee/
apprentice.
    The C-DAC consensus document language refers to ``certified
operator'' and the written portion of a ``certification'' test.
However, under proposed Sec.  1926.1427, an operator may be either
``certified,'' which would be obtained under Option 1, or
``qualified,'' which would be obtained under any one of the other
options. The Agency believes that the Committee intended that as long
as the supervisor meets the qualification/certification criteria under
any of these options, or has passed the written portion of a test used
to obtain a qualification/certification under any of these options, and
all other aspects of proposed Sec.  1926.1427(f)(2)(iii) have been met,
the employer should be permitted to use that supervisor to supervise
the trainee/apprentice.
    In addition, the C-DAC consensus document language regarding this
provision states that a supervisor who is a ``certified operator'' may,
if the other criteria listed in the provision are met, supervise the
trainee/apprentice. Alternatively, the supervisor must have ``passed
the written portion of a certification test * * *.'' The Agency
believes that it was the Committee's intent that the certification or
written test that was passed be valid for the equipment that the
trainee/apprentice is operating. However, the C-DAC language, read
literally, would permit a supervisor with a certification or passing
score on a written test that was valid only for equipment other than
what the trainee/apprentice was operating to supervise that trainee/
apprentice.
    To conform proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(B) to C-DAC's intent,
OSHA is planning to modify that provision as follows and requests
public comment on this change.

    (B) The operator's supervisor is either a qualified/certified
operator under this section for the equipment the trainee/apprentice
is operating, or has passed the written portion of a qualification/
certification test for such equipment under one of the Options in
paragraphs (b) through (e), and is familiar with the proper use of
the equipment's controls.

    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(C) would require that the operator's
supervisor perform no tasks that would detract from his/her ability to
supervise the trainee/apprentice. The Committee believed that
permitting the operator's supervisor to engage in tasks that would
impinge on his/her ability to supervise the trainee/apprentice would
endanger the trainee/apprentice and other employees in the vicinity of
the crane.
    Under proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(D), for equipment other than
tower cranes, the operator's supervisor and the trainee/apprentice
would be required to be in direct line of sight of each other, and
would be required to communicate either verbally or by hand signals.
The Committee believed that this would ensure that the operator's
supervisor could rapidly and effectively give instructions to the
trainee/apprentice, especially for purposes of correcting the trainee/
apprentice.
    With respect to tower cranes, it was the Committee's view that the
height of the operator's station would typically make it infeasible to
maintain direct line of sight between the operator's supervisor and the
trainee/apprentice. For the same reason, use of hand signals is also
often not feasible. Therefore, the proposed provision would instead
require that they be in direct communication with each other. For
example, direct communication could be achieved by radio or other
instant electronic voice communication system.
    The Committee believed that it would be infeasible for the
operator's supervisor to supervise the trainee/apprentice 100 percent
of the time. Proposed Sec.  1926.1427(f)(2)(iv) is designed to set
criteria that would permit the trainee/apprentice to continue operating
the crane in the absence of the operator's supervisor for

short breaks under circumstances that would result in safe operation.
Those criteria would be as follows:
    Under proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(A), the break would be
restricted to no more than 15 minutes, and no more than one break per
hour. The Committee believed that this restriction is needed because
otherwise there would be a significant likelihood that the other
criteria (discussed below) would not be followed, and that the trainee/
apprentice would not receive the amount of supervision that is needed
to ensure safe operation.
    Under proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B), immediately prior to the
break, the operator's supervisor would have to inform the trainee/
apprentice of the specific tasks that the trainee/apprentice would be
authorized to perform and the limitations that he/she must adhere to
during the break. Under proposed Sec.  1926.1427(f)(2)(iv)(C), the
specific tasks that the trainee/apprentice would perform during the
break would have to be within the trainee/apprentice's ability. The
Committee believed that these provisions are necessary to prevent
injuries and fatalities that could be caused by a trainee/apprentice
operating a crane under circumstances that are beyond his/her ability.
    The Committee believed that there are certain circumstances in
which it is inappropriate for a trainee/apprentice to operate a crane
because of the complexity and/or heightened risks involved. Therefore,
for the circumstances listed in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(A)-
(D), the trainee/apprentice would be prohibited from operating the
equipment in all cases, even if the operator's supervisor believed the
trainee/apprentice had attained the necessary knowledge and skill.
    With respect to operations involving multiple-lift rigging, the
Committee believed that the difficulty and/or risk involved is not at
the same level as those listed in proposed Sec.  1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(A)-
(D). Consequently, as reflected in proposed Sec.
1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(E), while there would be a general prohibition
against a trainee/apprentice operating the equipment when multiple-lift
rigging is involved, an exception would apply where the operator's
supervisor determined that the trainee/apprentice's skills are
sufficient for this high-skill work.
Paragraph 1427(g)
    Proposed paragraph (g) would permit a testing entity to provide
training as well as testing services as long as the criteria of the
applicable accrediting agency (in the Option selected) for an
organization providing both services are met. The Committee was aware
of an impression among some people in the industry that a testing
entity could not get accredited if it also provided training. However,
after some research, the Committee determined that this was not a bar
to accreditation if certain procedures were instituted. Specifically,
an industry consensus standard, the International Organization for
Standardization (``ISO'') 17024, addresses entities that offer
certifications to individuals. It requires that no such entity offer
training unless the entity can demonstrate that the training is
independent of both evaluation and certification. This is intended to
preserve both confidentiality and impartiality in the testing/
certification process.
    Therefore, at least with respect to those accrediting agencies that
apply the ISO standard, a testing entity may also conduct training as
long as an adequate ``firewall'' exists between the two functions.
Proposed Sec.  1926.1427(g) reflects the Committee's intent to make
clear that a testing entity is not be prohibited from providing
training, as long as the applicable criteria have been met.
Paragraph 1427(h)
    The Committee deliberated about the need for operators to be able