Paragraph (a) of this section requires employers to comply with the
manufacturer procedures applicable to the operational functions of all
equipment covered by this standard, including the use of equipment with
attachments. ``Procedures'' is defined in Sec.  1926.1401 to include,
but not be limited to, ``instructions, diagrams, recommendations,
warnings, specifications, protocols, and limitations.''
    Two commenters opposed this provision. The first, a representative
from the building industry, stated that it was ``problematic'' to
``literally require employers to become familiar with and obey to the
letter anything written by a manufacturer related to a crane, no matter
how unwise, unnecessary, or infeasible.'' (ID-0232.1.) The commenter
also explained that crane manufacturers fear tort liability, which
causes them to over-warn in their manuals, and suggested that employers
needed to be able to use common sense to separate over-warning from
serious recommendations. The commenter argued further that this
provision constituted a delegation of authority inconsistent with the
U.S. Constitution and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and was
unsupported by the rulemaking record. A building industry trade
association agreed with the building industry representative's points
and advocated amending this provision to require operation of equipment
in a manner ``consistent with manufacturers' recommendations.'' (ID-
0214.1.) It also believed that the costs of complying with this
provision would be excessive.
    OSHA disagrees with the suggestion that this provision is
problematic because of the possibility that some equipment manufacturer
may conceivably develop procedures which are ``unwise, unnecessary, or
infeasible.'' Neither commenter provided any specific examples or data
in support of this assertion, and it is unreasonable to think that
crane manufacturers would develop such procedures. Like all product
manufacturers, crane manufacturers want satisfied customers and repeat
business, and OSHA has no basis to conclude, as the commenters suggest,
that they will alienate their customers by recommending unnecessary
procedures that will reduce the usefulness and productivity of their
products. Moreover, there are sound reasons to determine that following
manufacturer procedures will result in both the safe and productive use
of cranes. The manufacturer of a large and complex piece of machinery
such as a crane is thoroughly familiar with the machine's design,
components, and capabilities and is well-positioned to develop the
procedures that enable the crane to be used effectively and safely. The
commenters provided no basis for OSHA to conclude that allowing crane
users to pick and choose which manufacturer recommendations to follow
will promote safety, and OSHA does not believe this is the case.
Moreover, C-DAC's members had vast experience in crane manufacturing
and use and were well-positioned to determine whether compliance with
manufacturer's recommendations will promote crane safety. They
concluded that it would. In the absence of additional evidence, OSHA
defers to C-DAC's experience.
    OSHA also finds no merit in the building industry representative's
assertion that compliance with manufacturer recommendations should not
be required because manufacturers ``over-warn'' out of liability
concerns. The best way for manufacturers to avoid liability for
accidents involving their products is to recommend the precautions that
are needed to prevent such accidents, so their concern for tort
liability is fully consistent with the objective of this standard.
    Regarding the delegation of authority issue, OSHA notes that
provisions similar to this one, including provisions in the prior
cranes standard in former Sec.  1926.550, have withstood judicial
scrutiny on every occasion on which they have been challenged.\83\ See,
e.g.,

Associated Builders & Contractors v. Miami-Dade County, 594 F.3d 1321;
Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Brock, 862 F.2d 63, 68-69
(3d Cir. 1988); Towne Constr. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health
Review Comm'n, 847 F.2d 1187, 1189 (6th Cir. 1988) (finding the
physical impossibility of requiring OSHA independently to set safety
standards for every industry job classification and industrial
substance in the country justifies reliance on the fruits of private
efforts as governmental standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Among the many OSHA standards requiring compliance with
manufacturer information are: Sec.  1910.134, UI; Sec.  1910.184,
Slings; Sec.  1910.265, Sawmills; Sec.  1915.113, Shackles and
hooks; Sec.  1910.217, Mechanical power presses; Sec.  1926.451,
Scaffolds: General requirements; Sec.  1926.302, Power-operated hand
tools; and Sec.  1917.43, Powered industrial trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement in Sec.  1926.1417(a) to comply with manufacturers'
operating procedures is essentially the same as that imposed by former
Sec.  1926.550(a)(1) of the prior rule. As the commenter from the
building industry notes, former Sec.  1926.550(a)(1) was upheld against
a challenge that requiring compliance with manufacturer's
specifications and operating limitations is an illegal delegation of
authority to private persons. (ID-0232.1, citing Towne Construction, 12
BNA OSHC 2185 (OSHRC 1986) aff'd 847 F.2d 1187 (6th Cir. 1988).) The
Review Commission and the Sixth Circuit found that the prior rule's
delegation to manufacturers was circumscribed by other regulatory
requirements governing the design and construction of cranes. (See,
e.g., 12 BNA OSHC at 2186 noting design specifications in 29 CFR
1910.180(c)(1) applied to cranes covered by former Sec.  1926.550.) The
final rule contains design, construction and testing requirements that
are more comprehensive than those applicable under the prior rule.
These limitations on manufacturers' discretion are sufficient to defeat
a facial delegation challenge. 12 BNA OSHC at 2186, 847 F.2d at 1189.
See also Associated Builders and Contractors, 2010 WL 276669 *3 (OSHA's
adoption of consensus specifications for safe operation of cranes
``conforms with an intelligible principle'' and is therefore valid). To
require OSHA to independently determine and codify every safety
procedure for every configuration of every make and model of crane or
other equipment covered by this standard, as well as every attachment
or device that could be used with that equipment, would be unrealistic,
inefficient, and contrary to all jurisprudence on this issue. In light
of C-DAC's recommendations to include manufacturer procedures in
subpart CC, and based on the record as a whole, OSHA concludes that
requiring compliance with manufacturer procedures is an efficient and
appropriate means of ensuring safe maintenance, assembly and
disassembly, configuration, and operation of equipment covered by this
subpart. Therefore, OSHA is incorporating manufacturers' procedures and
recommendations into Sec.  1926.1417, and several other provisions of
this standard, where the Agency determines that it is the most
effective and appropriate way to accomplish the OSH Act goals.
    Two commenters objected to OSHA's inclusion of manufacturer
``recommendations'' in the definition for equipment criteria. (ID-
0205.1; -0213.1.) The commenters, however, provide no justification for
distinguishing manufacturer recommendations from other manufacturer
procedures. C-DAC determined that manufacturer recommendations were an
appropriate means of ensuring the safe use of equipment, and OSHA
agrees. Manufacturer recommendations, like procedures, specifications,
prohibitions, etc., instruct the user how to use the equipment safely
and in a manner most consistent with the equipment's design.
    Moreover, there is nothing novel in OSHA's reliance on manufacturer
recommendations. A number of OSHA standards already require compliance
with manufacturer recommendations. See, e.g., Sec.  1910.134,
Respirator protection; Sec.  1910.184, Slings. As noted above, the
former crane standard (in former Sec.  1926.550(a)) replaced by this
final rule included a broad prohibition based solely on manufacturer
recommendations: ``Attachments used with cranes shall not exceed the
capacity, rating, or scope recommended by the manufacturer.'' Yet no
court has invalidated an OSHA standard requiring compliance with
manufacturer recommendations, even though several containing such
language have been challenged. The commenters offer no new compelling
legal arguments for why OSHA should delete provisions requiring
compliance with manufacturer recommendations, and do not identify a
meaningful distinction between a manufacturer's recommendation,
procedure, instruction, or specification. Accordingly, OSHA is
requiring compliance with manufacturer recommendations as proposed.
    Finally, with respect to the suggestion to permit alternate
procedures provided they are ``consistent with'' manufacturers'
procedures, the Agency concludes that amending this provision in that
manner would be unacceptable because it would lead to uncertainty over
what procedures are ``consistent with'' the manufacturers' recommended
procedures. Therefore, this provision is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (b) Unavailable Operation Procedures
    Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, in the event that the
manufacturer procedures for operation are unavailable, the employer
will be required to develop procedures necessary for the safe operation
of the equipment and its attachments. The employer will also be
required to ensure compliance with such procedures. ``Unavailable
procedures'' is defined in Sec.  1926.1401 as procedures that are no
longer available from the manufacturer, or have never been available
from the manufacturer. For instance, procedures that are in the
employer's possession but are not on the job site, would not be
considered unavailable under Sec. Sec.  1926.1417(b) and
1926.1441(c)(2), where the same term is used.
    An example of a situation where procedures might be unavailable is
old equipment where the manufacturer is no longer in business. Even
where the original manufacturer became part of another company that is
still in business, in some cases the successor company no longer has
the original manufacturers' procedures for that equipment. In such
instances the employer will be required to develop and follow
substitute procedures.
    Paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section specify qualifications
criteria for those who develop two aspects of the substitute
procedures. Under Sec.  1926.1417(b)(2), procedures for the operational
controls will have to be developed by a qualified person. As defined in
Sec.  1926.1401 of this standard, ``operational controls'' are levers,
switches, pedals and other devices for controlling equipment operation.
A qualified person has the requisite level of expertise to develop such
procedures in light of both the complexity of the factors that must be
considered and the nature of the operational controls.
    Under paragraph (b)(3), operational procedures related to equipment
capacity would have to be developed and signed by a registered
professional engineer familiar with the equipment. The type and
complexity of engineering analysis that is needed to develop safe
procedures related to capacity necessitates that this work be done by a
registered professional engineer (RPE). In addition, because capacity
is so critical to safe operation, a signature by the RPE is needed to
ensure that this work is done with the requisite care. No comments were
submitted on this

provision; therefore, it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c) Accessibility of Procedures
    Paragraph (c)(1) of this section requires employers to provide the
operator with ready access in the cab to the procedures applicable to
the operation of the equipment, including the following: Rated
capacities (load charts), recommended operating speeds, special hazard
warnings, and the instructions and operator's manual.
    For the purposes of this standard, ``special hazard warnings'' are
warnings of site-specific hazards (for example, proximity of power
lines). This term is defined in Sec.  1926.1401 to differentiate these
site-specific warnings from all other general hazard warnings which are
common to typical construction worksites.
    Previously, former Sec.  1926.550(a)(2) of subpart N required rated
capacities, recommended operating speeds, and special hazard warnings
to be posted on the equipment, and instructions and warnings to be
visible at the operator's station. Unlike Sec.  1926.1417(c)(1) of this
standard, it did not require the operator's manual to be accessible to
the operator.
    OSHA concludes that the information in these materials, including
the operator's manual, is essential for safe crane operation. C-DAC
determined that this information is needed to help the operator avoid
performing operations beyond a crane's capacity and recommended
operating speed, and by increasing operator awareness of special
hazards related to a specific piece of equipment. In addition, C-DAC
determined that this information needs to be available to the equipment
operator in the cab so that the operator can obtain the information as
the need arises. If the information were not available in the cab,
operations would have to be delayed for the operator to leave the cab
and obtain the information elsewhere (or for someone else to obtain
them and bring them to the operator). The prospect of such a delay
would serve as a disincentive to obtaining the information and increase
the chance that operations would proceed without it.
    A building industry trade association stated its belief that the
cost of obtaining and maintaining manufacturers procedures applicable
to operation of the equipment would be excessive, and stated that
OSHA's contention that such costs would be ``modest'' was not supported
by the rulemaking record. (ID-0214.1.) This commenter did not provide
any substantiation for this claim. Based on the absence of this
support, and on the absence of other comments raising a cost objection
related to this requirement, OSHA concludes that the cost of obtaining
and maintaining manufacturers' procedures for equipment operations is
not generally viewed as significant, especially when weighed against
the potential economic and human costs of a crane accident. Moreover,
as noted below, the trend toward providing operating manuals and
procedures via digital media and over the Internet is substantially
lowering costs for acquiring and maintaining such information.
Therefore, OSHA defers to C-DAC's experience and is promulgating this
provision as proposed.
    It has become increasingly common for equipment to be supplied by
manufacturers with load capacities in electronic form. Because of the
potential for an electronic or other failure to occur that would make
that information inaccessible, Sec.  1926.1417(c)(2) addresses a
situation in which electronic or other failure makes such information
unavailable. Under this paragraph, where load capacities are available
in the cab only in electronic form and a failure makes the load
capacities inaccessible, this paragraph requires that the operator
immediately cease operations or follow safe shut-down procedures until
the load capacities become available again (in electronic or other
form). No comments were submitted on this provision; therefore it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)
    This paragraph requires that operators refrain from engaging in any
practice that would divert their attention while operating the crane.
This includes the use of cell phones except when cell phones are used
for signal communications. Operating a crane is a complex task that
requires an operator's full attention to be performed safely. This
paragraph addresses the risk that an accident can occur if the
operator's full attention is not directed toward that task.
    During the hearing, a witness from a lumber trade association
described the practice in which the operator controls an articulating
boom crane with a forklift attachment via remote controls and then
assists with the off-loading of the materials. (ID-0341.) He expressed
concern that the operator's participation in the off-loading of the
crane would violate Sec.  1926.1417(d)'s prohibition on ``any practice
that diverts his/her attention while actually engaged in operating the
crane.'' (ID-0341.) As a result, his company would need to use an
additional person for the delivery, raising costs. (ID-0341.)
    Section 1926.1417(d) would not necessarily prohibit the activity
that the witness described. If the operator uses the remote controls to
position the articulating crane and lock it into position before off
loading the materials, and does not simultaneously operate the controls
and offload the materials, the operator would not be ``actually engaged
in operating the crane'' at the same time as he is off-loading the
crane. The operator would also not be considered to ``leave the
equipment unattended'' so long as the operator has immediate access to
the remote controls. See discussion of Sec.  1926.1417(e) below. No
other comments were submitted on this provision; therefore it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (e) Leaving Equipment Unattended
    Paragraph (e)(1) of this section specifies when the operator must
be at the controls for safety-related reasons. These include making
necessary adjustments to keep the load in a safe position, moving the
load where necessary for reasons of safety (such as for the safety of
employees working with or near the load), and responding to emergencies
that may arise during lifting operations. Previously, under 29 CFR part
1926, subpart N, the operator of a crawler, locomotive, or truck crane
was prohibited from leaving the controls while a load is suspended.
    In the experience of C-DAC members, this requirement was routinely
breached when the load is ``held suspended,'' that is, without need for
adjustment of the load's or the equipment's position for an extended
period. In such circumstances, the operator does not need to manipulate
the controls for the period of time that the load is suspended and it
was a common practice for the operator to leave the controls. To
address this problem, C-DAC proposed that OSHA establish criteria that
allow the operator to leave the controls when it is safe to do so
rather than to simply continue the existing rule unchanged. (Note that
the suspension of working gear, such as slings, spreader bars, ladders,
and welding machines, is addressed separately in Sec.
1926.1417(e)(2).)
    Several commenters from the materials delivery industry noted that
various types of equipment in that industry can be operated by remote
control and expressed concern that Sec.  1926.1417(e)(1) would prohibit
the use of those remote controls and thereby require additional
personnel to perform the same task. (ID-0184.1; -0206.1.) To

be clear, the new standard does not prohibit the use of remote
controls. During the hearing on this rulemaking, a witness from a
lumber trade association testified that the use of portable radio
remote controls is common, and provided examples of operators with
their remotes strapped around their waists or their shoulders. (ID-
0341; -0345.13.) He explained that the ``operator is physically located
at the same location as the remote control and is therefore able to
perform controlled operations as quickly as an operator who is seated
at the top seat controls'' and ``can also be positioned to ensure that
there's no obstructed view.'' (ID-0341.) Such use would not be
prohibited. Where an operator takes the remote controls out of the cab,
keeps the controls within reach in the same manner as if in the cab,
and is able to use the remote controls to control the equipment as
effectively as if in the cab, the operator has not left the controls
within the meaning of Sec.  1926.1417(e). Therefore, the operator is
not subject to the conditions of Sec. Sec.  1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through
(iv).
    Section 1926.1417(e) requires that the operator not leave the
controls while the load is suspended except when four conditions,
outlined in Sec. Sec.  1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv), are met.
OSHA has revised the introductory text to make it clear that each one
of the conditions in Sec. Sec.  1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv)
must be met for the operator to leave the controls.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(i) requires the operator to remain adjacent to the
equipment and not engage in any other duties. This paragraph will not
only prevent unauthorized use of the crane by persons who are not
competent crane operators but also allow the operator to quickly access
the controls in case the equipment or load inadvertently moves.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) requires the load to be held suspended for a
period of time exceeding normal lifting operations. As explained above,
these are instances when the load is ``held suspended,'' that is,
without need for adjustment of the load's or the equipment's position--
for an extended period. These are circumstances in which the operator
will not need to manipulate the controls. Such circumstances must be
for a period of time in excess of the periods that occur during normal
lifting operations.
    For example, during the construction of a structure, a large
subassembly is being attached to another part of the structure. After
the subassembly has been initially connected, it is held suspended
(that is, without need for adjustment of position) for support for
several hours while the final connections are made. This period exceeds
normal lifting operations. In this example, the criterion of Sec.
1926.1417(e)(1)(ii) would be met.
    Another, contrasting example is the following: A steel structure is
being erected. When installing the steel beams, the operator holds the
beam suspended (typically for several minutes) while it is initially
connected. Holding the beam suspended in such instances is a normal
part of the steel erection process. In this example the criterion in
Sec.  1926.1417(e)(1)(ii) would not be met and the operator cannot
leave the controls.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) requires the competent person to determine
that it is safe for the operator to leave the controls and implement
measures necessary to restrain the boom hoist and telescoping, load,
swing, and outrigger functions. This provision addresses the hazard of
inadvertent movement while the controls are unattended.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) requires barricades or caution lines, and
notices to be erected to prevent all employees from entering the fall
zone. Furthermore, under this paragraph no employees would be permitted
in the fall zone, including those listed in Sec. Sec.  1926.1425(b)(1)
through (3), (d), or (e). This is necessary because the added margin of
safety that results from the operator being at the controls would not
be present in these circumstances.
    A labor representative recommended retention of the previous
prohibition of leaving any unattended loads suspended because it
believed that the four conditions for the exemption were unclear and
unenforceable. (ID-0199.1.) Specifically, the commenter stated that (1)
The term ``adjacent to the equipment'' needed to be further explained
or quantified; (2) further guidance was needed to explain the meaning
of the phrase ``a period of time exceeding normal operations;'' (3) the
Agency needs to clarify that the equipment operator can be the
``competent person'' referred to in this section; and (4) the proposed
requirement to erect barriers or caution lines to prevent employees
from entering fall zones are infeasible in many construction zones.
    Regarding the commenter's first two points, in light of the extreme
variability of equipment types, loads lifted, and construction site
conditions, OSHA determines it is not possible to use more precise
language without making the rule underinclusive and/or overinclusive.
Specifying a precise distance in lieu of saying ``adjacent to the
equipment,'' and a precise time in lieu of ``a period of time exceeding
normal operations,'' as the commenter suggests, would not be practical
in light of the numerous variables that affect these distances and
times on construction sites. OSHA also rejects the commenter's
suggestion that the previous prohibition be retained if it is not
possible to use more precise language. OSHA concludes that this is an
area where employers can be afforded flexibility without detracting
from safety, and that the limited conditions under which it is
permissible to leave a suspended load unattended will accomplish this
objective.
    Regarding the third point, the answer is ``yes,'' an equipment
operator can be a ``competent person'' for purposes of this section if
he or she meets the requirements of the Sec.  1926.1401 definition of
that term. Finally, where conditions in a construction site exist that
prevent erection of barriers or caution lines as prescribed by this
section, Sec.  1926.1417(e) prohibits employers from using this
exception to the general prohibition of leaving suspended loads
unattended.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2) stated that the provisions in paragraph
(e) do not apply to working gear, which includes slings, spreader bars,
ladders, and welding machines, where the load is not suspended over an
entrance or exit.
    The Agency noted in the proposal that the reference to paragraph
(e) was a drafting error and that the appropriate reference was to
paragraph (e)(1). In addition, the provision as proposed contained two
incidences of the word ``not'' which could lead to confusion.
Therefore, the Agency noted in the proposal that it was considering
changing the language to state that the provisions in Sec.
1926.1417(e)(1) do not apply to working gear where the working gear is
suspended over an area other than an entrance or exit.
    In the proposed rule, OSHA noted that it was common practice for
employers to leave lightweight items suspended overnight to prevent
theft and stated that this provision was only intended to apply to
working gear whose weight was negligible relative to the capacity of
the equipment. Four commenters believed that the proposed wording of
Sec.  1926.1417(e)(2) was overly broad to accomplish this purpose
because it did not limit the weight of the suspended working gear
relative to the capacity of the equipment and could therefore allow a
load that placed a significant strain on the equipment to be suspended
overnight. (ID-0122.1; -0172.1; -0178.1; -0199.1.) OSHA agrees with
these commenters that this

provision should be clarified and, in the final rule, has made explicit
what was stated in the preamble to the proposed rule: that the
provision only applies where the weight of the working gear is
negligible relative to the lifting capacity of the equipment.
Paragraph (f) Tag-Out
Paragraph (f)(1) Tagging Out of Service Equipment/Functions
    Where the employer has taken the equipment out of service, this
paragraph requires that the employer place a tag in the cab stating
that the equipment is out of service and is not to be used. Where the
equipment remains in service but the employer has taken a function out
of service, this paragraph requires that the employer place a tag in a
conspicuous position stating that that function is out of service and
is not to be used. This paragraph is designed to prevent hazards
associated with workers inadvertently attempting to use out-of-service
equipment or a function that is out of service.
Paragraph (f)(2) Response to ``Do Not Operate''/Tag-Out Signs
    If there is a warning sign on the equipment or starting control,
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section prohibits the operator from
activating the switch or starting the equipment until the sign is
removed by someone authorized to remove it or until the operator can
verify that (A) no one is servicing, working on, or otherwise in a
dangerous position on the machine, and (B) the equipment has been
repaired and is working properly. Similarly, under Sec.
1926.1417(f)(2)(ii), when there is a warning sign on any other switch
or control, the operator will be prohibited from activating that switch
or control until the sign has been removed by an individual authorized
to remove it, or until the operator meets the two requirements of Sec.
1926.1417(f)(2)(i), described above.
    These provisions will prevent two types of hazards. First, since
the machine is out of service, there is a risk that an employee
servicing, working on, or otherwise in a dangerous position on it is
not expecting it to be activated and would be injured if it were
activated. Second, if an employee does not know that the equipment is
malfunctioning or has a function that is not working properly, an
employee could inadvertently try to operate it with the result that the
equipment will not work as intended, causing unintended movement or a
collapse.
    Subpart N of the former rule addressed this issue through sec. 5-
3.1.3g of ANSI B30.5-1968, which states: ``If there is a warning sign
on the switch or engine starting controls, the operator shall not close
the switch or start the engine until the warning sign has been removed
by the person placing it there.'' Instead of requiring that the sign be
removed by the person who placed it, Sec.  1926.1417(f)(2) permits it
to be removed by an authorized person and, as an alternative, permits
the operator to start the equipment after verifying that no worker is
in a dangerous area and that the equipment has been repaired and is
working properly. OSHA concludes that either alternative would achieve
the safety purpose of the tag-out because it would ensure that a
knowledgeable and responsible person, either the operator or another
authorized person, verifies that repairs are complete and all workers
are in a safe position before the equipment can be started.
    As discussed above, the operator will be permitted to start
equipment that is tagged out, or activate a tagged-out switch, only if
the procedures specified in Sec.  1926.1417(f)(2)(i) are met. In
reviewing this provision during the proposal stage, the Agency noted
that these procedures were not as comprehensive as those in the general
industry standard for the control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout),
which are listed in Sec. Sec.  1910.147(e)(3)(i) through (iii).\84\ The
Agency requested public comment on whether procedures similar to those
in Sec. Sec.  1910.147(e)(3)(i) through (iii) \85\ would be feasible
and appropriate for cranes/derricks used in construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Section 1910.147 is not applicable to construction (see
Sec.  1910.147(a)(ii)(A)).
    \85\ These general industry provisions state:
    (i) Verification by the employer that the authorized employee
who applied the device is not at the factory;
    (ii) Making all reasonable efforts to contact the authorized
employee to inform him/her that his/her lockout or tagout device has
been removed; and
    (iii) Ensuring that the authorized employee has this knowledge
before he/she resumes work at that facility.
    Section 1910.147(e)(3)(i) through (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters opposed broadening the requirements along the lines
of the requirements in Sec. Sec.  1910.147(e)(3)(i) through (iii),
stating that the general industry standards were not appropriate for
cranes and derricks used in construction. (ID-0205.1; -0213.1.) A third
commenter believed that the Sec.  1910.147(e)(3) procedures were
feasible and appropriate. (ID-0144.1.) A fourth commenter recommended
that the tag-out requirements be upgraded to a lock-out requirement to
provide greater worker protection. (ID-0199.1.) A fifth commenter
agreed that a lock-out requirement would provide superior protection to
the proposed tag-out proposal, but that locking out was not feasible on
some equipment, especially older equipment. (ID-0187.1.) That commenter
recommended that the requirement be upgraded to a lock-out requirement
where feasible, but remain a tag out procedure where lock out was not
feasible. Upon consideration of all these comments, OSHA concludes that
the record does not clearly indicate that adding a lock-out requirement
as suggested by the last two commenters is needed to ensure safety and,
as the one commenter noted, would not be feasible on all equipment.
Instead, the Agency concludes that the tag-out requirement in the
proposed rule contains clear and concise restrictions on the conditions
under which equipment can be brought back into service and will ensure
that equipment is not started when employees are in a danger zone.
Therefore, this section is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (g)
    This paragraph requires the operator to verify, before starting the
engine, that all controls are in the proper starting position and that
all personnel are in the clear. Requiring operators to check that all
controls are in their proper starting positions will prevent unintended
movement of the equipment when the engine is initially started.
Similarly, requiring operators to ensure that all personnel are in the
clear will prevent personnel from being injured in the event that some
aspect of the equipment moves upon start-up. No comments were submitted
on this paragraph; therefore it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (h) Storm Warning
    When a local storm warning has been issued, this paragraph requires
the competent person to determine whether it is necessary to implement
manufacturer recommendations for securing the equipment. This provision
was designed to prevent hazards that could arise from severe weather
including inadvertent movement and crane collapse. High-speed winds in
particular can affect both the crane and the load, reducing the rated
capacity of the crane and affecting boom strength. No comments were
submitted on this paragraph; therefore it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (i) [Reserved.]
Paragraph (j)
    Under paragraph (j)(1) of this section, when the operator
determines that an adjustment/repair is necessary, the

operator is required to promptly inform, in writing, the individual
designated by the employer to receive such information, as well as the
next operator in cases where there are successive shifts. OSHA revised
the organization of the proposed provision for clarity. This
reorganization involved removing the introductory sentence that
operators be familiar with the equipment and its proper operation
because this sentence merely described an enabling condition necessary
for operators to identify any necessary repairs and adjustments.
    This paragraph addresses the need to identify problems that may
develop with the equipment during operations. Early recognition of such
problems by the operator will help prevent accidents that could result
from continued operation of equipment that needs adjustment and/or
repair. In the Committee's experience, operators who are familiar with
the equipment and its proper operation can recognize such equipment
anomalies and problems. By requiring that information about needed
adjustments and/or repairs be provided to the individual designated by
the employer to receive it, this paragraph will facilitate the
correction of those problems.
    The rule does not specify any particular job title for the person
to whom the operator would be required to provide this information
because different employers may assign the responsibility of receiving
such information to different job classifications.
    Providing this information to the next operator in cases where
there are successive shifts (that is, shifts that have no break between
them) will ensure that the next operator is aware of this information
and will be able to take appropriate action.
    One commenter recommended that the information be transmitted in
written form. (ID-0132.1.) OSHA agrees with this comment primarily
because written information would be more easily passed on between
shifts. OSHA has, therefore, revised Sec.  1926.1417(j) to specify that
the notification of necessary adjustments or repairs must be in
writing.
    Additionally, OSHA added Sec.  1926.1417(j)(2) to require employers
to notify, at the beginning of each shift, all affected employees of
any necessary adjustments or repairs. This requirement will allow all
employees affected by the operation of the equipment to be notified of
any outstanding repairs or adjustments, and provides them with
information about alternative measures implemented by the employer.
Affected employees are any employees exposed to equipment-related
hazards; such employees include, but are not limited to, any employee
in the fall zone of the load, signal persons, riggers, operators, load
handlers, and lift directors. OSHA concludes that this provision is
necessary to allow employees to adjust their work practices following
implementation of the alternative measures.
    The Agency finds this modification to be consistent with the
requirements throughout this subpart with respect to sharing
information about equipment-related hazards. This added provision
merely requires employers to take the information acquired under Sec.
1926.1417(j)(1) and distribute it to affected employees. Employers may
distribute this information by any effective means available.
Paragraph (k)
    This paragraph prohibits safety devices and operational aids from
being used as a substitute for the exercise of professional judgment by
the operator. Such devices and aids do not displace the need for
operators to apply their professional judgment because the devices and
aids can malfunction and lead to the types of safety hazards they are
designed to prevent. No comments were submitted on this paragraph;
therefore it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (l) [Reserved.]
Paragraph (m)
    If the competent person determines that there is a slack rope
condition requiring re-spooling of the rope, this paragraph requires
that before starting the lift, it must be verified that the rope is
seated on the drum and in the sheaves as the slack is removed. This
will prevent a loose coil of rope from becoming cross-coiled on the
drum, a portion of the rope coming off the drum altogether, or the rope
being pulled alongside (instead of seating in) a sheave. Each of these
conditions can lead to sudden failure of the rope. No comments were
submitted on this paragraph; therefore it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (n)
    This paragraph requires the competent person to adjust the
equipment and/or operations to address the hazards posed by wind, ice
and snow on equipment capacity and stability. In the proposed rule, the
person would have been required to ``consider the effect'' of those
elements, but OSHA is clarifying in the final rule that the competent
person must actually take steps such as re-calculating a lower load
capacity, stabilizing the equipment, or even postponing a lift. Wind
can reduce capacity by imposing loads on the equipment, which can also
reduce stability. Ice and snow can also reduce capacity and stability
when it accumulates on the equipment. There are numerous variables
involved in determining the effects of wind, ice and snow in any
particular circumstance, (for example, the extent to which the crane is
operating below its rated capacity, the sail effect presented by the
load, the rate at which ice or snow is accumulating, and whether the
snow is wet or light). No comments were submitted on this paragraph;
therefore it is promulgated as proposed with the one change noted
above.
Paragraph (o) Compliance With Rated Capacity
    Section 1926.1417(o)(1) requires employers to ensure that equipment
is not operated beyond its rated capacity. Overloading a crane or
derrick can cause it to collapse, with potentially catastrophic
consequences. This basic safeguard has long been recognized in the
industry as crucial and is designed to prevent such accidents. (See
additional discussion at 73 FR 59792, Oct. 9, 2008).
    Section 1926.1417(o)(2) requires employers to ensure that operators
are not required to operate the equipment in a manner that would exceed
its rated capacity, in violation of Sec.  1926.1417(o)(1) above. This
provision reinforces the general prohibition of Sec.  1926.1417(o)(1)
by making it a separate violation for an employer to expressly require
an operator to exceed the equipment's rated capacity. It is designed to
avoid a situation where an employer pressures an operator to conduct a
lift that exceeds the equipment's rated capacity to avoid the time and
expense associated with bringing in larger capacity equipment.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ In some instances the overcapacity problem can be avoided
by repositioning the crane (for example, by moving the crane so that
the lift can be performed at a higher boom angle). However, even in
those instances some time (and associated expense) is involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the experience of C-DAC members, employers sometimes will
attempt to lift loads that exceed a crane's rated capacity in the
belief that the rated capacity is sufficiently conservative to perform
the lift. In some such cases, the employer assumes that a safety factor
is built into the capacity rating and that the crane actually has a
higher capacity than its rating. In the C-DAC discussions of this
issue, members explained that while equipment capacity ratings are
developed with

consideration of a safety factor, that safety factor is not intended by
the manufacturer to be treated as excess capacity. There are numerous,
complex considerations used by manufacturers in setting the capacity
rating. Employers cannot safely assume that, in any particular
situation, they will not need the benefits conferred by the safety
factor.
    There continue to be a significant number of injuries and
fatalities resulting from equipment overturning. Although it has long
been a requirement not to exceed the equipment's rated capacity, a
significant number of overturning incidents are caused by exceeding
rated capacity. A study of fatal accidents involving cranes in the U.S.
construction industry for 1984-1994, based on investigations of
reported accidents conducted by OSHA and states with OSHA-approved
safety and health programs, showed that 22 deaths resulted from
overloaded cranes. A. Suruda, M. Egger, & D. Liu, ``Crane-Related
Deaths in the U.S. Construction Industry, 1984-94,'' p. 12, Table 9,
The Center to Protect Workers' Rights (Oct. 1997). (ID-0013.) By
stressing the need both to comply with the rated capacity and to
separately preclude employers from requiring operators to exceed the
rated capacity, paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) should prevent this type
of accident. No comments were received on these paragraphs, and they
are promulgated as proposed.
    Another cause of injuries and fatalities from overturning equipment
is the use of unreliable information on load weight. OSHA concludes
that one of the ways these incidents can be reduced is to require that
load weight be verified by a reliable means.
    Under Sec.  1926.1417(o)(3), Load weight, the operator is required
to verify that the load is within the rated capacity of the equipment
by using the procedures in either Sec.  1926.1417(o)(3)(i) or (ii).
Under Sec.  1926.1417(o)(3)(i), the weight of the load must be
determined in one of three ways: from a source recognized by the
industry, by a calculation method recognized by the industry, or by
other equally reliable means. An example of verifying the load weight
from a source recognized by the industry would be where the load is
mechanical equipment and the weight is obtained from its manufacturer.
The proposed rule had provided for the weight of the load to be based
on a ``reliable source.'' To avoid the potentially subjective
interpretations of ``reliable,'' OSHA is instead requiring in the final
rule that the measurements be from a source typically relied on in the
industry.
    An example of a calculation method recognized by the industry would
be the following: The load is a steel I-beam. After measuring the
thickness of the steel and the I-beam's other dimensions, the operator
uses an industry table that shows weight per linear foot for a beam of
these dimensions. The operator then calculates the beam's weight using
that information. In the proposed rule calculations would be based on a
``reliable source.'' To avoid the potentially subjective
interpretations of ``reliable,'' OSHA is instead requiring in the final
rule that the calculations be based on a source typically relied on in
the industry.
    If the weight of the load is determined under Sec.
1926.1417(o)(3)(i), the information about how the load weight was
determined must be provided to the operator, prior to the lift, upon
the operator's request. This provision is included to help ensure that
the operator has the information necessary to verify that the load is
within the rated capacity of the equipment.
    One commenter suggested that this section be amended to
specifically include as a reliable source the personal experience of
the operator with loads of similar size and materials. (ID-0232.1.)
OSHA rejects that suggestion because it is not convinced by any
evidence in the record that all operators, regardless of whether the
operator is experienced or has been on the job for a few weeks, are
capable of producing an accurate, reliable estimate of the load
weights. For example, an operator may have recently lifted precast
concrete sections that, based on date provided by the manufacturer,
weighed 5 tons each. The operator may be called upon to lift other
precast concrete sections of unknown weight that are actually 10%
heavier than those lifted earlier. It is unlikely that the heavier
sections would be significantly different in appearance than those that
weigh 10% less, and the operator may mistakenly underestimate the
weight of the sections if permitted to estimate load weight based on
his or her personal experience with loads of similar size.
    Paragraph (o)(3)(ii) establishes an alternative procedure that does
not require the employer to determine the actual weight of the load
under certain circumstances. Under paragraph (o)(3)(ii), the operator
would have to begin hoisting the load to determine if it exceeds 75
percent of the maximum rated capacity at the longest radius that will
be used during the lift operation, using a load weighing device, load
moment indicator, rated capacity indicator, or rated capacity limiter.
If the load does not exceed 75 percent of the maximum rated capacity,
the lift can be conducted without determining the weight of the load.
This verification procedure \87\ incorporates a sufficient margin of
error and would be adequate to ensure that the crane's rated capacity
will not be exceeded. If, however, the load does exceed 75 percent of
the maximum rated capacity, then the operator may not proceed with the
lift until he/she verifies the weight of the load in accordance with
Sec.  1926.1417(o)(3)(i). No comments were received on this paragraph,
and it is promulgated without change from the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ The operator would still be required to use his or her
professional judgment in determining whether the load exceeds the
capacity of the equipment. As discussed above, proposed Sec.
1926.1417 (k) would prohibit sole reliance by the operator on an
operational aid, such as a load weight device, for ensuring that the
equipment's capacity will not be exceeded. The procedure in proposed
Sec.  1926.1417(o)(3)(ii) is a verification procedure--it would
verify that the operator's estimate is at least correct in terms of
not exceeding 75% of the equipment's rated capacity (at the longest
radius that will be used). If, for example, the load weight device
yields a figure that is significantly below what the operator
estimates to be the true weight, the operator would need to reliably
determine the weight of the load before proceeding with the lift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (p)
    This paragraph requires that the boom or other parts of the
equipment not contact any obstruction. No comments were submitted on
this paragraph, and it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (q)
    This paragraph requires that the equipment not be used to drag or
pull loads sideways. This is to prevent the sideloading that occurs
when a load is dragged or pulled sideways. Sideloading can buckle the
boom, damage the swing mechanism, or overturn the crane (such as when
the boom is at a high angle). No comments were submitted on this
paragraph, and it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (r)
    Paragraph (r) of this section applies to wheel-mounted equipment
and requires that no loads be lifted over the front area, except as
permitted by the manufacturer. Wheel-mounted equipment typically is not
designed to lift loads over the front area. Equipment that is not so
designed will likely tip over or otherwise fail when lifting loads over
the front area. If the equipment is specifically designed for loads to
be lifted over the front area (such as where equipped with a front
outrigger for support and stabilization for this purpose), the operator
must follow the

manufacturer's procedures for doing so. No comments were submitted on
this paragraph; it is therefore promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (s)
    Each time an operator handles a load that is 90% or more of the
maximum line pull, Sec.  1926.1417(s) requires the operator to test the
brakes by lifting the load a few inches and applying the brakes. In
duty cycle and repetitive lifts where each lift is 90% or more of the
maximum line pull, this requirement applies to the first but not to
successive lifts, because the operator would have already determined
from the initial test that the brakes are sufficient. The brake test
required by this paragraph is designed to ensure that the brakes are
sufficient to handle loads close to their design capacity before
lifting the load high off the ground. No comments were submitted on
this paragraph, and it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (t)
    This paragraph requires that neither the load nor the boom be
lowered below the point where less than two full wraps of rope remain
on their respective drums. This provision is designed to ensure that
the rope is not unspooled to the point where the rope would become
disconnected from the drum. No comments were submitted on this
provision, and it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (u) Traveling With a Load
    Paragraph (u)(1) of this section prohibits traveling with a load if
the practice is prohibited by the manufacturer. If the manufacturer
does not prohibit this practice, the equipment may travel with a load,
but only if the requirements of paragraph (u)(2) are met. Paragraph
(u)(2) of this section sets forth three procedures that employers would
have to follow when traveling with a load: a competent person must
supervise the operation; the determinations of the competent person
must be implemented; and for equipment with tires, the tire pressure
specified by the manufacturer must be maintained.
    During discussions of this issue, C-DAC members noted the dynamic
effects of traveling with a load impose additional and/or increased
forces on crane components. Unless the crane has been designed to
handle these types of forces and force levels, they can cause component
failure, collapse, instability or overturning. The Committee concluded
that the manufacturer has the expertise to ascertain its equipment's
capabilities. Therefore, the Committee recommended that where the
manufacturer has prohibited traveling with the load, the operator must
comply with such a determination to ensure safety. (For additional
explanation, see 73 FR 59794, Oct. 9, 2008.) No comments were submitted
on these provisions and they are promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (v)
    This paragraph requires that rotational speed of the equipment be
such that the load does not swing out beyond the radius at which it can
be controlled. Like paragraph (q) of this section, discussed above,
this provision is designed to prevent the hazard of sideloading, which
occurs when the load swings to either side of the boom tip, rather than
its appropriate position directly beneath the boom tip. When the load
is not directly under the boom tip, sideloading occurs and decreases
capacity. This hazard can lead to tip-over or boom failure. No comments
were submitted on this paragraph, and it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (w)
    This paragraph requires that a tag or restraint line be used if
necessary to prevent the load from rotating if that would be hazardous.
No comments were submitted on this paragraph, and it is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (x)
    This paragraph requires that the brakes be adjusted in accordance
with manufacturer procedures to prevent unintended movement. This
requirement applies to all brakes on equipment covered by this
standard, including brakes used to control the lowering of the load and
those used to stop the equipment while it is traveling. C-DAC noted
that improper adjustment can cause a delay in the onset of braking
after the operator attempts to activate the brake and can also diminish
the brake's capacity. Brakes are critical to the safe operation of the
equipment and must be properly adjusted to serve their safety function.
(See additional explanation at 73 FR 59795, Oct. 9, 2008.) No comments
were submitted on this paragraph; it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (y)
    This paragraph requires that the operator obey a stop or emergency
stop signal, regardless of who gives the signal. Any person on a
worksite may observe a hazardous condition that is not visible to or
recognized by the crane operator and that can only be avoided if the
equipment stops immediately, so it is imperative that the operator
respond immediately to any such signal by anyone. No comments were
submitted on this paragraph; it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (z) Swinging Locomotive Cranes
    Pursuant to this paragraph, a locomotive crane must not be swung
into a position where railway cars on an adjacent track could strike
it, until it is determined that cars are not being moved on the
adjacent track and that proper flag protection has been established.
The Agency is including this paragraph to prevent contact between the
locomotive cranes and railway cars, and notes comparable requirements
in Sec.  1910.180(i)(6) and sec. 5-3.4.4 of ANSI B30.5-1968. No
comments were submitted on this paragraph, and it is promulgated with
only one modification. The proposed rule incorporated an additional
determination of whether it would be ``reasonably foreseeable'' that
other railway cars on an adjacent track could strike the locomotive
crane. OSHA concludes that when a locomotive crane swings into a
position where it is physically possible for a railway car on an
adjacent track to strike it, a hazard is present and the additional
language would serve only to generate confusion about the appropriate
response to that hazard. The concepts of reasonableness and
forseeability are typically raised during legal processes and would be
factored into those processes in accordance with law.
Paragraph (aa) Counterweight/Ballast
    Section 1926.1417(aa)(1) contains counterweight/ballast
requirements that apply to equipment other than tower cranes and are
intended to prevent unintended movement, tipover, and collapse. As
noted in Sec.  1926.1417(aa)(2), requirements regarding counterweight/
ballast for tower cranes are found in Sec.  1926.1435(b)(8).
    Section 1926.1417(aa)(1)(i) requires that equipment not be operated
without the counterweight or ballast in place as specified by the
manufacturer.
    Section 1926.1417(aa)(1)(ii) prohibits the employer from exceeding
the maximum counterweight or ballast specified by the manufacturer for
the equipment. Exceeding that maximum could result in component
failure, which could cause unintended movement, tipover or collapse. No
comments were submitted on this provision, and it is promulgated as
proposed.

Section 1926.1418 Authority To Stop Operation
    This section provides that whenever there is a concern as to
safety, the operator has the authority to stop and refuse to handle
loads until a qualified person has determined that safety has been
assured. Section 1926.1401 defines ``qualified person'' as a person
who, by possession of a recognized degree, certificate, or professional
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training and experience,
successfully demonstrated the ability to solve/resolve problems
relating to the subject matter, the work, or the project.
    Section 1926.1418 continues the long-standing requirements under
subpart N and current consensus standards. (See former Sec.
1926.550(b)(2), incorporating by reference ANSI B30.5-1968, sec. 5-
3.1.3(d).\88\) As discussed in the proposed rule preamble, a capable
equipment operator is highly knowledgeable in matters affecting
equipment safety and is well qualified to determine whether an
operation presents a safety concern (see 73 FR 59795-59796, Oct. 9,
2008). Under the provision, operations would be prohibited from
resuming ``until a qualified person had determined that safety has been
assured,'' meaning that operations could resume only after the
qualified person either: (1) assesses the factors that led the operator
to stop and refuse to handle the load and determines that there is not,
in fact, a safety hazard, or (2) after corrective action has been
taken, determines that there is no longer a safety hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Current consensus standards specify that an operator with a
safety concern must raise that concern with a supervisor before
proceeding with a lift. See sec. 5-3.1.3(d) of ASME B30.5-2004,
``Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,'' sec. 2-3.1.7 of ASME B30.2-2001,
``Overhead and Gantry Cranes,'' sec. 3-3.1.3(d) of ASME B30.3-1996,
``Construction Tower Cranes,'' sec. 6-3.2.3 of ASME B30.6-2003,
``Derricks,'' and other standards in the ASME B30 series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter argued that OSHA lacks the authority to promulgate
Sec.  1926.1418.\89\ (ID-0232.1.) First, the commenter contended that
the provision exceeds the Agency's standards-setting authority under
sec. 3(8) of the OSH Act. Second, it expresses concern that Sec.
1926.1418 circumvents the limitations on OSHA's ability to grant
employees (i.e., crane operators) stop-work authority. In support of
its position, the commenter cited the U.S. Supreme Court opinions in
Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute \90\
and Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall \91\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ The commenter nominated a C-DAC member who did not dissent
on this section of the standard. The commenter has not explained why
it has changed its position from the one taken by their C-DAC member
during negotiations. In light of the unexplained inconsistency of
its position, the Agency accords diminished weight to the
commenter's comment and is hesitant to rely on it to undermine the
product of the negotiation.
    \90\ 448 U.S. 607 (1980).
    \91\ 445 U.S. 1 (1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA disagrees with the commenter's contention that OSHA lacks the
authority to promulgate Sec.  1926.1418. Under sec. 3(8) of the OSH Act
and applicable case law,\92\ the Agency has broad authority to
promulgate standards that are reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful places of employment. In Whirlpool Corp., the
U.S. Supreme Court stated that the Act ``does not wait for an employee
to die or become injured.'' \93\ Section 1926.1418 is an essential
mechanism for preventing fatalities and injuries. It enables the person
who has the expertise to recognize a safety concern and is best
positioned to act quickly to do so where such a concern arises.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ E.g., Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO, 448 U.S. at 611-12.
    \93\ 445 U.S. at 12.
    \94\ As stated above, current consensus standards manifest the
industry's recognition of the necessity for a crane operator to have
such authority. In concert with Sec.  1926.1400(f), Sec.  1926.1418
requires the employer to authorize its crane operator to halt
operations upon a safety concern until a qualified person determines
that safety has been assured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA also disagrees with the commenter's contention that Sec.
1926.1418 impermissibly grants stop-work authority, as well as a
different commenter who asserted that the wording of the provision is
too vague and could lead to an abuse of the operator's authority. Both
commenters suggested that OSHA limit the operator's authority to
specific reasons involving a potential violation of a requirement in
subpart CC. (ID-0218.1; 0232.1.)
    The provision does not authorize an operator to stop operations for
reasons unrelated to a good faith belief that there may be a safety
problem. In this respect the provision is similar to other provisions
in the standard (and elsewhere in 29 CFR part 1926) in which an
employer is required to have a person in a specialized role perform
specific tasks involving the application of expertise (e.g., competent
and qualified persons performing inspections under Sec.  1926.1412). In
each case compliance with the standard is predicated on the good faith
application of that expertise.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Two organizations that nominated C-DAC members reminded the
Agency in their comments that OSHA had committed during the C-DAC
negotiations to include a discussion in the preamble regarding this
principle of good faith. (ID-0205.1; -213.1.) The Agency believes
that the foregoing paragraph satisfies that agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C-DAC thoroughly discussed the wording of this provision, mindful
of the need for both clarity and sufficient flexibility to enable the
operator to address myriad circumstances. The Committee's wording
strikes an appropriate balance. The word ``concern'' refers to a good
faith belief that safety may be in jeopardy. The word ``assured'' means
that the qualified person has assessed whatever triggered the crane
operator's belief that there was a concern as to safety and either: (1)
Determines that there is not, in fact, a safety hazard, or (2) after
corrective action is taken, determines that there is no longer a safety
hazard.
    OSHA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to link the
authority to a violation of subpart CC. While C-DAC and the Agency have
made every effort to address the hazards associated with crane and
derrick operation, there may be circumstances that present hazards that
have not been anticipated here.
    In addition, a particular situation may not be immediately
recognized as falling within one of subpart CC's provisions. An
operator's uncertainty in that regard could lead him/her to hesitate to
exercise the authority even where it needs to be applied. Also, the
determination by a qualified person to proceed with operations needs to
be based on whether safety is assured, not on the resolution of a
debate about whether the operator's concern fits within a provision of
this standard.
    Another commenter expressed the following concerns: ``qualified
person'' should be better defined; the qualified person would feel
undue pressure from the controlling entity or crane employer to find
that safety had been assured, and that the qualified person's scope of
responsibility once operations resume is unclear. (ID-0218.1.)
    As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the definition
of ``qualified person'' in Sec.  1926.1401 corresponds to the
definition of ``qualified'' in Sec.  1926.32(m) and reflects the fact
that the duties assigned to ``qualified persons'' here are similar to
those assigned under other construction standards. The Committee
intentionally used the same definition to make it clear that employers
could rely on their current understanding of ``qualified person.'' OSHA
sees no reason to deviate from that definition where the commenter did
not explain how it viewed the definition as vague or provide
alternative language.

    With respect to the issue of undue pressure on the qualified
person, C-DAC shared the commenter's concern; the Committee identified
pressure placed by some employers on operators to proceed with unsafe
lifts as a significant problem in the industry. This led C-DAC, for
example, to include the specific prohibition in Sec.  1926.1417(o)(2)
against requiring an operator to operate the equipment in excess of its
rated capacity (see the discussion of Sec.  1926.1417(o)(2) in 73 FR
59792-59793, Oct. 9, 2008). The commenter did not suggest, and OSHA is
not aware of, any additional measures that could be included in the
standard to help prevent the application of that type of pressure.
    As to the commenter's final point, after a crane operator stops and
refuses to proceed with operations due to a concern as to safety, the
qualified person would then assess the situation and determine whether
or when safety has been assured. At that point, the qualified person's
responsibilities under Sec.  1926.1418 would be completed unless and
until the crane operator identifies another concern as to safety. The
Agency, therefore, is promulgating this provision as proposed.
Sections 1926.1419 Through 1926.1422 Signals
    Sections 1926.1419 through 1926.1422 address the circumstances
under which a signal person must be provided, the type of signals to be
used, criteria for how signals are transmitted, and other criteria
associated with the use of signals.
    OSHA has decided to replace the term ``lift supervisor'' with the
term ``lift director'' in Sec. Sec.  1926.1419(c)(2), 1926.1421(a), and
1926.1421(c). This decision was made to be consistent with the similar
change from ``A/D supervisor'' to ``A/D director'' in Sec.
1926.1404(a). For an explanation of the change, see the discussion of
Sec.  1926.1404(a).
Section 1926.1419 Signals--General Requirements
    This section sets requirements regarding signals when using
equipment covered by this standard. C-DAC determined that addressing
these issues is one of the means by which the number of injuries and
fatalities caused by ``struck-by'' incidents, in which the equipment or
load strikes an employee, can be reduced.
Paragraph (a)
    Paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section address the
circumstances that require the use of a signal person: (1) When the
point of operation, meaning the load travel path or the area near or at
load placement, is not in full view of the operator (Sec.
1926.1419(a)(1)); (2) when the equipment is traveling and the
operator's view in the direction of travel is obstructed (Sec.
1926.1419(a)(2)); and (3) when, due to site specific safety concerns,
either the operator or the person handling the load determines it is
necessary (Sec.  1926.1419(a)(3)). The first two of these circumstances
involve an obvious hazard--limited operator visibility. With respect to
the third circumstance, C-DAC determined that other situations arise
that, from a safety standpoint, necessitate the use of a signal person
(see examples in the preamble to the proposed rule at 73 FR 59796, Oct.
9, 2008).
    One commenter, representing the interests of the material delivery
industry, suggested that Sec.  1926.1419(a) be changed to specify that,
if a signal person is needed at the site due to the obstructed view of
the operator when delivering building materials, then the construction
site customer (not the material delivery employer) would be responsible
for providing the signal person. (ID-0184.1.) OSHA concludes that the
question of whether the material delivery employer or the construction
site customer should bear the cost of providing the signal person when
required is an economic issue that is most appropriately left to the
parties to resolve.
    During the public hearing, a labor representative stated that his
organization believes that a signal person is always necessary when
working with cranes. (ID-0343.) Two commenters representing the
materials delivery industry disagreed (ID-0184.1; -0218.1.)
    OSHA has decided to defer to the expertise of the Committee, which
found that a signal person should only be required in the three
circumstances listed in Sec.  1926.1419(a). Moreover, OSHA notes the
requirement in Sec.  1926.1419(a)(3), which provides that a signal
person must be provided if the crane operator or person handling the
load determines a signal person is necessary due to site specific
safety concerns. This provision, in particular, ensures that a signal
person will be required when necessary.
    One commenter asked for clarification on the meaning of ``full view
of the operator'' in Sec.  1926.1419(a)(1). (ID-292.1.) In particular,
the commenter asked whether mirror or camera systems would meet this
requirement. Another commenter suggested adding language allowing the
use of boom mounted video cameras for blind lifts. (ID-0120.0.)
    A live video system that provides a full view to the crane
operator--i.e., provides a sufficiently broad, clear and detailed view
to enable the operator to see all that is needed to operate the
equipment safely--would meet the ``full view of the operator''
requirement. Mirrors, on the other hand, typically distort images or
distances and thus would not normally be sufficient to provide a ``full
view.''
    The sufficiency of any system will depend on the particular needs
posed by each situation. For this reason, OSHA has decided to rely on
C-DAC's clear and succinct phrase, ``full view of the operator,''
rather than to attempt to further define that concept or to list
acceptable devices in the regulatory text.
Paragraph (b) Types of Signals
    As explained in the proposed rule preamble, under paragraph (b) of
this section, signals to crane operators would have to be by hand,
voice, audible, or ``new'' signals (see 73 FR 59796-59797, Oct. 9,
2008). As used in this standard, these terms refer to the type of
signal, not the means by which the signal is transmitted. For example,
signaling by voice refers to oral communication, not whether the oral
communication is done with or without amplification or with or without
electronic transmission. The manner of transmission of the signal is
addressed separately. No comments were received on this paragraph; it
is promulgated as proposed.
    The criteria for the use of these signal types are set out in
Sec. Sec.  1926.1419(c)-(m) (additional voice signal requirements are
in Sec.  1926.1421, Signals--voice signals--additional requirements).
The Committee's intent was to reduce the potential for
miscommunication, which can lead to injuries and fatalities,
particularly from ``struck-by'' and ``crushed-by'' incidents. In
setting parameters for the use of the various types of existing signal
methods, and for signal methods that may be developed in the future,
the Committee sought to promote a degree of standardization while still
allowing appropriate flexibility. In addition, the provisions are
designed to ensure that the selection of signal type and means of
sending the signals are appropriate under the circumstances and
reliable.
Paragraph (c) Hand Signals
    Paragraph (c) of this section addresses the use of hand signals.
The industry has long recognized the need for consistent, universal
hand signals to

minimize the potential for miscommunication between signal persons and
operators. ANSI B30.5-1968, ``Crawler, Locomotive and Truck Cranes,''
contains illustrations of hand signals that are the same as the current
2004 edition of ASME B30.5 and that are consistent with hand signals
for other types of cranes in ASME B30 standards. The same hand signals
have been expressed in similar charts published by a variety of other
groups. (See, e.g., Construction Safety Association of Ontario, MIOSHA,
MSHA.)
    Because of the industry's long familiarity with these standard hand
signals, C-DAC determined that, when using hand signals, the
standardized version of the signals should continue to be required.
These signals, which are located in Appendix A, are referred to as the
``Standard Method,'' and this term is defined in Sec.  1926.1401 as
``the protocol in Appendix A for hand signals.'' However, the Committee
recognized that there are instances when use of the Standard Method is
either infeasible or where there is no Standard Method signal
applicable to the work being done.
    In such instances, under this paragraph, non-standard signals may
be used. To avoid confusion when non-standard signals are used,
proposed Sec.  1926.1419(c)(2) requires that the signal person, crane
operator, and lift director (where there is one) meet prior to the
operation to agree upon the signals that will be used.
    At the public hearing, one witness commented that the use of non-
standard hand signals should not be allowed because it would
unnecessarily confuse contractors and utility workers, and because
standard signals are already used in the industry. (ID-345.17.) OSHA
defers to the expertise of the Committee, which found that a non-
standard signal may be needed on occasion (see 73 FR 59797, Oct. 9,
2008, in which the Agency described examples of such situations).
Additionally, it should be noted that Sec.  1926.1419(c) requires the
use of Standard Method hand signals and permits an exception only where
the Standard Method signals are infeasible or where there is no
Standard Method signal for the particular attachment.
    One commenter pointed out that there are currently no hand signals
specific to articulating cranes and asked which signals OSHA intended
to be used with articulating cranes. (ID-0206.1.) The record contains
no information on the extent to which hand signals for articulating
cranes may differ from those used for other cranes. If the use of
Standard Method hand signals is either infeasible for articulating
cranes, or if the use or operation of an attachment is not covered by
the Standard Method, then the exception in Sec.  1926.1419(c)(1) and
the requirements for non-standard hand signals in Sec.  1926.1419(c)(2)
would apply.
    OSHA is only making two changes, neither of which is substantive,
from Sec.  1926.1419(c) as proposed. The first is a grammatical
correction, and the second merely removes the superfluous direction
that ``[t]he following requirements apply to the use of non-standard
hand signals,'' which is already clear from the text of Sec.
1926.1419(c)(2).
Paragraph (d) New Signals
    Paragraph (d) of this section allows signals other than hand,
voice, or audible signals to be used if certain criteria are met. As
explained in the discussion of Sec.  1926.1419(b) in the preamble to
the proposed rule, C-DAC included Sec.  1926.1419(d) to allow for the
development of new signals in the future (see 73 FR 59796-59797, Oct.
9, 2008). To ensure that any new signals developed by a particular
employer are as effective as hand, voice, or audible signals,
Sec. Sec.  1926.1419(d)(1) and (d)(2) require the employer to
demonstrate that the new signals are as effective as existing signals
for communicating. Alternatively, an employer may use signals that
comply with a national consensus standard.\96\ OSHA decided to change
the language of paragraph (d)(2) to clarify that an employer's signals
must comply with the national consensus standard signals. C-DAC
determined it was appropriate to allow reliance on signals in a
national consensus standard because their inclusion in such a standard
shows a high degree of standardization and widespread acceptance by
persons who are affected by the signals, thereby ensuring that the
signals can be used safely to control equipment operations and
preventing the ``on the fly'' development of signals cited as dangerous
by the commenter. (ID-0110.1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ The C-DAC draft refers to an ``industry consensus
standard.'' OSHA has changed this to ``national consensus standard''
to conform to the terminology used in the OSH Act. See definition in
section 3(9) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (e) Suitability
    Under paragraph (e) of this section, the type of signal (hand,
voice, audible, or new) and the transmission method used must be
suitable for the site conditions. For example, hand signals would not
be suitable if site conditions do not allow for the signal person to be
within the operator's line of sight. Radio signals would not be
suitable if electronic interference on the site prohibits the signals
from being readily understood.
    One commenter requested that the determination of which type and
means of signaling is appropriate for the site conditions be made by
the crane operator or other qualified person. (ID-0172.1.)
    The Agency concludes that this is a straight-forward determination
that does not require the specialized expertise of a qualified person.
Also, the crane operator will typically be involved in this
determination, since there are several requirements relating to
effective communication that, as a practical matter, will typically
involve input from the operator (see, for example, Sec. Sec.
1926.1419(f), 1926.1420(a), and 1926.1421(c)).
Paragraph (f)
    Paragraph (f) of this section requires the ability to transmit
signals between the operator and signal person to be maintained. If
that ability is interrupted, the operator is required to safely stop
operations until signal transmission is reestablished and a proper
signal is given and understood. No comments were received on this
provision; it is included in the final rule without change.
Paragraph (g)
    As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, paragraph (g) of
this section requires the operator to stop operations if the operator
becomes aware of a safety problem and needs to communicate with the
signal person (see 73 FR 59797, Oct. 9, 2008). Operations may only be
resumed after the operator and signal person agree that the problem has
been resolved.
    No comments were received on this provision; it is included in the
final rule without change.
Paragraphs (h) and (j)
    Paragraph (h) of this section requires that only one person at a
time signal the operator. As explained in the preamble to the proposed
rule, C-DAC determined this provision was needed to prevent confusion
with respect to which signals the operator is supposed to follow (see
73 FR 59797, Oct. 9, 2008). An exception is provided in Sec.
1926.1419(j) to address situations when somebody becomes aware of a
safety problem and gives an emergency stop signal. Under Sec.
1926.1417(y), the operator is required to obey such a signal. No
comments were received on either of these provisions; they are

included in the final rule without substantive change. OSHA has
modified paragraph (h) to clarify that it is a requirement.
Paragraph (i) [Reserved.]
Paragraph (k)
    As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, paragraph (k) of
this section requires that all directions given to the operator by the
signal person be given from the operator's direction perspective,
meaning that the signal person must provide the signals as if he or she
was sitting in the operator's seat and facing the same direction as the
operator (see 73 FR 59797, Oct. 9, 2008). In the Committee's
experience, the operator will tend to react to a directional signal,
such as ``forward,'' by acting on the signal from the operator's
perspective. This provision ensures that the signal that is given will
be consistent with that natural tendency. No comments were received on
this provision; it is included in the final rule without change.
Paragraph (l) [Reserved.]
Paragraph (m) Communication With Multiple Cranes/Derricks
    Paragraph (m) of this section addresses a situation where one or
more signal person(s) is in communication with more than one crane or
derrick (for example, during multiple crane lifts). It requires each
signal person to use an effective means of identifying which crane or
derrick the signal is for. Sections 1926.1419(m)(i) and (ii) set out
alternate means of complying with this requirement. Under Sec.
1926.1419(m)(i), for each signal the signal person must, prior to
giving the function/direction, identify the crane/derrick for which the
signal is intended. Alternatively, under Sec.  1926.1419(m)(ii), the
employer could implement a method of identifying the crane/derrick for
which the signal is intended that is as effective as the system in
Sec.  1926.1419(m)(i). For example, under Sec.  1926.1419(m)(ii), the
signal person could simultaneously identify the crane and provide the
signal. Because of the potential for confusion, it is essential that an
alternative system under Sec.  1926.1419(m)(ii) be equally effective as
Sec.  1926.1419(m)(i) in clearly conveying, on a consistent basis, the
crane/derrick to which each signal is directed. No comments were
received on this provision; it is included in the final rule without
substantive change. The wording of the paragraph has been modified with
several minor grammatical changes.
Section 1926.1420 Signals--Radio, Telephone, or Other Electronic
Transmission of Signals
    C-DAC concluded that certain criteria are needed to ensure the
reliability and clarity of electronically transmitted signals; these
criteria are listed in Sec. Sec.  1926.1420(a) through (c). Paragraph
(a) of this section requires the testing of the transmission devices
prior to the start of operations to make certain that the signals are
clear and that the devices are reliable. This helps ensure that the
operator receives, and can understand, the signals that are given, and
will prevent accidents caused by miscommunication.
    One commenter, remarking that a second or two of delay may still
pose a significant safety hazard, suggested that Sec.  1926.1420(b) be
amended to read, ``Signal transmission must be through a dedicated
channel without noticeable delay * * *.'' (ID-0172.1.)
    OSHA agrees that a noticeable delay in transmission of an
electronic signal could pose a significant hazard and has decided to
address this concern by adding the requirement that signal transmission
be ``effective.'' To be effective, a transmitted signal must produce or
be capable of producing the intended result. In other words, a signal
must be transmitted and understood by the crane operator in such a way
and within such a time as would allow the operator to respond to the
signal and operate the crane in a safe manner.
    Paragraph (b) of this section requires that signals be transmitted
through a dedicated channel. As defined in Sec.  1926.1401, a
``dedicated channel'' is ``a line of communication assigned by the
employer who controls the communication system to only one signal
person and crane/derrick or to a coordinated group of cranes/derricks/
signal person(s).'' Use of a dedicated channel ensures that the
operator and signal person are not interrupted by users performing
other tasks or confused or distracted by instructions not intended for
them.
    An exception to Sec.  1926.1419(b) allows more than one signal
person and more than one crane/derrick operator to share a dedicated
channel in multiple crane/derrick situations for coordinating
operations. The Committee determined, and OSHA agrees, that this
exception is needed because, in those situations, it may be
advantageous to share a single dedicated channel. For example, in some
situations several cranes may be operating in an area in which their
booms, loads or load lines could come in contact with each other. In
such cases it is crucial that the movements of each crane be properly
coordinated. By sharing a single channel, each operator can hear what
each crane is being asked to do, which can facilitate that
coordination.
    Several commenters representing the railroad industry raised
concerns about the dedicated channel requirement as it relates to the
use of cranes on or adjacent to railroad tracks. (ID-0170.1; -0176.1; -
0291.1.) These commenters pointed out that the actions of crane
operators often have to be coordinated with other moving equipment
(e.g. trains) and that the use of a dedicated channel in these
circumstances would actually be more dangerous.
    The commenters' points in this regard are persuasive; OSHA has
accordingly added Sec.  1926.1420(b)(2). This allows an exception to
the use of a dedicated channel when a crane is being operated on or
near railroad tracks and the crane operator must coordinate with the
movement of other equipment on or near the railroad tracks.
    Paragraph (c) of this section requires that the operator's
reception be by a hands-free system. In other words, the operator must
not have to depress a button, manipulate a switch, or take any action
for the incoming signal to be received. C-DAC determined that this
provision is needed because the operator must have both hands free to
manipulate the equipment's controls. No comments were received on this
provision; it is included in the final rule without change.
Section 1926.1421 Signals--Voice Signals--Additional Requirements
    C-DAC considered whether the rule should include a standardized set
of voice signals. Unlike hand signals, which have become standardized
to a large extent within the industry, in the Committee members'
experience there is significant variation in the phrases used to convey
the same instructions. Consequently, C-DAC was concerned that words or
phrases that it might have chosen to be ``standard'' voice signals
could be unfamiliar to many employees in the industry or contrary to
common usage in some parts of the country. In light of this, the
Committee determined that it would be better to use a different
approach to address the problem of miscommunication when using voice
signals. This approach, which establishes criteria for whatever voice
signals are used, is set out in Sec. Sec.  1926.1421(a)-(c).
    Under paragraph (a) of this section, prior to beginning operations,
the personnel involved with signals--the crane operator, signal person
and lift director (if there is one)--are required to

meet and agree on the voice signals that will be used. Because of the
lack of standardization and the variety of languages that are in use in
the construction industry, the Committee concluded that it is essential
that the persons who give and/or receive voice signals agree in advance
on the signals that will be used to avoid miscommunication. OSHA
agrees. Once the parties have met and agreed on the voice signals,
another meeting is not required to discuss them unless another worker
is added or substituted, there is some confusion about the signals, or
a signal needs to be changed.
    Section 1926.1421(b) requires that each voice signal contain the
following three elements, given in the following order: function (such
as hoist, boom, etc.), direction; distance and/or speed; function, stop
command. For example: hoist up; 10 feet; hoist stop. As discussed
above, the Committee considered it impractical to attempt to
standardize the voice signals themselves (that is, to require the use
of particular words to represent particular functions, directions or
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. OSHA agrees.
    Section 1926.1421(c) requires the crane operator, signal person,
and lift director (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 that occur when, for example, the crane
operator moves a load in a different direction than the signal person
intends.
    One commenter suggested that uniform verbal signals were necessary
to limit the likelihood of miscommunications resulting from language
barriers. (ID-0379.1.) Three commenters suggested that OSHA establish
uniform verbal signals enhanced by diagrams and pictures. (ID-0110.1; -
0115.1; -0178.1.) Two of these commenters suggested that OSHA require
these verbal signal charts to be conspicuously posted in the vicinity
of the hoisting operations. (ID-0110.1; -0115.1.)
    As discussed above, C-DAC considered whether the rule should
include a standardized set of voice signals and decided that it would
not be practical to do so. It did, however, address the potential for
miscommunication by developing the requirements in Sec.  1926.1421(a)
(requiring a meeting between the operator, signal person and lift
director to determine which verbal signals will be used). Having
received no evidence to the contrary, OSHA has decided to defer to the
expertise of the Committee, and is promulgating this requirement
without substantive change. The word ``shall'' is replaced with
``must'' in paragraphs (b) and (c) to remove any doubt that the
sentences are imperative commands, rather than descriptive.
Section 1926.1422 Signals--Hand Signal Chart
    Section 1926.1422 requires that hand signal charts be posted on the
equipment or readily available at the site. OSHA is requiring the
charts to be posted to serve as a reference for operators and signal
persons of the mandatory hand signals and thereby help avoid
miscommunication.
    Three commenters suggested that Sec.  1926.1422 be rewritten to
require that the hand signal charts be ``conspicuously posted in the
vicinity of'' the hoisting operations, rather than merely making them
``readily available at the site'' as proposed. (ID-0110.1; -0115.1; -
0178.1.)
    Upon further reflection, the Agency acknowledges that the original
language (that the hand signal chart could be ``readily available at
the site'') did not afford the same amount of protection afforded by
``conspicuously posted in the vicinity of the hoisting operations.''
For example, a hand signal chart stored in a shop trailer on the other
side of the site or obscured from sight by other objects might be
``readily available at the site,'' but it would do little to ensure
that the chart would be accessed by employees where it is needed. It is
the Agency's intent that employees be able to access the chart quickly.
OSHA therefore decided to modify the language of Sec.  1926.1422 to
require that signal charts be conspicuously posted in the vicinity of
hoisting operations, or on the equipment.
Section 1926.1423 Fall Protection
    This section contains provisions designed to protect workers on
equipment covered by this subpart from fall hazards. (See Sec.
1926.1431, Hoisting Personnel, for fall protection provisions that
apply when equipment is used to hoist personnel).
    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 (ID-0023) and 394 in 2005 (ID-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). (ID-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.)
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the Committee
determined that safety would be enhanced by addressing the problem of
fall hazards associated with cranes and derricks comprehensively and
that putting all such requirements in subpart CC would make it easier
for employers to readily determine the applicable fall protection
requirements (see 73 FR 59799, Oct. 9, 2008). Accordingly, under the
final rule, subpart M does not apply to equipment covered by subpart CC
except where Sec.  1926.1423 incorporates requirements of subpart M by
reference.
    In this regard, the Agency has amended subpart M at Sec.
1926.500(a)(2)(ii) to make clear that subpart CC specifies the
circumstances in which fall protection must be provided to workers on
equipment covered by subpart CC. The Agency has also amended Sec.
1926.500(a)(3) to state that the criteria for fall protection systems
required under subpart CC are as set forth in Sec.  1926.1423 of
subpart CC. In addition, Sec.  1926.500(a)(4) has been amended to
specify that the training requirements in Sec.  1926.503 do not apply
to the use of equipment covered by subpart CC. These amendments to
Sec.  1926.500 are discussed in the explanation of amendments to
subpart M.
Definition of ``Fall Protection Equipment''
    ``Fall protection equipment'' is defined in Sec.  1926.1401, and is
limited to guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest
systems, positioning device systems, and fall restraint systems. One
commenter stated that this definition should be changed to that found
in ANSI/ASSE Z359.0--2007, Definitions and Nomenclature used for Fall
Protection and Fall Arrest, which defines ``fall protection'' more
broadly to include any equipment, device, or system that either
prevents a fall or mitigates the effect of a fall. (ID-0178.1.)
However, as OSHA explained in the proposed rule, the proposed
definition

was chosen to use the same terminology found in other OSHA standards to
ensure that employers would be familiar with the terminology (see 73 FR
59799, Oct. 9, 2008). Moreover, OSHA notes that sec. 1.3.1 of ANSI/ASSE
Z359.0--2007 provides that the scope of that standard does not include
the construction industry. Accordingly, OSHA is retaining the proposed
definition in the final rule.
Definition of ``Positioning Device System''
    A trade association objected to the lack of definitions for ``fall
arrest'' or ``positioning systems.'' (ID-0178.1.) OSHA notes that
proposed Sec.  1926.1401 did contain a definition for ``personal fall
arrest system,'' and that definition is included in the final rule.
OSHA agrees that a definition of ``positioning device system'' is
needed and is adding a definition to Sec.  1926.1401 in the final rule
that is the same as the definition found in subpart M.
Paragraph (a) Application
    Section 1926.1423(a) specifies which provisions in this section
apply to all equipment, including tower cranes (Sec. Sec.
1926.1423(c)(1), (c)(2), (d), (g), (j) and (k)); which provisions apply
to all equipment except tower cranes (Sec. Sec.  1926.1423(b), (c) (3),
(e) and (f)); and which provisions apply only to tower cranes
(Sec. Sec.  1926.1423(c)(4) and (h)).
Paragraph (b) Boom Walkways
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule,
Sec.  1926.1423(b) addresses the hazard of falls from lattice booms by
establishing when walkways must be incorporated into lattice booms, and
the criteria for such walkways (see 73 FR 59799-59800, Oct. 9, 2008).
No comments were received on this paragraph; it is included in the
final rule without change.
Paragraph (c) Steps, Handholds, Ladders, Grabrails, Guardrails and
Railings
    Section 1926.1423(c) in the final rule specifies criteria for the
use and maintenance of steps, handholds, ladders, grabrails, guardrails
and railings. The Agency notes that proposed paragraph (c)
inadvertently omitted ``ladders'' from the list of devices in the
paragraph's heading. Accordingly, OSHA has revised final paragraph (c)
to include the word ladders.
    Section 1926.502(b) generally provides criteria for guardrail
systems, with some exceptions (see discussion of amendments to Sec.
1926.500). C-DAC concluded, however, that specific criteria for steps,
handholds, ladders, grabrails, guardrails and railings were necessary
to address the design characteristics of equipment covered by subpart
CC and the particular fall hazards associated with the use of such
equipment.
    OSHA agrees, and is therefore adding Sec.  1926.1423(c)(1), which
states that Sec.  1926.502(b) (guardrail systems) must not apply to
equipment covered by subpart CC, to the final rule. It makes clear that
the guardrail criteria requirements in Sec.  1926.502(b) for those
items do not apply to equipment covered by subpart CC. Instead,
Sec. Sec.  1926.1423(c)(2), (3), and (4), discussed below, provide the
applicable criteria for such equipment. Because of the addition of
paragraph (c)(1), which was not in the proposed rule, paragraphs
(c)(2), (3), and (4) have been renumbered from the proposal, where they
were paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3).
    Paragraph (c)(2) of this section requires that the employer
maintain in good condition originally-equipped steps, handholds,
ladders and guardrails/railings/grabrails.\97\ The failure to properly
maintain such devices could pose dangers to the workers who use them.
For example, a grabrail would not be maintained in good condition if it
has become weakened from rust. A weakened guardrail could fail when an
employee uses it, which could cause the employee to fall. Likewise, a
railing would not be maintained in good condition if all or part of the
railing is missing. A manufacturer that integrated a railing into its
boom design may have relied on the presence of the railing and provided
a walking surface that would otherwise be too narrow to be safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ OSHA has changed the location of the words ``in good
condition'' in Sec.  1926.1423(b) to make it clear that it applies
to maintenance of all of the listed items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this section require that equipment
manufactured more than one year after the effective date of this
standard be equipped to provide safe access and egress on equipment
covered by this subpart by the provision of devices such as steps,
handholds, ladders, and guardrails/railings/grabrails. Tower cranes
must be equipped to provide safe access and egress between the ground
and the cab, machinery platforms, and tower (mast) (see below
discussion of paragraph (c)(4)). All other equipment covered by this
subpart must be equipped to provide safe access and egress between the
ground and the operator work station(s), including the forward and rear
operator positions. As discussed below, Sec. Sec.  1926.1423(c)(3)(i)
and 1926.1423(c)(4)(i) require the steps, handholds, ladders and
guardrails/railings/grabrails used to comply with this section to meet
updated design criteria.
    Prior to this final rule, former Sec.  1926.550(a)(13)(i) in
subpart N required that guardrails, handholds, and steps be provided on
cranes for easy access to the car and cab and specified 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 determined, and OSHA agrees, 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 is required under the final rule. Accordingly, Sec.
1926.1423(c)(3) only applies to equipment manufactured more than one
year after the effective date of this standard. This gives equipment
manufacturers adequate time to incorporate the requirements of Sec.
1926.1423(c)(3)(i) into their new products.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ OSHA had added the word ``devices'' in the last sentence of
paragraph (c)(3) for grammatical clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(3)(i) requires that steps, handholds, ladders and
guardrails/railings/grabrails meet the criteria of SAE J185 (May 2003)
or ISO 11660-2:1994(E). As explained above in the discussion of
amendments to subpart X, OSHA amended subpart X to clarify that subpart
X does not apply to integral components of equipment covered by subpart
CC. The specifications in SAE J185 (May 2003) are referenced in other
industry consensus standards, such as ASME B30.5-2004, ``Mobile and
Locomotive Cranes'' and ASME B30.3-2004, ``Construction Tower Cranes,''
and crane manufacturers are familiar with those requirements. Section
1926.1423(c)(3)(i) alternatively allows compliance with ISO 11660-2
because those provisions are sufficiently protective and employers also
use equipment built by foreign manufacturers who have been following
that standard.

    OSHA notes that proposed Sec.  1926.1423(c)(2)(i) \99\
inadvertently omitted handholds from the listed devices that must meet
the criteria of SAE J185 (May 2003) or ISO 11660-2:1994(E).
Accordingly, OSHA has added handholds to the final rule in Sec.
1926.1423(c)(3)(i). Additionally, OSHA has replaced the word
``requirements'' in proposed Sec.  1926.1423(c)(2)(i) with ``criteria''
in the final Sec.  1926.1423(c)(3)(i). The Agency determines this
change clarifies that the listed devices must comply with the design
criteria contained in the referenced standards and that, for the
purposes of Sec.  1926.1423(c)(3)(i), other provisions in the
referenced standards do not apply. To illustrate, both SAE J185 (May
2003) and ISO 11660-2:1994(E) contain provisions relating to the scope
of those standards. However, Sec.  1926.1400 sets forth the scope of
equipment covered by subpart CC (see discussion above of Sec.
1926.1400, Scope). Consequently, Sec.  1926.1423(c)(3)(i) requires that
steps, handholds, ladders, and guardrails/railings/grabrails on
equipment covered by subpart CC (other than tower cranes) meet the
criteria for such devices in SAE J185 (May 2003) or ISO 11660-
2:1994(E), irrespective of the scope provisions in those consensus
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Proposed Sec.  1926.1423(c)(2)(i) corresponds with Sec.
1926.1423(c)(3)(i) in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section requires 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). Former Sec.
1926.550(a)(13)(iii) of subpart N required 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 are
required by new Sec.  1926.1423. OSHA concludes that compliance with
this provision will 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 section.
    Paragraph (c)(4) of this section applies to fall protection on
tower cranes. For the same reasons explained above with respect to
Sec.  1926.1423(c)(3), Sec.  1926.1423(c)(4) likewise only applies to
tower cranes manufactured more than one year after the effective date
of this standard. Such equipment must be equipped so as to provide safe
access and egress between the ground and the cab, machinery platforms,
and tower (mast), by the provision of devices such as steps, handholds,
ladders, and guardrails/railings/grabrails. In the preamble to the
proposed rule, OSHA stated the Agency's intent to include a requirement
to provide safe access and egress on tower cranes, similar to the
requirement in final paragraph (c)(3) to provide safe access and egress
on other equipment covered by subpart CC, and requested public comment
on the issue (73 FR 59800, Oct. 9, 2008).
    Three commenters responded, all stating that the final rule should
include the requirement to provide safe access and egress on tower
cranes. (ID-0182.1; -0205.1; -0213.1.) Accordingly, OSHA has added
paragraph (c)(4) to the final rule.
    Paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section requires steps, handholds,
ladders, and guardrails/railings/grabrails on these tower cranes to
meet the criteria of ISO 11660-1:2008(E) and ISO 11660-3:2008(E), or
SAE J185 (May 2003), except where infeasible. For the same reasoning
discussed above with respect to Sec.  1926.1423(c)(3)(i), paragraph
(c)(4)(i) allows employers to use equipment designed to the
specifications of SAE J185 (May 2003) or, alternatively, ISO 11660-
1:2008(E) and ISO 11660-3:2008(E).
    The Agency notes that ISO 11660-1:2008(E) provides criteria
applicable to cranes in general while ISO 11660-3:2008(E) provides
criteria particular to tower cranes. The Agency reads the particular
criteria in ISO 11660-3:2008(E) as supplementing the general criteria
in ISO 11660-1:2008(E).\100\ Therefore, paragraph (c)(4)(i) would only
be satisfied under this alternative if the steps, handholds, ladders
and guardrails/railings/grabrails on the tower crane meet the criteria
in both ISO 11660-1:2008(E) and ISO 11660-3:2008(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ The Agency notes that the approach for the 2008 editions
of ISO 11660-1 and ISO 11660-3 appears to differ from that of the
ISO 11660-2:1994(E). The Agency interprets ISO 11660-2:1994(E) as
addressing steps, handholds, ladders and guardrails/railings/
grabrails independent of ISO 11660-1:2008(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section requires walking/stepping
surfaces on tower cranes to have slip-resistant features/properties,
such as diamond plate metal, strategically placed grip tape, expanded
metal, or slip-resistant paint. Similar to paragraph (c)(3)(ii) (see
above discussion of paragraph (c)(3)(ii)), paragraph (c)(4)(ii) carries
forward the anti-skid protections from former Sec.
1926.550(a)(13)(iii).
Paragraph (d) Personal Fall Arrest and Fall Restraint Systems
    Paragraph (d) of this section addresses personal fall arrest
systems and fall restraint systems used to satisfy the requirements
under subpart CC to provide fall protection.
    Paragraph (d) was not in the proposed rule but has been added to
the final rule to make clear that certain appropriate requirements of
subpart M apply to subpart CC. Paragraph (d) requires the use of
personal fall arrest system components in personal fall arrest and fall
restraint systems required by subpart CC. These systems must conform to
all of the criteria in Sec.  1926.502 of subpart M, except Sec.
1926.502(d)(15). Section 1926.502(d)(15) provides general criteria for
anchorages for personal fall arrest systems, but OSHA is choosing to
apply the anchorage criteria in Sec.  1926.1423(g)(3) rather than the
criteria in Sec.  1925.502(d)(15). This approach is consistent with the
approach to requirements for personal fall arrest and fall restraint
systems provided in Sec.  1926.760(d)(2) of subpart R, except for the
exclusion of Sec.  1926.502(d)(15).
Paragraph (e) Fall Protection Requirements for Non-Assembly/Disassembly
Work
    Paragraph (e) of this section 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 are 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 1926 subpart M, which generally requires
fall protection at heights at and above 6 feet, as much as possible.
(As discussed below, for assembly/disassembly (A/D) work, the Committee
recommended fall protection beginning at 15 feet.) C-DAC also
determined that operators do not need to be tied off while moving to
and from their cabs, and paragraph (e)(1) of this section, discussed
below, therefore requires fall protection equipment only when employees
are moving point-to-point on booms or while at a work station (with
certain exceptions). The Committee determined that the steps,
handholds, and railings required under

Sec.  1926.1423(c) protect operators moving to and from their
workstations and eliminate the need for additional fall protection
equipment.
Paragraph (e)(1) Non-Assembly/Disassembly: Moving Point to Point
    Paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section requires 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). Moving point to point is defined in
Sec.  1926.1401 and refers to when an employee is going to or coming
from a work station.
    C-DAC determined 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 Agency decided to
remain consistent with the requirements in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart M
to require fall protection at heights at or above 6 feet and the final
rule requires fall protection when the fall distance is greater than 6
feet.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) applies the same fall protection requirements
to point to point movement on lattice booms that are not in a
horizontal position. The Committee found that 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 determined 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.
    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. The Committee discussed that 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. The Committee discussed that 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 determines 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 determines 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, in the preamble to
the proposed rule, the Agency noted 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
requested public comment on whether proposed Sec.  1926.1423(d)(1)(ii)
\101\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Proposed Sec.  1926.1423(d)(1)(ii) corresponds with final
Sec.  1926.1423(e)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA received three comments on this issue. (ID-0182.1; -0205.1; -
0213.1.) These commenters stated that the final rule should 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. Accordingly, the Agency has added paragraph (e)(1)(iii)
to the final rule to require fall protection under these circumstances.
No comments were received on proposed paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii),
and they are included in the final rule without change as paragraphs
(e)(1)(i) and (ii).
Paragraph (e)(2) Non-Assembly/Disassembly: While at a Work Station
    Paragraph (e)(2) of this section requires 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 (see the discussion of this in
the preamble of the proposed rule, where this paragraph was denominated
as Sec.  1926.1423(d)(2); 73

FR 59802, Oct. 9, 2008). No comments were received on this paragraph;
it is included in the final rule without change other than its
redesignation.
Paragraph (f) Assembly/Disassembly
    Paragraph (f) of this section requires the employer to provide and
ensure the use of fall protection equipment during assembly and
disassembly (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 (see the
discussion of this in the preamble of the proposed rule, where this
paragraph was denominated as Sec.  1926.1423(e); 73 FR 59802, Oct. 9,
2008). No comments were received on this paragraph; it is included in
the final rule without change other than its redesignation.
Paragraph (g) Anchorage Criteria
    Paragraph (g) of this section requires the use of, and specifies
criteria for, anchorage points in personal fall arrest systems,
positioning device systems, and fall restraint systems.\102\ Paragraph
(g)(1) provides that Sec. Sec.  1926.502(d)(15) and 1926.502(e)(2) of
subpart M apply to equipment covered by subpart CC only to the extent
delineated in paragraph (g)(2). Sections 1926.502(d)(15) and
1926.502(e)(2) provide, respectively, anchorage criteria for personal
fall arrest systems and positioning device systems. As discussed below
with respect to paragraph (g)(2), C-DAC determined that the particular
circumstances associated with the use of personal fall arrest systems
and positioning device systems on equipment covered by subpart CC
necessitate specific criteria for the anchorages of such systems.
Therefore, OSHA added paragraph (g)(1) to this section of the final
rule to make clear that the general anchorage criteria in Sec.
1926.502 apply to equipment covered by subpart CC only as delineated in
paragraph (g)(2), discussed below (see also discussion above of Sec.
1926.500).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ ``Personal fall arrest system'' and ``Positioning device
system'' are defined in Sec.  1926.1401. These definitions parallel
those in Sec.  1926.500(b) of subpart M. ``Fall restraint system''
is also defined in Sec.  1926.1401. This definition parallels the
one in Sec.  1926.751 of subpart R. As with other definitions
applicable to this section, C-DAC endeavored, to the extent possible
and appropriate, to use terminology that is familiar to the
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (g)(2) of this section, Anchorages for personal fall
arrest and positioning device systems, contains requirements for
anchorage points used in personal fall arrest and positioning device
systems (this was denominated paragraph (f) in the proposed rule).
Sections 1926.1423(g)(2)(i) and 1926.1423(g)(2)(ii) 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. An apparently substantial part of the
equipment is a part that would appear substantial to a reasonable
competent person. 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 standard is 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 determined that the criteria
in Sec. Sec.  1926.1423(g)(2)(i) and 1926.1423(g)(2)(ii) are
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. (See the discussion of these
provisions in the preamble of the proposed rule under proposed rule
paragraph (f) of this section, 73 FR 59802, Oct. 9, 2008.)
    One commenter suggested revising the provision to require a
competent person to supervise the selection, use, and inspection of
fall arrest and positioning anchorages. (ID-0178.1.) This commenter
suggested that this revision was needed to avoid compatibility issues
and to emphasize the competent person's planning role. OSHA declines to
adopt the commenter's suggestion. As explained above, this provision is
included because the suitability of substantial parts of the equipment
for anchoring fall arrest and positioning device systems will often be
readily apparent, and the employer will only need to seek a competent
person's judgment if there is some question as to the anchorage's
suitability. The revision suggested by the commenter would contravene
this intent.
    Paragraph (g)(2)(iii) requires that attachable anchor devices
(portable anchor devices that are attached to the equipment) meet the
applicable anchorage criteria in Sec.  1926.502(d)(15) for personal
fall arrest systems and Sec.  1926.502(e)(2) for positioning device
systems. These criteria are the same as those discussed with respect to
paragraph (g)(2) for personal fall arrest and positioning device
systems.
    Paragraph (g)(3), Anchorages for fall restraint systems, requires
fall 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
fall 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. OSHA relies on C-DAC's determination that having the anchorage
support twice the maximum anticipated load provides an adequate margin
of safety when a fall restraint system is used.
    The Agency made several changes to text originally proposed as
paragraph (f) of this section, and now designated as final paragraph
(g) for the purposes of clarity and consistency. OSHA devoted final
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) to personal fall arrest systems and
positioning device systems, respectively, and added references to
Sec. Sec.  1926.502(d)(15) and 1926.502(e)(2) to specify which of the
criteria in Sec.  1926.502 of subpart M are applicable to anchorages
used to comply with this section. OSHA concludes these changes improve
the clarity of the final rule. In addition, final paragraph (g) uses
the terms ``personal fall arrest'' instead of ``fall arrest'' and
``fall restraint systems'' instead of ``restraint systems'' to use the
defined terms from Sec.  1926.1401 and maintain consistency with other
construction standards.
Paragraph (h) Tower Cranes
    Paragraph (h) of this section specifies fall protection
requirements specific to tower cranes. Note that the final rule uses
the terminology ``erecting, climbing, and dismantling'' with regard to
tower cranes rather than ``assembly'' and ``disassembly;'' or the term
``erecting/dismantling'' used in the proposed rule, because this
terminology reflects the industry's use of these terms.
Paragraph (h)(1) Work Other Than Erecting, Climbing, and Dismantling
    Paragraph (h)(1) of this section addresses fall protection
requirements for work other than erecting, climbing, and dismantling.
The employer is 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. (See the discussion of this provision in the preamble of
the proposed rule at 73 FR 59803, Oct. 9, 2008, where it was designated
as paragraph (g)(1)). No comments were received on this paragraph; it
is included in the final rule without change other than its revised
heading and redesignation from paragraph (g)(1) in the proposed rule to