for level position ``within the tolerances specified by the equipment
manufacturer's recommendations.'' OSHA is also adding the words
``before each'' before shift to clarify the provisions intent.
    Paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) require the employer to take
corrective action where the competent person identifies a deficiency
during inspection. Once the inspector identifies any deficiency in the
areas in (d)(1)(i) through (xiii),\72\ or pursuant to other equipment-
specific inspections (e.g., Sec.  1926.1436(p) (inspection of
derricks)), the inspector must immediately determine whether that
deficiency constitutes a safety hazard. If so, then equipment
operations must cease and the employer must take the equipment out of
service, following the tag-out procedure in Sec.  1926.1417(f), and may
not use it again until the deficiency has been corrected. This approach
reflects C-DAC's determination that not all deficiencies constitute
safety hazards. However, regardless of whether the inspector determines
that there is a safety hazard, if any deficiency affects a safety
device or operational aid, then the employer must take the steps
required under Sec. Sec.  1926.1415, Safety Devices, or 1926.1416,
Operational aids.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Proposed Sec.  1926.1412(d)(2) inadvertently referred to
deficiencies in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (xiv), but the preamble
to the proposed rule explained correctly that it only applied to
deficiencies in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (xiii) (not (xiv)) (73
FR 59770, Oct. 9, 2008). The text of paragraph (xiv) addresses
operational aides and safety devices, which are specifically
addressed in paragraph (d)(3). Therefore, in the final paragraph
(d)(2), OSHA refer to deficiencies in ``paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through
(xiii).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA is requiring the procedures in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) to
ensure that the employer stops using unsafe equipment as soon as the
safety hazard is identified. The correction procedure

set forth in paragraph (d)(2) is similar to that in ANSI B30.5-1968 and
ASME B30.5-2004 for their Frequent Inspections. OSHA is requiring a
competent person to make the determination to ensure that his or her
findings are implemented; i.e., the competent person would have the
authority to order the equipment out of service if the deficiency
constituted a hazard. In the final rule, OSHA has replaced the phrase
``removed from service'' with ``taken out of service,'' which is the
phrase used in Sec.  1926.1417(f), to avoid any ambiguity about the
employer's duty to tag out the unsafe equipment.
Paragraph (e) Monthly
    Paragraph (e) of this section requires a monthly inspection of the
equipment, the second of the three regularly scheduled general
inspections that are required by this standard. The monthly inspection
is identical in coverage and manner to the shift inspection required by
Sec.  1926.1412(d), with one addition discussed below. Thus, the
monthly inspection is a visual inspection of the items listed in the
shift inspection for apparent deficiencies, conducted by a competent
person. However, unlike a shift inspection, the employer must document
the inspection and retain the documentation for a minimum of three
months.
    In addition, under the annual/comprehensive inspection in Sec.
1926.1412(f)(4), the employer is required to identify developing
deficiencies that, while not yet safety hazards, need to be monitored.
In such cases the employer, under Sec. Sec.  1926.1412(f)(4) and
(f)(6), is required to monitor them in the monthly inspections.
    One commenter suggested adding text to the final rule to clarify
how the monitoring information would be transferred from annual
inspector to monthly inspector, if different. (ID-0226.) The Agency is
not modifying the text of the rule as requested, but notes that under
paragraph (f)(7)(i) of this section the inspector must document all
``items checked and the results of the inspection.'' Therefore, if the
inspector determines that further monitoring is required, that
information would be a ``result of the inspection'' included in the
annual report. The inspector would then be responsible for checking the
annual report prior to monthly inspections (see Sec.  1926.1412(f)(6).)
    An industrial contractor commented that OSHA should require
employers to keep monthly inspection documentation for a minimum of
three months or the duration of the project, whichever is longer. (ID-
0120.) This commenter did not, however, describe how expanding the
retention requirement would produce any significant benefit, and OSHA
determines there would be no benefit. The documentation requirement
enables the individuals who use the equipment and conduct shift and
monthly inspections to assess the results of earlier monthly
inspections. Once more than three months have passed since a monthly
inspection, the information in the documentation for that inspection
will not reflect the current condition of the equipment.
    The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public comment on
whether the provision for monthly inspections should, like that for
annual inspections, specify who must keep the documentation associated
with monthly inspections. (The provision for annual inspections states
that the documentation must be ``maintained by the employer who
conducts the inspection.'') OSHA requested public comment on the issue
raised by the Panel's recommendation. Several commenters believed that
OSHA should require the employer who conducts the monthly inspection to
maintain the documentation. (ID-0205; -0213; -0214; -0226.)
    OSHA agrees that the employer who conducts the monthly inspection
should maintain the documentation. This revision clarifies the intent
of C-DAC and is consistent with other provisions in this section.
    A utility company commented that if the operating employer is not
the inspecting employer, the operating employer should be provided with
a copy of the inspection if requested. (ID-0226.) This comment suggests
that some employers who operate rented equipment are concerned that the
required documentation may not be available to them from other parties
unless explicitly required in the regulatory text of this final rule.
In some cases, one employer owns and operates the equipment used to
perform construction activities. It is reasonable to require these
employers to maintain the equipment inspection records. However, during
the analysis of public comments and testimony, OSHA recognized that
there would be situations where an employer rents or uses equipment
owned by another party or where multiple employers use the same piece
of equipment. The standard allows any employer to conduct the monthly
inspection. The employer who conducts the inspection must document the
items checked and the results of the inspection and must retain it for
a minimum of three months. If employers whose employees use the
equipment rely on another employer to conduct, document, and maintain
the record of the monthly inspection, it is the responsibility of each
employer engaged in construction activities to assure compliance with
the standard.
    OSHA determines that it is in the interest of all employers who
conduct monthly inspections, whether they use or own equipment, to
share the inspection results with each employer who uses the equipment.
However, employers engaged in construction activities are responsible
for assuring compliance with the standard. Therefore, if an employer
engaged in construction activities is unable to assure that another
employer has conducted the monthly inspection, then the employer
engaged in construction activities must conduct a monthly inspection
prior to using the equipment. The monthly inspection is similar to a
shift inspection (with the addition of the monitoring of deficiencies
that a qualified person deemed not to be a safety hazard in the annual
inspection), but, unlike a shift inspection, the monthly inspection
must be documented and maintained. Requiring an employer who uses the
equipment to conduct a monthly inspection when that employer is unable
to determine whether another employer conducted a monthly inspection is
an insignificant burden compared to the safety benefit of ensuring this
inspection is completed.
    The SBREFA Panel also recommended that OSHA restate the corrective
action provisions from the shift inspection (Sec.  1926.1412(d)(2) and
(3)) in paragraph (e) of this section. Under Sec.  1926.1412(e)(1), the
monthly inspection must be conducted in accordance with Sec.
1926.1412(d) on shift inspections, meaning that the corrective action
provisions in Sec.  1926.1412(d)(2) and (3) must also be followed in
the monthly inspections. OSHA requested comment on whether the language
in Sec.  1926.1412(d)(2) and (3) should be repeated under Sec.
1926.1412(e). Two trade associations believed that clarity would be
improved if paragraph (e) of this subpart repeated the corrective
actions provisions from the shift inspection paragraph. (ID-0205; -
0213.) OSHA disagrees because Sec.  1926.1412(e)(1) explicitly requires
this inspection to be done in accordance with Sec.  1926.1412(d).
Paragraph (d) immediately precedes paragraph (e), and OSHA concludes
that repeating the provisions will create, rather than alleviate,
confusion by requiring employers to read two lists that contain
identical information.

Paragraph (f) Annual/Comprehensive
    Paragraph (f) of this section requires an annual (i.e., once every
twelve months), general inspection of the equipment, the third of the
three regularly scheduled general inspections that are required by this
standard. It promotes safety by ensuring that a thorough, comprehensive
inspection of the equipment is performed to detect and address
deficiencies that might not be detected in the shift and monthly
inspections.
    Under paragraph (f)(1), a qualified person must inspect the
equipment. The Committee specified a qualified person because the items
required in the shift inspection must be examined more thoroughly than
during the shift or monthly inspections. The Committee, determined, and
OSHA agrees, that the higher level of expertise of a qualified person
would help to ensure that the inspector was able to identify
deficiencies necessitating a greater degree of scrutiny than what would
be required in the shift inspection; for example, a deficiency that is
not apparent in a visual inspection but is detectable through taking
apart equipment components. The Committee's decision to require a
qualified person is consistent with COE-EM 385-1-1 (3 Nov 03) and ASME
B30.5-2004, both of which call for a qualified person to perform those
standards' ``periodic'' inspections.
    OSHA notes that Sec.  1926.1412(f) does not specify the level of
scrutiny for the annual/comprehensive inspection. In drafting the
proposed rule, OHSA determined that C-DAC intended for this inspection
to be more thorough than the visual inspection for apparent
deficiencies required of the shift and monthly inspections. OSHA
therefore solicited comments from the public as to whether language
specifying a higher level of scrutiny (for example, ``thorough,
including disassembly when necessary'') should be added.
    A railroad equipment supplier commented that this section does not
additionally burden employers if it requires them to open covers to
inspect for safety defects that could cause an incident or death. (ID-
0124.) Therefore, they were in support of adding stronger language to
paragraph (f) of this section to emphasize some disassembly is
necessary to complete a thorough inspection of the equipment. In
contrast, two trade associations believed that no additional language
was need in the regulatory text to specify that a higher level of
scrutiny is needed during an annual inspection. (ID-0205.1; -0213.)
    OSHA determines that some disassembly of the equipment will be
needed for the qualified person to complete the inspection. Therefore,
OSHA has revised Sec.  1926.1412(f)(2) accordingly.
    The proposed rule did not require the individual who conducts the
annual inspection to review any documentation related to the crane
prior to or during the inspection. A labor representative suggested two
types of documentation they believe the qualified person should review
when conducting an annual inspection. (ID-0182.1.) First, the commenter
wanted OSHA to include a requirement in paragraph (f) of this section
that the inspector contact the manufacturer for any relevant
information the manufacturer may have about the equipment. The
commenter explains that the manufacturer may have information about
recently discovered defects or deficiencies in the equipment or have
recommended modification, which inspectors should take into account
when performing the annual inspection.
    Second, the commenter recommended that OSHA require the inspector
to review all available information regarding the history of the piece
of equipment. This information would include annual or periodic
inspection reports, which would describe previously discovered defects
or previously made modifications, to which the inspector should pay
particular attention while conducting a comprehensive inspection. OSHA
declines to impose the requirements suggested by the commenter because
the Agency does not agree they would lead to better inspections. The
annual inspection requirements are designed to ensure that the
inspector thoroughly scrutinizes and evaluates the current condition of
critical components of the equipment. Reviewing the maintenance history
of the equipment will not further the value of this inspection, for
defects previously discovered should have been repaired and defects not
present in the past may now exist. For example, if a part such as a
ball bearing is replaced with a new part, there is no reason to expect
that the bearing will fail. To the contrary, the brand new part is less
likely to fail than another ball bearing that has been subjected to
heavy use for years. OSHA determines that the inspection will be more
valuable if the inspector concentrates on thoroughly inspecting the
items listed in the rule to determine whether they currently present
any safety defects. Similarly, OSHA is not convinced that contacting
the manufacturer will yield valuable information that will advance the
annual inspection. OSHA determines that important safety information
about their products is provided voluntarily by manufacturers to their
customers and that a requirement to contact them each year is not
likely to yield any further information of value.
    Paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (xxi) specify the parts of the
equipment and the conditions the inspector must look for during the
annual inspection. The Committee developed this list based on the
members' experience and current industry practice as reflected in
current consensus standards for annual/periodic inspections. The
Committee concluded that each item plays an important role in the safe
operation of equipment. Only a few of these items require discussion.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xiv) listed ``[o]utrigger pads/floats''
for excessive wear or cracks.'' The purpose of the inspection of
outrigger pads/floats is to make certain that these pads (which are
attached to the outrigger and used to distribute the weight of the load
to the ground) will not fail and leave the outrigger without proper
support. In the final rule, OSHA is referring to ``outrigger or
stabilizer pads/floats'' because some types of equipment, such as
articulating cranes, are designed to use stabilizers instead of
outriggers to add stability at their bases. A full discussion of the
comments that prompted this regulatory text change is provided in the
explanation of the rule for Sec.  1926.1404(q).
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xv) listed ``slider pads for excessive
wear or cracks.'' The word ``cracks'' had not been included in the C-
DAC Consensus Document for this item, and two trade associations (ID-
0205.1; -0213.1) commented that ``cracks'' should be removed from the
provision to be consistent with the intent of C-DAC. After examining
how the word came to be included in the proposed rule, OSHA concludes
that the word ``cracks'' was added inadvertently to this provision and,
lacking an evidentiary basis to include it, is removing the words ``or
cracks'' from paragraph (f)(2)(xv) in the final rule.
    Section 1926.1412(f)(2)(xviii) has been modified from the proposed
rule. Upon review of this requirement, the Agency found that it was
necessary to clarify this requirement to allow the use of a seat that
is equivalent to the original operator's seat. This provision requires
the employer to replace the original seat with one that provides
function and safety that is equivalent to the original seat. The text
of the final rule has been modified accordingly.
    In Sec.  1926.1412(f)(2)(xix) the term ``unserviceable'' is
replacing the term

``unusable'' to clarify that the operator's seat must be in good
working condition to allow the operator to safely work at the controls
of the equipment. The text of the final rule has been modified
accordingly.
    Paragraph (f)(3) requires functional testing as part of the annual/
comprehensive inspection. No comments were received on this provision.
    Paragraphs (f)(4) through (6) delineate the follow-up procedures
that apply when a deficiency is identified during the annual/
comprehensive inspection. The purpose of these provisions is to ensure
that a deficiency that is not yet a safety hazard but may develop into
one is monitored on a monthly basis, and that a deficiency that is a
safety hazard is corrected before the equipment is returned to service.
    Paragraph (f)(4) provides that immediately following the
identification of a deficiency, the qualified person must determine
``whether the deficiency constitutes a safety hazard, or though not yet
a safety hazard, needs to be monitored in the monthly inspections.'' No
comments were received and paragraph (f)(4) is promulgated as proposed.
    Paragraph (f)(5) requires that equipment with a deficiency
identified as a safety hazard by the qualified person be removed from
service until the deficiency is corrected. Paragraph (f)(6) requires
the employer to check the deficiencies in the monthly inspections that
the qualified person had identified as needing monitoring.
    In the proposed rule, OSHA discussed an apparent conflict between
Sec.  1926.1412(f)(4) and Sec.  1926.1416. Paragraph (f)(2)(v) lists
operational aids among the items that must be included in the annual
inspection.\73\ Section 1926.1416 permits equipment with operational
aids that are not functioning properly to continue to be used for
limited periods of time as long as specified alternative measures are
used while the operational aids are being repaired. By contrast, under
Sec.  1926.1412(f)(4), if any deficiency is identified in the annual
inspection, the qualified person must make an immediate determination
as to whether the deficiency constitutes a safety hazard. If it does,
under Sec.  1926.1412(f)(4), the equipment must be removed from service
immediately. OSHA requested public comment on whether Sec.
1926.1412(f)(4) should explicitly provide that the corrective action in
Sec.  1926.1416 applies if an operational aid is found to be
malfunctioning during an annual inspection. Two trade associations
agreed that Sec.  1926.1412(f) should state that the corrective action
required for malfunctioning operational aids is that specified in Sec.
1926.1416. (ID-0205.1; -0213.1.) OSHA also notes that Sec.
1926.1435(e) specifies the temporary alternative measures that must be
implemented when operational aids on tower cranes malfunction, and
Sec.  1926.1412(f)(5) applies to tower cranes as well as equipment
covered by Sec.  1926.1416. Paragraph (f)(5) of the final rule is
modified accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Paragraph (f)(2)(v), as proposed and in the final rule,
distinguishes between deficiencies that result in ``significant
inaccuracies'' in the operation of any of the safety devices or
operational aides, and those that do not. The phrase ``significant
inaccuracies'' reflects the fact that such devices normally operate
within a tolerance range. Corrective actions are not required if the
inaccuracy is so small as to be irrelevant regarding the safe
operation of the equipment. In contrast, significant inaccuracies in
these devices could mislead the operator and contribute to actions
that could result in the equipment being inadvertently used in an
unsafe manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, OSHA is adding text to paragraph (f)(1) of this section
to emphasize that paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section do not
apply to annual inspections.
    Paragraph (f)(7), Documentation of annual/comprehensive inspection,
requires the employer that conducts the inspection to complete and
maintain, for a minimum of twelve months, documentation that contains
``[t]he items checked and the results of the inspection,'' and ``[t]he
name and signature of the person who conducted the inspection and the
date of the inspection.'' Section 1926.1413(c)(4), which pertains to
the annual/comprehensive wire rope inspection, contains a similar
documentation requirement. In the proposed rule, the 12-month retention
requirement was located in paragraph (f)(7)(iii). OSHA has incorporated
that requirement into the introductory sentence to clarify that it is
the employer who conducts the inspection who must retain the documents
for 12 months. OSHA has also clarified that the date of the inspection,
not the date on which the document was signed, must be entered on the
document.
    During the SBREFA process, several Small Entity Representatives
objected to the requirement for documentation of monthly and annual
inspections, stating that such documentation would be unduly burdensome
and would not, in their opinions, add to worker safety. The Panel
recommended that OSHA solicit public comment on the extent of
inspection documentation the rule should require. OSHA requested
comment on this issue.
    A local government supported annual/comprehensive inspection
documentation. (ID-0156.) It also commented that daily logs should be
maintained and submitted to the crane owner to capture when maintenance
has been performed on the equipment, and maintained by the equipment
owner for the life of the crane. This commenter did not, however,
explain how such a retention requirement would produce safety benefits,
and OSHA declines to adopt it.
    The Committee determined that the documentation of the annual
inspection, signed by the person who conducted the inspection and
retained for 12 months, would have several effects. First, it would
increase the likelihood that more employers would implement systems for
conducting and responding to inspections. Second, the failure to do so
would be more readily apparent if a record was not made, and the
signature of the person who conducted the inspection would be an
inducement to that person to ensure that the inspection was done
correctly.
    The Agency notes that the three month retention period reflects the
Committee's decision to have a retention period that is consistent with
Department of Transportation truck inspection documentation
requirements.
    The documentation of these inspections serves as references that
inspectors can use to monitor the condition of items critical to the
safe operation of the equipment. It has been a longstanding industry
practice to maintain annual inspection documentation as a reference
that the inspection was completed, to identify who performed the
inspections, and to document the results of that inspection.
Paragraph (g) Severe Service
    Paragraph (g) of this section requires the employer to inspect the
equipment when the severity of use/conditions--``such as loading that
may have exceeded rated capacity, shock loading that may have exceeded
rated capacity, [or] prolonged exposure to a corrosive atmosphere''--
creates a ``reasonable probability of damage or excessive wear.'' In
such instances, the employer is required to stop using the equipment
and have a qualified person ``inspect the equipment for structural
damage;'' determine whether, in light of the use/conditions of the
severe service, any items listed in the annual/comprehensive inspection
need to be inspected and if so, inspect them; and if a deficiency is
found, follow the correction/monitoring procedures set forth in Sec.
1926.1412(f)(4)-(f)(6).
    Upon review of this paragraph, the Agency determines that

Sec.  1926.1412(g)(1) needs clarification; therefore, OSHA added a
phrase to the provision requiring that a determination be made to
ensure the equipment remains safe for continued use. This revision
emphasizes that this inspection must determine the capability of the
equipment to operate continuously under severe conditions. No comments
were received on this paragraph, and it is promulgated as proposed,
with the exception of the clarification to Sec.  1926.1412(g)(1).
Paragraph (h) Equipment Not in Regular Use
    Paragraph (h) of this section requires that equipment that sits
idle for three months or more be inspected by a qualified person in
accordance with the monthly inspection provisions of Sec.  1926.1412(e)
before being used. This would ensure that deficiencies that may arise
as a result of the equipment standing idle are checked before its
subsequent use. The Committee determined that this inspection would
need to be done by a qualified person, rather than a competent person,
because some of the deficiencies that may arise from sitting idle
require the qualified person's higher level of ability to detect and
assess. (See further discussion at 73 FR 59775, Oct. 9, 2008.) No
comments were received on this paragraph. It is promulgated as
proposed.
Paragraph (i) [Reserved]
Paragraph (j)
    Proposed paragraph (j) of this section required that any part of a
manufacturer's inspection procedures relating to safe operation that is
more comprehensive or has a more frequent schedule than that required
by this section must be followed. These inspection procedures include
any information provided by the manufacturer. Examples are provided in
the provision of the types of items that would be considered to relate
to safe operation (``a safety device or operator aid, critical part of
a control system, power plant, braking system, load-sustaining
structural components, load hook, or in-use operating mechanism''). The
proposed paragraph goes on to state: ``Additional documentation
requirements by the manufacturer are not required.''
    Several commenters asked that OSHA delete the line in the
regulatory text of Sec.  1926.1412(j) that reads ``Additional
manufacturer documentation requirements need not be followed.'' (ID-
0165; -0232; -0235.) OSHA acknowledges that the intent of this sentence
is unclear and is not including it in the final rule.
    A safety association and a trade association commented that the
thorough and equipment-specific frequency of inspections required by
the manufacturer are well suited for the equipment used in their
trades. (ID-0184; -0206.) The safety association asserted that
compliance with equipment manufacturers' inspection recommendations
assure a greater degree of safety than compliance with a list of shift,
monthly, and annual inspections, which may be deficient with regard to
thoroughness and frequency. The two commenters asked that OSHA revise
Sec.  1926.1412 to allow employer-documented compliance with the
inspection recommendations of the equipment manufacturer as an
alternative to meeting the requirements of Sec.  1926.1412.
    OSHA agrees with the commenters that manufacturer's equipment-
specific inspection requirements can help promote safety. For this
reason, Sec.  1926.1412(j) provides that any additional inspection
requirements recommended by the manufacturer must be followed by
employers. However, OSHA does not agree with the commenters regarding
their assessment that the minimum inspection requirements and schedules
specified in Sec.  1926.1412 are more burdensome for employers who use
articulating lifting equipment in particular. There is no evidence in
the record that inspections recommended by manufacturers are as
thorough as those provided in this section. To the extent that they
are, there is no additional burden to employers in requiring them to
follow this section than to follow the manufacturer's recommendations.
Paragraph (k)
    OSHA determines that the competent person or persons who conduct
shift and monthly inspections, and the qualified person who conducts
annual inspections, must have access to all written documents produced
under this section, during the time for which the employer is required
to retain those documents, so that they are made aware of any
components of the equipment that may require special attention during
their inspections. Accordingly, OSHA is adding a new paragraph (k) at
the end of Sec.  1926.1412.
Section 1926.1413 Wire Rope--Inspection
    Cranes and derricks use wire rope to lift and support their loads
and parts of the equipment. If the rope is worn or damaged, it can
break, causing the equipment to fail and/or the load to fall, which can
kill or injure workers. Approximately 3% of crane fatalities in
construction work result from wire ropes snapping. J.E. Beavers et al,
Crane-Related Fatalities in the Construction Industry, 132 Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 901, 903 (Sept. 2006). (ID-
0011.) Accordingly, C-DAC concluded it would improve crane/derrick
safety to establish updated requirements for wire rope inspections.
    The definition C-DAC developed for proposed Sec.  1926.1401 defined
``wire rope'' as ``rope made of wire.'' In the preamble of the proposed
rule, OSHA noted that this definition could be read to exclude rope
made with a fiber core, which, as discussed below under Sec.
1926.1414, may be used for purposes other than boom hoist reeving. OSHA
requested public comment on whether a more appropriate definition would
be the following one used by the Specialized Carriers & Rigging
Association:

    A flexible rope constructed by laying steel wires into various
patterns of multi-wired strands around a core system to produce a
helically wound rope.

(73 FR 59739, Oct. 9, 2008.) Three commenters supported this revised
definition, and none were opposed. (ID-0187.1; -0205.1; -0213.1.)
Accordingly, OSHA is revising the definition in Sec.  1926.1401 to that
quoted above.
    One of the commenters supporting the revised definition also stated
that OSHA should not exclude wire rope with a synthetic or fiber core
and should include definitions of these terms. (ID-0187.1.) However, as
OSHA explained in the proposed rule, the revised definition is designed
to encompass cores other than wire, and OSHA determines it is not
necessary to include separate definitions for each type of such rope to
make clear that they fall within the definition of ``wire rope.''
    The proposed rule provided for wire rope inspections at the same
frequency--shift, monthly, and annually--that would apply for other
crane components under Sec.  1926.1412. It also proposed that, like
inspections of other components, the shift and monthly inspections be
conducted by a ``competent person,'' and the annual inspection by a
``qualified person.'' As discussed below, OSHA is retaining this
equivalence of frequency and qualifications in the final rule.
Paragraph (a) Shift Inspection
    Paragraph (a)(1) of this section of the proposed rule required a
shift

inspection by a competent person. One commenter recommended that this
provision require the shift inspection to be conducted ``each shift the
equipment is used'' rather than ``each shift,'' to clarify that the
equipment does not have to be inspected when it will not be used on a
shift. (ID-0226.0.) This suggested change is consistent with the intent
of the proposed rule, and OSHA is adding similar language to Sec.
1926.1413(a)(1) to clarify that intent.
    Another commenter stated that it was unnecessary to require a wire
rope inspection each shift. (ID-0203.1.) This commenter believed that
per-shift wire rope inspections were an unnecessary burden for
employers with good maintenance programs who have not experienced wire
rope failures. The commenter recommended that OSHA adopt the protocol
in sec. 5-2.4 of ASME B30.5-2004, which allows the periodic inspection
frequency to be determined by a qualified person based on factors that
affect rope life.
    OSHA rejects this commenter's suggestion which could, at a
qualified person's discretion, result in less frequent wire rope
inspections than were required under former subpart N. Section 5-2.4.1
of ANSI B30.5-1968, which was incorporated by reference in subpart N,
provided for wire rope inspections ``once each working day.'' The
current version of B30.5, in sec. 5-2.4.2(a) of ASME B30.5-2004,
similarly provides for daily wire rope inspections. The commenter's
reference to the provision in ASME B 30.5-2004 that allows the
inspection frequency to be determined by a qualified person refers to
the type of comprehensive inspection that is similar to the annual
inspection required by Sec.  1926.1413(c), not to the shift inspections
required under Sec.  1926.1413(a).
    As discussed below, the purpose of this inspection is to ensure
that deficiencies are identified and that, depending on the competent
person's evaluation of those deficiencies, appropriate action is taken.
C-DAC wanted to make clear, however, that the inspection was not to be
so comprehensive and time-consuming that it would be unrealistic to
conduct it for each shift. To clarify that the inspection was one that
was reasonable for a shift inspection, the provision states that
neither ``untwisting (opening of wire rope)'' nor ``booming down'' is
required during this inspection. OSHA believes that requiring a
realistic level of inspection each shift will encourage compliance and
ultimately serve to reduce accidents. No comments were received on this
aspect of the proposed rule.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1413(a)(1) referred to wire ropes (running and
standing) that are ``reasonably likely'' to be in use during the shift.
OSHA is also removing the word ``reasonably'' to avoid ambiguity.
Accordingly, Sec.  1926.1413(a)(1) is promulgated as proposed except
for the minor changes noted above.
Paragraph (a)(2) Apparent Deficiencies
    Paragraph (a)(1) of this section requires the competent person to
conduct a ``visual inspection * * * for apparent deficiencies,
including those listed in paragraph (a)(2).'' Proposed paragraph (a)(2)
established three categories (I, II, and III) of apparent wire rope
deficiencies. The likelihood that a deficiency is hazardous increases
as the number of the category increases from I to III. The basis for
categorizing apparent deficiencies in this way was discussed in detail
in the proposed rule (73 FR 59776-59777, Oct. 9, 2008). As discussed
further below, the category determines the options or ``next steps''
available to or required of the employer under paragraph (a)(4),
Removal from service.
    The Agency is providing minor clarifications for the two apparent
deficiencies that relate to damage from electricity. As proposed,
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C) read: ``Electric arc (from a source other than
power lines) or heat damage.'' C-DAC intended that both ``electric
arc'' and ``heat'' would modify ``damage.'' To make this more clear,
OSHA is adding the word ``damage'' after ``electric arc.'' Proposed
paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B) read: ``Electrical contact with a power
line.'' OSHA is adding the word ``prior'' at the beginning of the
paragraph to clarify that the inspector must note a deficiency whenever
he or she is aware, through observation or from any other information,
that the wire rope has previously made electrical contact with a power
line.
    OSHA notes that a wire rope can be damaged in two ways from
electrical contact. First, if the source of electrical power contacts
the wire rope, the electricity can arc to the wire rope and cause a
localized burn. The extent of the damage will depend on the amount of
electrical energy involved. A low energy arc will typically cause
little damage; a high energy arc may cause significant damage. When the
arc results from a source other than a power line, the extent of the
damage will vary, and the inspector must determine whether the rope is
damaged to the extent that repair or replacement is necessary.
    If a power line arcs to a wire rope, there will usually be
sufficient localized burn damage that the rope must be removed from
service. However, a wire rope may make electrical contact with a power
line and leave no visible damage. For example, if the load contacts a
power line and is not insulated from the wire rope, a large current can
flow through the rope. The current may be large enough to damage the
internal structure of the rope and weaken it without leaving any
visible evidence on the rope itself that this has happened. There is no
realistic way to assess the internal damage that such electrical
contact has caused to the wire rope. Therefore, C-DAC determined that
any wire rope that came into electrical contact with a power line must
be removed from service.
    Only one comment was submitted regarding proposed paragraph (a)(2).
The commenter suggested adding two additional conditions to the list of
Category II deficiencies. (ID-0121.1.) The first is where one outer
wire is broken at the point of contact with the core of the rope and
protrudes or loops out from the rope structure. The second is where one
outer wire is broken at the strand to strand contact point and is
raised up from the body of the rope or looped out of the rope
structure.
    OSHA disagrees with the commenter because this commenter did not
offer any rationale to justify these additional provisions. Therefore,
OSHA is deferring to the expertise of the Committee. Section
1926.1413(a)(2) is promulgated as proposed except for the
clarifications noted above.
    A ``running wire rope'' is a wire rope that moves over sheaves or
drums. This definition is included in Sec.  1926.1401 of this final
rule to make clear the nature of the wire rope that is subject to this
inspection provision. These criteria are the same as those contained in
sec. 5-2.4.3 of ASME B30.5-2004, and those for running wire ropes and
pendant or standing wire ropes are also contained in sec. 5-2.4.2 of
ANSI B30.5-1968, which is incorporated by reference in subpart N. One
issue that was left unanswered during the Committee discussions is
whether these broken wire criteria are equally applicable when using
plastic sheaves. The Agency requested public comment on this issue.
However, no comments were received. OSHA notes that the proposed broken
wire criteria did not depend on the type of sheave involved and would
therefore include plastic as well as metal sheaves. Since the paragraph
is being promulgated as proposed, the criteria apply regardless of the
material of which the sheave is made.

Paragraph (a)(3) Critical Review Items
    Under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the competent person must
give particular attention to certain ``Critical Review Items'' during
the shift inspection (as well as, as discussed below, in the monthly
and annual inspections). Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) listed, among
the critical review items, ``wire rope at flange points, [and]
crossover points.'' These terms were defined in proposed Sec.
1926.1401, Definitions.
    One commenter suggested that each wrap of the rope is a crossover
point such that the crossover points will line up across the face of
the drum. (ID-0121.) The Agency disagrees with this view. As defined in
the standard, a crossover point occurs ``where one layer of rope climbs
up and crosses over the previous layer * * *.'' While the rope climbs
up at the drum's flange, it does not climb up as it then spools across
the previous (lower) layer towards the other flange, i.e., as it wraps
across the face of the drum.
    In the proposed rule, OSHA noted that the items listed in
Sec. Sec.  1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v) (``Wire rope adjacent to
end connections'' and ``Wire rope at and on equalizer sheaves'') are
functionally equivalent to items requiring special scrutiny during the
annual inspections required in proposed Sec. Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (F) (``Wire rope in contact with saddles,
equalizer sheaves or other sheaves where rope travel is limited'' and
``Wire rope at or near terminal ends''). The Agency stated that it
planned to revise the language in proposed Sec. Sec.
1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v) to match the language in Sec. Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F). This would enable OSHA to
delete Sec. Sec.  1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F) because
Sec.  1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A) incorporates by reference the critical
review items listed in Sec. Sec.  1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v),
thereby making the items listed in Sec. Sec.  1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C)
and (c)(2)(ii)(F) redundant. OSHA did not receive any adverse comment
on modifying Sec. Sec.  1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v) in this
manner and modified Sec.  1926.1413(a)(3) accordingly.
Paragraph (a)(4) Removal From Service
    Paragraph (a)(4) of this section of the proposed rule set out
remedial steps to be taken once the competent person performing the
inspection identifies an apparent deficiency. Those steps depended upon
whether, under Sec.  1926.1413(a)(2), the deficiency falls under
Category I, II, or III. Under this approach, immediate removal from
service would be required for certain deficiencies, while continued use
under prescribed circumstances would be allowed for others before the
rope must be removed from service. When removal from service is
required, the provisions of Sec.  1926.1417 (Operation) apply, and the
inspector must either tag out the entire equipment or the hoist with
the damaged wire rope. This approach was adopted by C-DAC because, in
the Committee's collective experience, different types of deficiencies
warrant different responses, with some deficiencies being so serious
that continued use of the rope must be prohibited while other
deficiencies may, if adequately evaluated and monitored, allow
continued use of the rope for a limited time.
    Paragraph (a)(4)(i) applies to Category I apparent deficiencies.
Paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) allows the rope to be severed under some
circumstances and the undamaged part to be used. Two commenters
suggested that language be added to require the user to verify that the
drum will still have at least two wraps of rope around it when the
block is lowered to its lowest position. (ID-0122; -0178.1.) The
concern of these commenters is that shortening the rope too much might
not leave enough rope to allow a sufficient margin of safety (two
wraps) to remain on the drum and prevent the rope from becoming
disconnected from the drum.
    Another provision of the final rule, Sec.  1926.1417(t), addresses
this potential safety hazard by requiring 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. Normally, newly installed ropes are
long enough to ensure compliance with Sec.  1926.1417(t) when the load
or boom are in their lowest positions, and these commenters are
concerned that shortening the rope could result in the rope becoming
disconnected if the remaining part of the rope is not long enough to
always ensure that two wraps remain on the drum.
    OSHA agrees with this comment and is adding language to paragraph
(a)(4)(i)(B) (and also to paragraphs (a)(4)(iii)(B) and (c)(3)(i)(B) of
this section, which contain a similar provision) to specify that if a
wire rope is shortened under this paragraph, the employer is required
to ensure that the drum will still have two wraps of wire rope when the
load and/or boom is in its lowest position.
    OSHA also notes that paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) twice refers to power
line contact in the phrases ``other than power line contact'' and
``repair of wire rope that contacted an energized power line is also
prohibited.'' OSHA is concerned that these phrases could be misleading
in a paragraph devoted to remedial steps for a Category I deficiency,
as power line contact can never be a Category I deficiency. It is a
Category III deficiency that requires immediate replacement of the
rope. To avoid any implication that power line contact could be a
Category I deficiency and that a competent person could determine that
the rope does not constitute a safety hazard under paragraph (a)(4)(i),
OSHA is deleting the words in proposed paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) referring
to power line contact.
    Paragraph (a)(4)(ii) applies to Category II apparent deficiencies.
In paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A), OSHA is removing the references to safety
hazards to make it clear that utilization of this option (compliance
with manufacturer requirements) mandates removal of the rope from
service whenever the manufacturer's criteria for removal from service
are met, without the employer making an independent determination as to
whether the rope is a safety hazard.
    Paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) allow the employer the option of
either removing the wire rope from service or to implement the measures
as described in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) above. In addition, OSHA is
adding a cross-reference to Sec.  1926.1417 (Operation), which includes
a number of separate requirements that are triggered if the equipment
is taken out of service.
    The proposed rule would have allowed Category II wire-rope
deficiencies \74\ to remain in service up to 30 days when using
specified alternative measures. Under former subpart N, these
deficiencies would have resulted in removing the wire rope immediately
from service. However, OSHA relied on C-DAC's expertise and proposed
the provision as recommended by the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ These measures were proposed at Sec. Sec.
1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(B) and 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency received comments regarding the alternative measures
proposed for Category II wire-rope deficiencies from three commenters.
All of the commenters objected to allowing continued use of wire rope
with Category II deficiencies. Two of the commenters stated that the
proposed option to continue using wire rope with the proposed
alternative measures relaxed both national consensus standards and the
instructions of wire rope manufacturers. (ID-0122.0; -0178.1.) They
believed allowing the employer to use the damaged wire rope in service
up to 30 days was a

dangerous precedent because it based employee protection on conditions
that could be difficult for a qualified person to assess accurately.
    The third commenter (a crane manufacturer), which had a
representative on C-DAC, also objected to the continued use of wire
rope with Category II deficiencies. (ID-0292.1.) This commenter noted
that such deficiencies indicate that the wire rope does not meet the
``acceptable life'' criteria accepted by the wire-rope industry.
Further, the commenter noted that, if the wire rope continued to be
used with the Category II deficiencies, ``failure could occur without
further indication.''
    OSHA finds these comments persuasive with respect to the protection
of employee safety. The integrity of the wire rope is critical to the
safety of any lift performed by equipment covered by this subpart. For
example, a break in the rope can result in a dropped load which
endangers employees on the worksite. Based on these comments and the
requirements of former subpart N, OSHA is changing the requirements in
the final rule for wire rope with Category II deficiencies. The Agency
notes that this revision is consistent with the requirements of former
subpart N. Accordingly, the alternative measures outlined in the
proposed rule at Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(iii) have been deleted and
subsequent paragraphs renumbered.
    Paragraph (a)(4)(iii) \75\ applies to Category III apparent
deficiencies. Two commenters suggested that Category III is unnecessary
because paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) is the same as for Category I. (ID-
0122; -0178.1.) As noted above, the corresponding proposed provision
for Category I, paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B), is being changed to remove the
references to power line contact. Moreover, Category III differs from
Category I because the competent person may decide that rope with a
Category I deficiency does not constitute a safety hazard and allow the
rope to continue to be used. However, rope with a Category III
deficiency must either be replaced or, if the deficiency is localized
and did not result from power line contact, be severed and the
undamaged part to be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ This was Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(iv) in the proposed rule (73
FR 59930, Oct. 9, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above in relation to paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B), OSHA is
changing paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B) \76\ to state that, if the rope is
severed and the undamaged portion used, the rope in use must be long
enough to ensure that two full wraps remain on the drum at all times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ This was Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(iv)(B) in the proposed rule
(73 FR 59930, Oct. 9, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(iv) \77\ specified that where a wire rope
must be removed from service under this section, the equipment (as a
whole) or the hoist with that wire rope must be tagged-out as provided
in proposed Sec.  1926.1417(f)(1) until the wire rope is replaced or
repaired. No comments were received on this provision, and it is being
promulgated as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ This was Sec.  1926.1413(a)(4)(v) in the proposed rule (73
FR 59930, Oct. 9, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A commenter suggested adding that the competent person who conducts
the shift inspection must receive such information in writing. (ID-
0132.1.) OSHA concludes that the competent person or persons who
conduct shift and monthly inspections, and the qualified person who
conducts annual inspections, must have access to all written documents
produced under this section so that they are made aware of any
components of the equipment that may require special attention during
their inspections.
    Accordingly, OSHA is adding a new paragraph (e) at the end of Sec.
1926.1413 that specifies that all documents produced under this section
must be available to all persons who conduct inspections under this
section.
Paragraph (b) Monthly Inspection
    Proposed paragraph (b) required a monthly inspection of wire rope
that would be, in both the level of scrutiny and the expertise required
of the inspector, a documented shift inspection.
    A commenter pointed out that paragraph (c)(3)(ii) requires that
certain deficiencies identified during the annual inspection must be
monitored during the monthly inspection and suggested that this
requirement be specifically stated in paragraph (b). (ID-0226.) OSHA
agrees and is adding paragraph (b)(2), which states that the inspection
must include any deficiencies identified in the annual inspection as
needing to be monitored.
Paragraph (c) Annual/Comprehensive
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1413(c) required an annual inspection (at least
every 12 months) for wire rope, conducted by a qualified person. The
annual inspection would be considerably more thorough and comprehensive
than the shift and monthly inspections required by paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section. In addition, it would be conducted by a
``qualified person,'' who would have greater expertise than the
``competent person'' who must conduct the shift and monthly
inspections. The timing and inspector qualifications for the annual
wire rope inspection coincide with those for the general equipment
annual/comprehensive inspection. C-DAC believed that the use of
corresponding timeframes and personnel will allow inspections to be
conducted efficiently and thereby promote effectiveness and compliance.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(1), all apparent deficiencies and
critical review items required to be checked in a shift inspection
would have to be checked in the annual/comprehensive inspection (see
paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3)). No comments were received on this
provision, and it is being promulgated as proposed.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) provided for a more thorough inspection
than that required under paragraph (c)(1). Under proposed paragraph
(c)(2), a complete and thorough inspection, covering the surface of the
entire length of the wire ropes, would be required. One commenter,
which had nominated a member of C-DAC, stated that the entire length of
the rope needed to be inspected more frequently than annually and
suggested that this requirement should be included in the monthly
inspection provision. (ID-0 292.1.) This commenter did not provide any
evidence to support this assertion or explain why it was deviating from
the position its nominee took in favor of the provision in the C-DAC
negotiations. This comment is accorded diminished weight in light of
this inconsistency of position. OSHA defers to the expertise of the
full Committee and is retaining the requirement that the entire length
of the rope be inspected during the annual inspection; it is not adding
such a requirement to the monthly inspection provision.
    As discussed in relation to Sec.  1926.1413(a)(3), OSHA has, in the
final rule, modified proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and
(a)(3)(v) to read the same as proposed Sec. Sec.
1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (F) (``Wire rope in contact with saddles,
equalizer sheaves or other sheaves where rope travel is limited'' and
``Wire rope at or near terminal ends''). Section 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A)
now incorporates by reference the critical review items listed in
Sec. Sec.  1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v), thereby making the items
listed in Sec. Sec.  1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F)
redundant.
    Two commenters supported keeping paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(C) and (F),
even though they are also included in paragraph (a)(3) of this section,
saying that annual inspections are more comprehensive and, in their
view,

should be treated separately. (ID-0205.1; -0213.1.) However, the
modification made by OSHA does not change the proposed requirements for
annual inspections; it only avoids redundant language. Accordingly,
OSHA is deleting proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (F)
from the final rule and is renumbering proposed paragraphs (D) and (E)
to (C) and (D).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) established an exception to the
timing of the annual/comprehensive inspection where that inspection is
infeasible due to ``existing set-up and configuration of the equipment
(such as where an assist crane is needed) or due to site conditions
(such as a dense urban setting).'' The provision sets a timetable for
annual/comprehensive inspections in such cases that requires the
inspection to be performed ``as soon as it becomes feasible, but no
longer than an additional 6 months for running ropes and, for standing
ropes, at the time of disassembly.'' The provision reflects C-DAC's
concern that, particularly in densely developed urban settings, the
inability to boom down would prevent the employer from completing a
comprehensive wire rope inspection.
    Two commenters objected to the length of the six-month period and
suggested it be reduced to one month. (ID-0122.0; -0178.1.) Neither
commenter provided any evidence of explanation to support its
recommendation, so OSHA is deferring to C-DAC's collective judgment and
is retaining the six-month period in the proposed rule.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(3) listed the next steps to be taken once
the qualified person performing the annual/comprehensive inspection
discovers a deficiency. The qualified person must immediately determine
whether the deficiency constitutes a safety hazard. If it does, under
proposed paragraph (c)(3)(i), the rope would either have to be replaced
or, if the deficiency is localized, the damaged part may be severed and
the undamaged portion may continue to be used. As with paragraph
(a)(4)(i)(B), joining lengths of wire rope by splicing would be
prohibited.
    As discussed under paragraph (b)(3), a commenter recommended that
the requirement of paragraph (c)(3)(ii) should be explicitly referenced
in the monthly inspection reports, and OSHA has made an addition to
paragraph (b)(3) to accomplish this. (ID-0226.) Also, as discussed
under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B), OSHA is adding a requirement to paragraph
(c)(3)(i)(B) that at least two full wraps of wire rope must remain on
the drum when the load and/or boom is in its lowest position.
    Paragraph (c)(4) requires the annual/comprehensive inspection to be
documented according to Sec.  1926.1412(f)(7), which is the
documentation provision for the annual general inspection. As with
other parallel requirements in this section, C-DAC intended to ensure
consistency with other recordkeeping requirements and thus facilitate
compliance. Section 1926.1412(f)(7), which is incorporated by
reference, requires the employer that is conducting the inspection to
document and retain for 12 months, ``the items checked and the results
of that inspection'' and ``the name and signature of the person who
conducted the inspection and the date.'' No comments were received on
paragraph (c)(4), and it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1413(d) provided that employers may not use
rope lubricants that are of the type that hinder inspection.
    This provision would prohibit, for example, rope lubricants that
are opaque or so dark that they mask the wire rope inside them. A
commenter suggested adding to this provision the following sentence:
``The rope surface and strand valleys must be cleaned of dirt,
lubricant or other material that will hinder inspection.'' (ID-0121.1.)
OSHA determines that this addition is unnecessary. Section 1926.1413
requires various inspections, and the requirement to conduct an
inspection inherently means that where foreign material that would
prevent the inspection is present, it must be removed. The prohibition
against rope lubricants that are of the type that hinder inspection is
needed because they are difficult to remove and pose an unnecessary
obstacle to compliance. Section 1926.1413(d) is promulgated in the
final rule as proposed.
Paragraph (e)
    A commenter suggested adding that the competent person who conducts
the shift inspection must receive such information in writing. (ID-
0132.1.) Similarly, OSHA determines that the competent person or
persons who conduct shift and monthly inspections, and the qualified
person who conducts annual inspections, must have access to all written
documents produced under Sec.  1926.1413. In response to this comment,
OSHA is adding paragraph (e) to ensure that persons who conduct
inspections have access to documentation required by Sec.  1926.1413
during the period for which those documents must be retained. This
documentation serves as a reference for conditions that must be
monitored in subsequent inspections. OSHA concludes that this
documentation will ensure that only safe equipment is put into service.
Section 1926.1414 Wire Rope--Selection and Installation Criteria
    This section sets forth requirements for selecting and installing
wire rope. C-DAC determined, and OSHA agrees, that the proper selection
and installation of wire rope is integral to the safe operation of
equipment that uses such rope. Improper selection or installation could
cause the wire rope to fail, resulting in any number of hazards from
uncontrolled movement of the equipment or the load. As discussed in the
proposed rule, Sec.  1926.1414, in addition to addressing safety
concerns related to wire rope selection and installation, provides
greater flexibility in the selection process than previous requirements
under subpart N (73 FR 59781, Oct. 9, 2008). This flexibility reflects
and takes advantage of new developments in wire rope technology.
Paragraph (a)
    Proposed paragraph (a) of this section stated that ``selection of
replacement wire rope shall be in accordance with the requirements of
this section and the recommendations of the wire rope manufacturer, the
equipment manufacturer, or a qualified person.'' In the proposed rule,
OSHA noted that proposed paragraph (a)'s mention of only ``replacement
rope'' could mislead some readers to conclude that all of Sec.
1926.1414 applies only to replacement rope, whereas C-DAC clearly
intended that Sec.  1926.1414 would apply to both original equipment
rope and replacement rope. OSHA proposed to reword Sec.  1926.1414(a)
to read as follows: ``Original equipment wire rope and replacement wire
rope shall be selected and installed in accordance with the
requirements of this section. Selection of replacement wire rope shall
be in accordance with the recommendations of the wire rope
manufacturer, the equipment manufacturer, or a qualified person.''
    OSHA requested public comment on such a revision. OSHA received no
comment on proposed Sec.  1926.1414(a) or on its proposed rewording.
Accordingly, OSHA modified Sec.  1926.1414(a) of the final rule to
reflect the proposed rewording.

Paragraph (b)
    The proposed rule, in Sec.  1926.1414(c), included design factors
for rotation resistant rope but did not include design factors for
standard (that is, non-rotation resistant) rope. In the proposal, OSHA
stated its determination that, in light of the importance of design
factors for wire rope, the omission of design factors for standard rope
was inadvertent (73 FR 59781, Oct. 9, 2008). OSHA proposed to include
the design factors for standard rope in sec. 5-1.7.1 of ASME B30.5-
2004. OSHA requested public comment on the issue.
    Comments were received from two parties, both of whom nominated C-
DAC members. (ID-0205.1; -0213.1.) They stated that the omission was
intentional, believing that C-DAC did not include design factor
criteria for standard wire rope because technology is continually
evolving and including design criteria in the rule may hamper future
crane operations. The commenters stated that the proposed rule had
provisions requiring end users to conform with requirements or criteria
established by the wire rope manufacturer, equipment manufacturer, or a
qualified person.
    OSHA notes that C-DAC determined it was important for this rule to
allow flexibility to accommodate future technological changes. The
commenters on this issue reiterated that determination, and OSHA shares
that concern. Setting unduly restrictive specifications based on
current technology could unnecessarily impinge on the use of future
designs. The Agency also concludes, however, that some form of minimum
criteria is necessary so that those selecting wire rope have a minimum
benchmark available as a reference point.
    To meet both of these objectives, the Agency has decided, in the
final rule, to add a new paragraph (b) to Sec.  1926.1414 to provide
employers with two options with regards to wire rope design criteria.
The first option would be to comply with an industry consensus standard
(sec. 5-1.7.1 of ASME B30.5-2004) on design factors for standard wire
rope. See Sec.  1926.1414(b)(1). This is a well-established benchmark
for standard wire rope design factors, and the Agency therefore
determined that it is appropriate to include it as an option. Paragraph
(c) of sec. 5-1.7.1 is excluded because that deals with rotation
resistant rope, which is addressed in Sec.  1926.1414(e).
    The second option provides a performance benchmark that is based on
the rope's compatibility with the rated capacity of the equipment and
on the need to be able to rely on the inspections in Sec.  1926.1413 as
an effective means of ensuring the continued safety of the rope. See
Sec.  1926.1414(b)(2). Specifically, the design must be sufficient to
ensure that, when the equipment is used in accordance with its rated
capacity, the employer will be able to prevent a sudden failure of the
rope by meeting the inspection requirements in Sec.  1926.1413.
    This concept reflects the underlying premise of Sec.  1926.1413
that regular inspection of the rope can prevent catastrophic failure
because the rope's degradation will take place over time and will be
accompanied by indications of wear. Therefore, if the rope is
appropriate for the equipment, the degradation that occurs with use
will be sufficiently gradual so that its development can be identified
in the required inspections and the rope can be removed from service
before safety is compromised.
Paragraph (c)
    The benchmarks in the two options in paragraph (b) of this section
do not address an additional design issue, which is the suitability of
the wire rope with respect to the proper functioning of the equipment.
For example, selecting a rope with a diameter that is too large for a
particular machine can result in the rope jumping a sheave. Such a
condition could, among other adverse consequences, affect the
operator's ability to control the load. Therefore, OSHA has added an
additional provision, in new Sec.  1926.1414(c), that requires the rope
to be compatible with the safe functioning of the equipment.
Paragraph (d) Boom Hoist Reeving
    With the addition of the two new paragraphs, (b) and (c), OSHA is
redesignating proposed paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section as
paragraphs (d) through (h) in the final rule.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would have prohibited the use of fiber core
ropes for boom hoist reeving, except for use on derricks. In the
Committee's view, the composition of fiber core ropes makes them prone
to degradation that is not completely detectable by normal inspection
techniques. Nothing in the record contradicts that conclusion.
    One commenter stated that there was no practical reason to allow
the use of fiber core ropes for boom hoist reeving on derricks but not
in other boom hoist applications. (ID-0121.1.) However, as explained in
the proposed rule, the distinction between derricks and cranes is
warranted because the sheaves on derricks are smaller than those on
cranes and therefore require ropes that can accommodate reverse bending
better than ropes used on cranes. Fiber core ropes are more pliable
than ropes with a metal core and are therefore suited to applications
requiring greater reverse bending, such as use on derricks. Moreover,
the distinction between derricks and cranes is consistent with current
national consensus standards. The 2004 version of ASME B30.5, in sec.
<IP_ADDRESS>(b), prohibits the use of fiber core wire ropes for boom hoist
reeving for mobile and locomotive cranes. By contrast, the standard in
the ASME B30 series that applies to derricks, ASME B30.6-2003, does not
prohibit the use of fiber core wire rope for boom hoist reeving.
Permitting the use of fiber core ropes for boom hoist reeving on
cranes, as the commenter suggests, would reduce protection over that
currently considered prudent in the industry, and OSHA is therefore
promulgating paragraph (b)(1) as proposed, renumbering it as paragraph
(d)(1).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) prohibited the use of rotation resistant
rope for boom hoist reeving except where the requirements of paragraph
(c) (renumbered paragraph (e) in the final rule), are met. No comments
were received on this paragraph (b)(2), and it is being promulgated as
paragraph (d)(2) with the reference to paragraph (c) in the proposed
rule changed to paragraph (e)
Paragraph (e) Rotation Resistant Ropes
Paragraph (e)(1)
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) of this section classified rotation
resistant ropes into three ``Types'' (``Type I'', ``Type II'', and
``Type III''). Proposed paragraph (c)(2) specified use limitations and
requirements for each type of wire rope. This approach differed from
former subpart N, ANSI B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2004, which did not
distinguish between types of rotation resistant rope. By distinguishing
between different types of rope, the Committee sought to ensure that
ropes with different internal structures were subject to appropriate
requirements and limitations that would enable them to be used safely.
Types I, II, and III, which have different capabilities, were described
in proposed paragraph (c)(1).
    ASTM A 1023/A 1023M-02 has a similar classification system,
although it divides rotation resistant ropes into ``categories'' rather
than ``types.'' One commenter noted that there is no meaningful
difference between the classification in the proposed rule and that in
ASTM A 1023. (ID-0060.1.) This

commenter urged OSHA to incorporate by reference the ASTM definitions
rather than to state the definitions in the final rule. This would, the
commenter suggested, avoid confusion among manufacturers and users who
rely on the ASTM's classification system.
    Although the provisions in the final rule are substantively similar
to those in the ASTM standard, the Agency uses the term ``category'' in
the wire rope provisions of subpart CC that relate to the
classification of apparent deficiencies (see, e.g., Sec.
1926.1413(a)(2)). Therefore, to avoid confusion with those provision,
OSHA uses the term ``type'' in classifying rotation resistant rope in
Sec.  1926.1414. OSHA concludes that the use of ``category'' in the
ASTM standard would cause considerable confusion if OSHA were to
incorporate the ASTM definitions directly. Accordingly, OSHA is
promulgating proposed paragraph (c)(1) as paragraph (e)(1) of the final
rule.
Paragraph (e)(2)
    Paragraphs (e)(2) of this section sets forth use requirements of
the three types of rotation resistant rope in terms of operating design
factors (and in some instances activity). The purpose of these
provisions is to ensure that the selection of the type of rotation
resistant rope is suitable, in terms of safety, to its use.
    These requirements are identical to those in proposed paragraph
(c)(2). The preamble to the proposed rule explained in detail the basis
for setting these design factors for rotation resistant rope (see 73 FR
59782-59783, Oct. 9, 2008). One commenter, stated that rotation
resistant ropes should have a design factor of less than 5 only for
single engineered lifts, but provided no rationale for this position.
No other comments addressed the proposed design factors, and OSHA is
deferring to the expertise of C-DAC and incorporating the design
factors in paragraph (e)(2) of the final rule.
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, paragraphs
(e)(2)(i)-(iv) use the phrase ``operating design factor.''
``Operating'' is included to show that the factors specified in these
provisions are to reflect how the rope is installed on the specific
piece of equipment in which it is used. In other words, the operating
design factor is calculated based on numerous considerations associated
with both the rope's design and how it is installed on the equipment.
    The prohibition on the use of rotation resistant rope for duty
cycle and repetitive lifts does not apply to Type I rope because the
Committee determined that such rope is significantly more resistant to
rotation or torque compared with Types II and III. This reduces Type
I's potential for internal wear during use and moves degradation from
the inner wires to the outer wires, where damage is more easily
detected during wire rope inspections. Accordingly, the Committee
concluded that Type I rope can safely be used for duty cycle and
repetitive lifts at an operating design factor below 5 (but no less
than 3.5), as specified in proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii). No comments
addressed the distinction between the types of wire rope in paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section.
    In the proposed rule, OSHA noted that C-DAC did not include
definitions for ``duty cycle'' or ``repetitive lifts.'' The Agency
asked for comment on whether definitions of these terms should be
included in Sec.  1926.1401 and proposed definitions that it determined
were consistent with C-DAC's understanding and widely understood in the
industry. OSHA proposed to define ``duty cycle'' as ``a continuous
operation in which approximately the same type and weight of load is
handled.'' It gave dredging with a clamshell as an example of duty
cycle work. OSHA proposed to define ``repetitive lifts'' as ``a
continuous operation with loads that may vary in size and weight.'' For
an example, it noted that steel erection work typically involves
repetitive lifts of various size and configurations of structural steel
members.
    Three commenters agreed that ``duty cycle'' and ``repetitive
lifts'' should be defined, and no commenters suggested otherwise. (ID-
0205.1; -0213.1; -0226.) The commenters on the subject did not object
to OSHA's proposed definition of ``repetitive lifts,'' but two
recommended that OSHA's proposed definition of ``duty cycle'' be
replaced with the following:

    A type of crane service in which bulk material is transferred
from one point to another by rapidly lifting, swinging, booming, and
placing the material. Typical types of duty cycle service are
dragline, clamshell, grapple, and magnet. This type of service is
differentiated from standard crane ``lift service'' in that cycle
times are very short and continuous, often less than 1 minute per
load, and loads are lifted and placed in general areas rather than
precise positions to permit such rapid cycles.

(ID-0205.1; -0213.1.)
    OSHA determines that in most respects the commenters' suggested
definition is clearer and better reflects the intent of the Agency.
Therefore, OSHA is adopting their definition with only minor
modification (the reference to ``lifting, swinging, booming and
placing'' is not necessary, since those actions simply describe typical
crane movements). OSHA is therefore adopting a slightly modified
version of the definition suggested by the commenters. This definition
is being included in Sec.  1926.1401, as is the definition for
``repetitive lifts'' proposed by OSHA and quoted above.
Paragraph (e)(3)
    This proposed paragraph specified additional requirements that must
be met when Types II and III rotation resistant wire rope are used with
an operating design factor of between 3.5 and 5 (for non-duty cycle,
non-repetitive lifts). The Committee concluded that these additional
requirements are needed to ensure that use of such ropes would be safe.
    Due to renumbering, proposed paragraph (c)(3) corresponds to final
paragraph (e)(3). One commenter believed that the reference to ``these
provisions'' in proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) was unclear and should
be clarified to state whether it refers to the entire subpart CC or to
specific provisions. (ID-0214.1.) As used here, ``these provisions''
refers to lifts under final paragraph (e)(3). To avoid any ambiguity,
``these provisions'' is being changed to ``Sec.  1926.1414(e)(3).''
    The same commenter who stated in regard to final paragraph (e)(2)
that rotation resistant rope should have a design factor of less than 5
only for single engineered lifts recommended that paragraph (e)(3) also
be changed to reflect its recommendation. (ID-0292.1.) OSHA is
rejecting that suggestion for the same reason given in relation to
paragraph (e)(2). No other objections to proposed paragraph (c)(3)
(final paragraph (e)(3)) were received. Accordingly, with the single
exception just mentioned in regard to final paragraph (e)(3)(iii),
proposed paragraph (c)(3) is being promulgated as final Sec.
1926.1414(e)(3).
Paragraph (e)(4) Additional Requirements for Rotation Resistant Rope
for Boom Hoist Reeving
    Paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section prohibits rotation resistant
rope from being used for boom hoist reeving except where the
requirements of paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section are met. C-DAC
members determined that the general prohibition was necessary because,
in their experience, rotation resistant rope used for boom hoist
reeving tends to twist and thereby suffer internal damage when it
passes over sheaves that are close together. However, C-DAC concluded
that safety would not be compromised when

rotation resistant rope is used for boom hoist reeving as long as the
conditions in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section are met.
    The Committee also determined that the exception would serve a
practical purpose, especially when using attachments such as luffing
jibs. The auxiliary hoist is typically used as a boom hoist for such
attachments, and is normally rigged with rotation resistant rope. The
exception enables the employer to avoid the need to change the rope
when using such attachments when safety could be assured by meeting the
specified conditions for its use.
    The conditions under which rotation resistant rope may be used for
boom hoist reeving were contained in proposed paragraph (c)(4). No
substantive objections to that proposed paragraph were received. Two
commenters stated that the phrase ``rated capacity'' in proposed
paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(F) should be replaced with ``rated load
capacity.'' (ID-0205.1; -0213.1.) As noted in the proposed rule, the C-
DAC proposal attributed the same meaning to both ``rated capacity'' and
``rated load capacity,'' and OSHA is consistently using the term
``rated capacity'' wherever C-DAC used either term to avoid any
confusion (see 73 FR 59738, Oct. 9, 2008). Accordingly, proposed
paragraph (c)(4) is being promulgated as final paragraph (e)(4) without
substantive change.
Paragraph (f)
    Proposed paragraph (d) of this section specified that wire rope
clips used with wedge sockets may only be attached to the unloaded dead
end of the rope, except that devices specifically designed for dead
ending rope in a wedge socket are also permitted.
    The Committee concluded that this provision was necessary to ensure
attachment strength, reliability and prevention of cable damage. No
comments concerning this provision were submitted, and OSHA is
promulgating it as Sec.  1926.1414(f).
Paragraph (g)
    Proposed paragraph (e) of this section stated that socketing must
be done according to the specifications of the manufacturer of the wire
rope or fitting. No comments regarding this provision were received,
and OSHA is promulgating it as Sec.  1926.1414(g).
Paragraph (h)
    Proposed paragraph (f) of this section specified that seizings must
be placed on each side of the point to be cut before the wire rope is
cut. It also specified that the length and number of seizings must be
in accordance with the instructions of the wire rope manufacturer.
    Seizings are needed to hold the wire in the strands and the strands
in place during handling while cutting, thereby keeping the rope beyond
the area of the cut intact. In the Committee's experience, the
instructions and procedures for seizing differ among various wire rope
manufacturers. The Committee decided to require employers to follow the
manufacturer's instructions because it concluded that wire rope
manufacturers have the knowledge and expertise to best determine the
length and number of seizings that are needed to maintain the integrity
of their wire ropes during cutting. No comments regarding this
provision were received, and OSHA is promulgating it as Sec.
1926.1414(h).
Section 1926.1415 Safety Devices
    This section sets forth the requirements for equipping cranes and
derricks with certain safety devices and prohibits the use of the
equipment if those devices are not working properly.
    The safety devices addressed by this section are devices that C-DAC
determined are essential for the safe operation of cranes and derricks
and therefore, required to be present and in proper working order
during all equipment operations with no alternative measures permitted.
Those devices considered less critical to equipment safety are
designated as operational aids and are governed by Sec.  1926.1416.
That section allows equipment to continue operating if the operational
aid fails or malfunctions but requires certain temporary alternative
protective measures in such cases. Those devices designated as safety
devices in this section, however, are so essential and integral to safe
equipment operation that C-DAC determined that there is no acceptable
alternative to having them in proper working order.
Paragraph (a) Safety Devices
    Paragraph (a) of this section lists the safety devices that are
required on all equipment covered by this subpart and specifications
and conditions applicable to those devices (including the exemption of
certain equipment from the requirements of the listed devices).
    Crane Level Indicator: Paragraph (a)(1) requires that a crane level
indicator be on all equipment covered under this subpart. C-DAC
determined that level equipment is a key factor in ensuring equipment
safety. Using a crane level indicator is necessary because it has the
requisite accuracy for leveling the equipment. C-DAC members stressed
the need to use a crane level indicator because, if the equipment is
not properly leveled, it will not have all the capacities indicated in
the load charts. Reliance on the charts in such situations could cause
the equipment to overturn or otherwise fail.
    Section 1926.1415(a)(1)(i) specifies that a crane level indicator
must either be built into the equipment or available on it. One
commenter requested clarification of whether the rule allows for the
use of a carpenter's level to satisfy the requirements of proposed
Sec.  1926.1415(a)(1)(i). (ID-0292.1.)
    A carpenter's level of sufficient length (such as a four-foot
level), available to the operator, that gives an accurate reading,
meets the requirements of this paragraph as proposed; such a level is
typically used in the industry for this purpose. Therefore, it is not
necessary to revise the text of the rule and OSHA is promulgating
paragraph (a)(1)(i) as proposed.
    Section 1926.1415(a)(1)(ii) addresses the hazard posed by false
readings from non-operational crane level indicators remaining on the
equipment. The Agency is requiring built-in (i.e., integral) crane
level indicators that are not working properly to be tagged-out or
removed. Similarly, removable crane level indicators must be removed
from the equipment if they are not working properly. Both requirements
are intended to avoid confusion and the operator's inadvertent reliance
on a device that is not working correctly. OSHA received no comment on
this provision. Therefore, OSHA promulgated it as proposed, with the
additional specification that a removable crane level indicator must be
removed prior to operation if it is not working properly.
    Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) exempts portal cranes,\78\ derricks, floating
cranes/derricks and land cranes/derricks on barges, pontoons, vessels,
or other means of flotation from the requirements of Sec.
1926.1415(a)(1). C-DAC members indicated that these types of equipment
are leveled and then fixed in place when installed, precluding the need
for a crane level indicator.\79\ OSHA

received no comment on this provision. Therefore, OSHA is promulgating
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Section 1926.1401 defines ``portal crane'' as a ``type of
crane consisting of a rotating upperstructure, hoist machinery, and
boom mounted on top of a structural gantry which may be fixed in one
location or have travel capability. The gantry legs or columns
usually have portal openings in between to allow passage of traffic
beneath the gantry.''
    \79\ Note that, Sec.  1926.1437(e) requires barge, pontoon,
vessel or other means of flotation list and trim device for floating
cranes/derricks and land cranes/derricks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Boom Stops: Paragraph (a)(2) requires boom stops on all equipment
except for derricks and hydraulic booms (see the discussion of this
provision in 73 FR 59785, Oct. 9, 2008). ``Boom stop'' is defined in
Sec.  1926.1401 as a device that restricts the boom from moving above a
certain maximum angle and toppling over backwards. OSHA received no
comment on this provision or definition. Therefore, OSHA is
promulgating paragraph (a)(2) as proposed.
    Jib Stops: Section 1926.1415(a)(3) requires jib stops on all
equipment where a jib is attached, except for derricks (see the
discussion of this provision in 73 FR 59785, Oct. 9, 2008). The
standard defines ``Jib stop (also referred to as a jib backstop)'' in
Sec.  1926.1401 as the ``same type of device as a boom stop but used
for a fixed or luffing jib.'' OSHA received no comment on this
provision or definition. Therefore, OSHA is promulgating paragraph
(a)(3) as proposed.
    Foot Pedal Brake Locks: Proposed paragraph (a)(4) required that
equipment with foot pedal brakes have locks, except for portal cranes
and floating cranes. Such locks prevent the unintentional disengagement
of a foot pedal brake, which could lead to unintended equipment
movement and consequent injuries and fatalities. Due to the physical
effort needed to keep the pedal engaged, this is particularly important
where the brake is applied for long periods.
    The rationale for exempting portal cranes and floating cranes from
this requirement discussed by C-DAC was that there are instances in
which, due to the pitching of a floating crane and the pitching of the
vessel or object in the water with which a portal crane works, the
operator may have to immediately release the brake. The concern is
that, if the foot pedal brake lock has been activated, the operator may
not be able to release the brake quickly enough to prevent the
equipment from being overloaded or to prevent unintended movement of
the load.
    As explained in the proposed rule, upon review of the exemption in
the provision, the Agency realized that C-DAC assumed that the locking
device would always be of the type that is located on the brake pedal.
That type of device can be difficult to disengage, thereby delaying the
operator's ability to release the brake. However, there are other types
of brake locking mechanisms that do not present this problem (for
example, a brake lock that is hand-actuated). This raised the issue of
whether the exemption is needed. Consequently, OSHA asked for public
comment on whether to change proposed Sec.  1926.1415(a)(4) by deleting
the exemption and requiring a hoist brake locking mechanism for all
cranes.
    OSHA received no comment on this issue. Therefore, OSHA has not
included the exemption in the final rule. The final paragraph (a)(4) is
published as proposed except that OSHA has removed the phrase ``except
for portal cranes and floating cranes.''
    Integral Holding Device/Check Valve: Paragraph (a)(5) requires that
hydraulic outrigger jacks have an integral holding device/check valve.
Such a device is necessary to prevent the outrigger jack from
collapsing in the event of a hydraulic failure. (See the discussion of
this provision in 73 FR 59786, Oct. 9, 2008.) OSHA is promulgating this
provision as proposed.
    Two commenters, both of which had nominated C-DAC members,
suggested moving this requirement to Sec.  1926.1433 (Design,
construction and testing) due to their belief that an integral holding
device/check valve is a design feature. (ID-0205.1; -0213.1.) Neither
of these organizations' nominees dissented on this issue. Both
organizations indicated in their comments that they supported the
recommendations of C-DAC and were not providing any negative comments
on provisions that mirrored the C-DAC consensus document. Since this
provision is unchanged from the C-DAC consensus document, the Agency
assumes that the commenters believe that they are suggesting a non-
substantive formatting change.
    The commenters are mistaken in that regard. By locating this
provision in the Safety Devices section of the standard, the employer
is required to inspect the integral holding device/check valve (see,
e.g., Sec.  1926.1412(d)(1)(xiv)) and, if it is not functioning
properly, to not use the crane until it is repaired (see Sec.
1926.1415(b)). If this provision were moved to the Design, construction
and testing section, it would no longer be considered a safety device.
If it was not functioning, it would be left to the competent person
conducting the shift and monthly inspections (and the qualified person
conducting the annual inspection) to determine if the deficiency
constituted a safety hazard (see, e.g., Sec.  1926.1412(d)(2)). C-DAC
determined, and OSHA agrees, that an integral holding device/check
valve is essential for the safe operation of hydraulic outrigger jacks
and therefore needs to be designated as a safety device.
    Rail Clamps and Rail Stops: Paragraph (a)(6) specifies that
equipment on rails have rail clamps and rail stops, except for portal
cranes. (See the discussion of this provision in 73 FR 59786, Oct. 9,
2008.) OSHA received no comment on this provision. Therefore, it is
promulgated as proposed.
    Horn: In the proposed rule, a horn was not listed as a safety
device. One commenter requested that the standard require a horn. (ID-
0156.1.) ASME B30.5-2004 requires that an ``audible signal device'' be
provided, within reach of the operator. OSHA agrees that a horn is an
important safety feature; it is typically a standard feature on cranes
and is used to warn workers of imminent dangers. Therefore, OSHA has
included a horn in the list of safety devices in Sec.  1926.1415(a)(7)
of the final rule.
    The horn need not be permanently installed on the equipment, but it
must be in a location where the operator can access and use it
immediately to warn workers of imminent danger. An operator may use a
removable device, such as a hand-held air horn that is stored near the
operator in a manner that would not interfere with the operation of the
equipment, if it satisfies those requirements.
    OSHA is also requiring in Sec.  1926.1415(a)(7)(ii) that built-in
(i.e., integral) horns be removed or tagged out when they are not
working properly. Similarly, a removable horn must be removed from the
equipment when it is not working properly. As noted in the previous
paragraph, the operator would be permitted to resume operation if an
operational horn, such as a hand-held air horn, is added to the cab in
the proper location. It is therefore critical that the operator, and
operators in subsequent shifts, not be confused about which horn is
operational. A non-operational horn must be tagged out or removed,
prior to the resumption of operation, to avoid the operator's
inadvertent reliance on the nonoperational horn. The horn is often
required when an unexpected hazard presents itself, and the operator
must therefore locate and use it quickly.
Paragraph (b) Proper Operation Required
    Paragraph (b) prohibits the operation of the equipment if any of
the safety devices listed in this section are not in proper working
order. Under OSHA's existing Sec.  1926.20(b)(3), employers must tag
out or remove any equipment that is not in compliance with any
applicable requirement in part 1926. In Sec.  1926.1417(f), OSHA makes
it clear that when equipment is ``taken out of

service,'' the employer must place a tag in the cab to provide clear
notice to all employees that the equipment is out of service. To avoid
any potential ambiguity about whether equipment is ``taken out of
service'' when its operation is prohibited because of an inoperational
safety device, OSHA is inserting new text in Sec.  1926.1415(b) and a
cross reference to Sec.  1926.1417 (Operation). Specifically, final
paragraph (b)(2) requires that equipment be ``taken out of service''
when one of the safety devices in Sec.  1926.1415 is not operating
properly. The general tagout requirement in Sec.  1926.1417(f)(1) will
apply whenever any of the safety devices are not operating properly.
    The Agency notes that the specific tagout/removal requirements for
crane level indicators (Sec.  1926.1415(a)(1)(ii)) and horns (Sec.
1926.1415(a)(7)(ii)) are intended to supplement this general
requirement. Unlike the safety devices addressed in Sec. Sec.
1926.1415(a)(2) through (a)(6), which are not as likely to be left on
the equipment once they are non-operational, Sec. Sec.
1926.1415(a)(1)(ii)) and 1926.1415(a)(7)(ii)) address the additional
hazard that non-operational equipment might remain in the cab, and be
accidently relied on by the operator, once an operational version of
the same device has been placed in the cab.
Section 1926.1416 Operational Aids
    This section sets forth the requirements for equipping cranes and
derricks with certain operational aids. ``Operational aids'' are
defined in Sec.  1926.1401 as ``devices that assist the operator in the
safe operation of the crane by providing information or automatically
taking control of a crane function. These include, but are not limited
to, the devices listed in Sec.  1926.1416 (`listed operational
aids').''
    As discussed above regarding Sec.  1926.1415, OSHA determines that
the devices addressed in Sec.  1926.1416 enhance safety. However, they
are less essential to the safe operation of equipment than the safety
devices addressed by Sec.  1926.1415 because sufficient temporary
alternative measures are available. Crane operators historically used
these temporary alternative measures as safety precautions prior to the
widespread availability and use of these operational aids.
Paragraph (a)
    Proposed paragraph (a) of this section provided that the
operational aids listed in this section are required on all equipment
covered by subpart CC, unless otherwise specified.
    Other sections of this rule provide exceptions for various types of
equipment. Under Sec.  1926.1435(e)(1), this section does not apply to
tower cranes. Instead, the operational aids required for tower cranes
are specified in Sec.  1926.1435. Under Sec.  1926.1436(f)(1),
Sec. Sec.  1926.1416(d)(1), (e)(1), and (e)(4) do not apply to
derricks.
    This section also does not apply to existing equipment manufactured
before certain dates. Those dates are keyed either to the time an
operational aid was first required by a national consensus standard or
to the effective date of the standard. One year after the effective
date of this final rule, the proposed rule would have required all
operational aids on all equipment, with a single exception: proposed
paragraph (e)(4) did not require load weighing or similar devices on
derricks.
    A trade association asked that articulating cranes be exempt from
certain requirements of this section: the requirement for a boom angle
or radius indicator in paragraph (e)(1) of this section; the
requirement for a jib angle indicator in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section; the requirement for a boom length indicator in paragraph
(e)(3) of this section; and the requirement for an outrigger position
sensor/monitor in paragraph (e)(5)(i) of this section. (ID-0206.1.) As
to the first three, the commenter stated that these would not be
practical on articulating cranes because of the boom configuration on
such cranes. The commenter said that a boom angle indicator or jib
angle indicator could not be used because articulating cranes can have
up to three boom sections at different angles. Unlike cranes with
straight booms, their capacity is determined by the combination of boom
angles rather than a single angle. Similarly, the commenter stated,
boom length indicators are not practical on articulating cranes because
their lifting capacity is based on the position of the boom sections
rather than the boom length. Finally, the commenter asserted that
articulating cranes should be exempt from the requirement for outrigger
position sensor monitors because such cranes use stabilizers rather
than outriggers.
    OSHA agrees with the commenter that boom angle indicators, jib
angle indicators, and boom length indicators are not appropriate for
articulating cranes for the reasons given by the commenter.
Accordingly, OSHA is adding Sec.  1926.416(a)(1), which excludes
articulating cranes from the requirements in Sec. Sec.
1926.1416(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3).
    OSHA is not exempting articulating cranes from the requirement of
Sec.  1926.1416(e)(5)(i). As discussed under Sec.  1926.1404, for
certain types of cranes, stabilizers serve the same function as
outriggers and, where appropriate, provisions of the proposed rule that
applied to outriggers are being changed in the final rule to also apply
to stabilizers. One such provision is paragraph (e)(5)(i) of this
section, which, as discussed below, has been modified from the proposed
rule to require outrigger/stabilizer position sensor monitors rather
than outrigger position sensor monitors on equipment manufactured more
than one year after the effective date of the standard. As so modified,
the provision appropriately applies to articulating cranes.
    Another commenter stated that digger derricks do not typically have
anti-two blocking devices (paragraph (d)(3)), radius indicators
(paragraph (e)(1)), load weighing devices (paragraph (e)(4)), outrigger
position indicators (paragraph (e)(6)(i)), and hoist drum rotation
indicators (paragraph (e)(5)(ii).\80\ (ID-0155.1.) This commenter does
not state that such devices would be impractical on digger derricks but
only that they are not currently equipped with the devices. OSHA notes
that the ANSI standard applicable to digger derricks, ANSI/ASSE A10.31-
2006, does not require the devices listed by the commenter. As noted
above, this final rule is exempting certain older or existing equipment
from the need to be equipped with certain operational aids when the
consensus standard for such equipment has not required those devices.
Consistent with this policy, OSHA is specifying that only those digger
derricks manufactured more than one year after the effective date of
this standard must be equipped with anti-two blocking devices, boom
angle or radius indicators, and load weighing devices. Under Sec.
1926.1416(e)(5), outrigger position indicators and hoist drum rotation
indicators are not required on any equipment until one year after the
effective date of the standard, so it is not necessary to single out
digger derricks for special treatment for these devices. Accordingly,
OSHA is adding Sec.  1926.1416(a)(2) to the final rule, which provides
that the requirements in Sec. Sec.  1926.1416(d)(3), (e)(1), and (e)(4)
only apply to those digger derricks manufactured more than one year
after the effective date of this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ The term ``digger derrick'' is defined in Sec.  1926.1401.
As discussed in Sec.  1926.1400, digger derricks are not covered by
the standard when used for work related to utility poles but are
subject to this final rule when used covered for general lifting
activities unrelated to utility poles.

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

Paragraph (b)
    Proposed paragraph (b) of this section stated that operations shall
not begin unless the listed operational aids are in proper working
order, except where the employer meets specified temporary alternative
measures. If the crane or derrick manufacturer specified more
protective alternative measures, the employer would have to follow
those measures.
    Upon reviewing the proposed paragraph, OSHA believes it does not
state its requirement as clearly as possible. As subsequent provisions
of this section make clear, employers may only use temporary
alternative measures while listed operational aids are being repaired,
and then only for limited times. OSHA is rewording paragraph (b) in the
final rule to make these requirements clearer.
    Two hearing participants requested that, in general, OSHA remove
any provision in the proposed rule that would require strict adherence
to manufacturer's procedures. (ID-0341; -0342.) Compliance with
manufacturer procedures is addressed in the discussion of Sec.
1926.1417. In addition, OSHA determines that the rule addresses the
hearing participants' concerns. Employers can fully comply with the
standard by maintaining the listed operational aids in proper working
order. For brief periods while such aids are being repaired, employers
can generally comply by following the temporary alternatives listed in
the rule. Only if manufacturers recommend safer alternatives, which
OSHA concludes will rarely occur, will employers need to look to those
recommendations rather than the precautions specified in the rule.
Paragraph (c)
    Paragraph (c) of this section states that if a listed operational
aid stops working properly during operations, the operator must safely
stop operations until the temporary alternative measures are
implemented or the device is again working properly. Further, if a
replacement part is no longer available, a substitute device that
performs the same type of function may be used, and the use of such a
device is not considered a modification under Sec.  1926.1434,
Equipment modifications. Section 1926.1434 applies to modifications or
additions that affect the capacity or safe operation of the equipment
except where the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3)
of Sec.  1926.1434 are met. OSHA determines that it is unnecessary to
apply Sec.  1926.1434 to the use of a substitute operational aid
because, as long as the substitute device works properly, its use will
not affect the capacity or safe operation of the equipment. No comments
were received on this paragraph, and it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d) Category I Operational Aids and Alternative Measures
    The standard categorizes operational aids by the amount of time
permitted for the use of temporary alternative measures in place of the
listed operational aids. Employers must ensure the repair of Category I
operational aids, addressed by paragraph (d), no later than 7 days
after the deficiency occurs. Category II operational aids, addressed
below by paragraph (e), have a 30-day time limit for repair. Except
where noted, C-DAC recommended each of these aids for the reasons set
forth below. The Committee further determined that each of the
temporary alternative measurers would be safe to use until the
deficient operational aid was restored to proper service within the
time required under the section. OSHA agrees. (For purposes of
clarification, the Agency has added a reference to Sec.  1926.1416(d)
noting that the requirements of Sec.  1926.1417(j) are applicable. See
further discussion at Sec.  1926.1417(j).)
    Both Category I and II have an exception to the repair time limits.
For Category I, if the employer documents that it has ordered the
necessary parts within 7 days of the occurrence of the deficiency, the
repair must be completed within 7 days of receipt of the part. For
Category II, if the employer documents that it has ordered the
necessary parts within 7 days of the date on which the deficiency was
discovered, and does not receive the part in time to complete the
repair in 30 days, the repair must be completed within 7 days of
receipt of the part. OSHA determines that these time limits are both
feasible and reflective of the amount of time that it is appropriate to
rely on the temporary alternative measures in each category.
    During the SBREFA Panel process, one Small Entity Representative
stated that an extended time limit might be required to determine the
appropriate part number for older equipment. Therefore, it might not be
possible to order a replacement within 7 days of the occurrence of the
deficiency. OSHA sought public comment on the extent to which this is a
problem. OSHA further sought comment on how to accommodate employers
when the unavailability of a part number hinders them from ordering a
replacement part. OSHA did not receive comments on these issues.
    The SBREFA Panel also questioned whether the number of ``days'' for
ordering parts and completing repairs for operational aids refers to
calendar days or business days. Absent a different definition in the
standard, OSHA interpreted the word ``days'' to mean ``working days''
which, as discussed above in relation to proposed Sec.  1926.1407(e),
would mean Mondays through Fridays, excluding Federal holidays. OSHA
sought public comment on whether a different definition of ``days''
should apply under this section.
    One commenter stated that the use of the term ``days'' is unclear.
(ID-0143.1.) Two commenters stated it was C-DAC's intention that the
term ``days'' mean calendar days as opposed to business days. The
commenters stated that the circumstances in Sec.  1926.1407(e), where
the rule uses business days, are unique because power companies are not
open/available on weekends.
    OSHA concludes that the 7 and 30 day time frames should refer to
calendar days. The periods correspond to one calendar week and one
typical calendar month, and it is, therefore, easy to determine when
the period ends if they mean calendar days. Moreover, referring to
``calendar'' days will lead to faster repairs and help promote safety.
Therefore, OSHA has clarified by adding the word ``calendar'' before
each use of the word ``days'' in this section; the remainder of
paragraph (c) is identical to the proposed rule.
    Paragraph (d) lists the required Category I operational aids and
the acceptable temporary alternative measures for these aids.
    Boom Hoist Limiting Device: Paragraph (d)(1) requires that all
equipment manufactured after December 16, 1969, have a boom hoist
limiting device. As defined in Sec.  1926.1401, a boom hoist limiting
device ``disengages boom hoist power when the boom reaches a
predetermined operating angle'' and also ``sets brakes or closes valves
to prevent the boom from lowering after power is disengaged.'' Section
1926.1401 also defines the term ``boom hoist limiting device'' to
include ``boom hoist disengaging device, boom hoist shutoff, boom hoist
disconnect, boom hoist hydraulic relief, boom hoist kick-outs,
automatic boom stop device, or derricking limiter.'' A boom hoist
limiting device automatically prevents the boom hoist from pulling the
boom past the minimum allowable radius (maximum boom angle). If the
boom hoist pulls the boom past that point, a failure is likely (for
example, the boom

could buckle from being forced against the boom stop).
    The December 16, 1969, date reflects the effective date of ASME
B30.5-1968. This was the first national consensus standard to require a
boom hoist limiting device, and C-DAC regarded that date as a
reasonable indicator of when the industry began to widely manufacture
or equip cranes and derricks with such devices. OSHA agrees. Although
the ASME standard only applies to crawler, locomotive, and truck
cranes, OSHA is extending this provision to all equipment based on
prevailing industry practice.
    The standard includes three temporary alternative measures in
paragraphs (d)(1)(A)-(C), of which the employer must use at least one
if the boom hoist limiting device malfunctions: (A) Use of a boom angle
indicator; (B) clearly marking the boom hoist cable at a point that
will give the operator sufficient time to stop the hoist to keep the
boom within the minimum allowable radius; and, (C) if a spotter is
used, clearly marking the boom hoist cable at a point that will give
the spotter sufficient time to signal the operator and have the
operator stop the hoist to keep the boom within the minimum allowable
radius. C-DAC recommended these measures because historically they were
used by employers prior to the development of the boom hoist limiting
device.
    In the proposed rule, Sec.  1926.1416(d)(1)(ii) specified that
employers must, on a permanent basis, use at least one of these
measures for equipment manufactured on or before December 16, 1969 that
``was not originally equipped'' with a boom hoist limiting device. OSHA
notes that equipment not originally equipped with a boom hoist limiting
device might have one added later, and that such a piece of equipment
should be treated the same as equipment originally equipped with such a
device. Accordingly, OSHA has modified Sec.  1926.1416(d)(1)(ii) by
replacing ``was not originally equipped'' with ``is not equipped'' and
removing ``on a permanent basis.'' If and when the equipment is
modified to include the limiting device, it would fall under Sec.
1926.1416(d)(1)(i). Until that point, it would remain under Sec.
1926.1416(d)(1)(ii), and at least one of the measures in paragraphs
(d)(1)(A)-(C) would be required at all times.
    Luffing Jib Limiting Device: Paragraph (d)(2) requires that
equipment with a luffing jib have a luffing jib limiting device. As
defined in Sec.  1926.1401, a luffing jib limiting device ``is similar
to a boom hoist limiting device, except that it limits the movement of
the luffing jib.'' These devices function similarly and are
distinguished only as to the type of crane extension they are designed
to limit automatically, the jib or the boom. The temporary alternative
measures for a luffing jib limiting device are the same as those for a
boom hoist limiting device in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A)-(C). For clarity,
the Agency added the words, ``rather than the boom hoist'' to paragraph
(d)(2)(i).
    Anti Two-Blocking Device: Paragraph (d)(3) sets forth the
requirements for anti two-blocking devices. Section 1926.1401 defines
``two-blocking'' as ``a condition in which a component that is
uppermost on the hoist line such as the load block, hook block,
overhaul ball, or similar component, comes in contact with the boom
tip, fixed upper block or similar component. This binds the system and
continued application of power can cause failure of the hoist rope or
other component.'' As the definition indicates, two-blocking can cause
the crane to drop the load, the headache ball, or another component,
creating a hazard to employees below. When hoisting personnel, an anti
two-blocking device had been required by former Sec.
1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(C) since October 3, 1988, but was not otherwise
required under subpart N. OSHA concludes that requiring the use of anti
two-blocking devices will reduce the number of crane-related injuries
and fatalities.
    There are two forms of anti two-block devices: an automatic
prevention device or a warning device. The automatic prevention device
automatically stops two-blocking from occurring. The warning device
warns the operator when two-blocking is about to occur. OSHA determines
that an automatic prevention device provides better protection than a
warning device for employees, since it automatically stops two-
blocking. As discussed below, the standard ultimately requires
automatic prevention devices on all equipment manufactured after
February 28, 1992, under a phase-in schedule. The standard takes into
account of the date the national consensus standard, ASME B30.5, began
to require such devices for telescopic boom cranes, and that B30.5
continues to allow lattice boom cranes to be equipped with either
automatic prevention devices or warning devices.
    ASME B30.5, effective February 28, 1992, states that telescopic
boom cranes must have automatic prevention devices. For lattice boom
cranes, ASME B30.5 states that they must have two-block protection but
allows greater flexibility, allowing them to be equipped with either
automatic prevention devices or warning devices. The additional
protection for telescopic boom cranes in the ASME standard reflects the
fact that such cranes are more likely to two-block because telescoping
the boom out (an action that does not occur with lattice boom cranes)
moves the boom's block closer to the load end of the hoist cable, which
can cause two-blocking.
    Because February 28, 1992 is the date that ASME B30.5 first stated
that telescopic boom cranes must have anti two-block devices and is
when the industry first began widely manufacturing or equipping such
cranes with such devices, proposed paragraph (d)(3)(i) requires
automatic prevention devices on all telescopic boom cranes manufactured
after February 28, 1992. However, because ASME B30.5 allows lattice
boom cranes to have either an automatic prevention device or a warning
device since February 28, 1992, paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A) gives employers
the option of using either device on lattice boom cranes manufactured
between February 28, 1992, and one year after the effective date of
this standard.
    OSHA concludes that an automatic prevention device provides better
protection than a warning device because it directly addresses the
hazard, rather than alerting an operator and requiring an additional
step by the operator to address the hazard. Therefore, lattice boom
cranes manufactured more than one year after the effective date of this
standard must be equipped with an automatic prevention device.
    Paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(C) excludes lattice boom equipment used during
certain activities from the anti two-block requirements of (d)(3)(A)
and (B). The provision exempts lattice boom equipment when used for
dragline, clamshell (grapple), magnet, drop ball, container
handling,\81\ concrete bucket, marine operations that do not involve
hoisting personnel, and pile driving work. C-DAC indicated that most of
these operations involve heavy repetitive motion, and anti-two-block
devices used during these activities consistently malfunction (that is,
the device ``trips'' even though two-blocking has not occurred) and are
frequently damaged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ In most situations hoisting containers are regulated under
29 CFR part 1918; this standard applies to hoisting containers only
where that activity is construction work. For example, hoisting a
container of construction material from a ship onto a concrete pier
that is part of a bridge construction project is a construction
activity covered by this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, note that Sec.  1926.1437(f)(1) requires anti two-block
devices on floating cranes/derricks and land

cranes/derricks on barges when hoisting personnel or hoisting over an
occupied cofferdam or shaft. The Agency determines that cranes need
anti two-block devices to prevent employees from being dropped and to
prevent loads from striking employees in the confined work environment
of a cofferdam or shaft. These safety considerations outweigh any
concern for damage to a device or unnecessary ``tripping'' during
marine operations.
    The temporary alternative measures available when an anti two-block
device on a lattice-boom crane or derrick malfunctions are to clearly
mark the cable so that it can easily be seen by the operator at a point
that will give the operator sufficient time to stop the hoist to
prevent two-blocking, or to use a spotter to warn the operator to stop
the hoist.
    For telescopic boom cranes, the temporary alternative measures
required are to clearly mark the cable so that it can easily be seen by
the operator at a point that will give the operator sufficient time to
stop the hoist to prevent two-blocking and to use a spotter when
extending the boom. OSHA determines that the alternative measures for
telescopic boom cranes must require the use of a spotter when extending
the boom because two-blocking can occur even when the cable hoist is
not being operated. As noted above, telescoping the boom out moves the
boom's block closer to the load end of the hoist cable, which can cause
two-blocking. A mark on the hoist cable in such instances will not warn
the operator that two-blocking is about to occur. Therefore, when
extending the boom, a spotter is required.
    The proposed rule did not address the issue of anti two-block
protection for articulating cranes. Many such cranes are equipped with
forks at the end of the boom and do not have the potential for two-
blocking. However, those equipped with a load hoist present the same
potential for two-blocking as other cranes with load hoists. A trade
association pointed out that the ASME standard for articulating cranes,
ASME B30.22-1998, first required two-block protection effective
December 31, 1999. (ID-0206.1.) OSHA infers that articulating cranes
with boom hoists manufactured after December 31, 1999, were routinely
equipped with automatic two-block protection after that date.
Therefore, to treat such cranes in a manner similar to lattice boom
cranes and telescopic boom cranes, OSHA is adding Sec.
1926.1416(d)(3)(iii) to the final rule.
Paragraph (e) Category II Operational Aids and Alternative Measures.
    Paragraph (e) of this section lists the required Category II
operational aids and the acceptable temporary alternative measures for
these aids. If any of these aids is not working properly, it must be
repaired no later than 30 days after the deficiency occurs. As noted
above, if the employer documents that it has ordered the necessary
parts within 7 calendar days from the occurrence of the deficiency, and
does not receive the part in time to complete the repair in 30 calendar
days, the repair must be completed within 7 calendar days of receipt of
the part. (For purposes of clarification, the Agency has added a
reference to Sec.  1926.1416(e) noting that the requirements of Sec.
1926.1417(j) are applicable. See further discussion at Sec.
1926.1417(j).)
    Boom Angle or Radius Indicator: Paragraph (e)(1) requires a boom
angle or radius indicator that is readable from the operator's station
on all equipment. Section 1926.1401 defines ``boom angle indicator'' as
``a device which measures the angle of the boom relative to the
horizontal.'' This definition is identical to that in the SC&RF
Handbook. It is necessary to know the boom angle to determine the
crane's capacity from its load chart. The temporary alternative measure
is to measure the radii or boom angle with a measuring device.
    Jib Angle Indicator: Paragraph (e)(2) requires a jib angle
indicator on all equipment with a luffing jib. The temporary
alternative measure is to measure the radii or jib angle with a
measuring device.
    Boom Length Indicator: Paragraph (e)(3) requires a boom length
indicator on all equipment equipped with a telescopic boom. Section
1926.1401 defines a ``boom length indicator,'' as a device that,
``indicates the length of the permanent part of the boom (such as ruled
markings on the boom) or, as in some computerized systems, the length
of the boom with extensions/attachments.'' OSHA did not receive any
comments on the definition and is promulgating it as proposed. The
operator must know the length of the boom because it affects the
crane's capacity, as shown on the load chart. At least one of the
following must be used as a temporary alternative measures: mark the
boom with measured marks to calculate boom length; calculate boom
length from boom angle and radius measurements; or measure the boom
with a measuring device.
    Load Weighing and Similar Devices: Proposed paragraph (e)(4)
required load weighing and similar devices on all equipment with a
rated capacity over 6,000 pounds and manufactured after March 29, 2003
(except derricks; a comparable provision for derricks is in Sec.
1926.1436(f)(3), discussed below). The framework of this proposed
paragraph was similar to the approach taken in sec. 5-<IP_ADDRESS> of ASME
B30.5-2004, respecting these aids. The proposed standard permitted
employers to choose to outfit its equipment with either a load weighing
device, load moment (or rated capacity) indicator, or a load moment or
rated capacity limiter. The latter two terms are defined in Sec.
1926.1401. All three devices are intended to help the operator avoid
exceeding the equipment's rated capacity and thereby prevent the crane
from tipping over.
    This proposed provision was limited to equipment (other than
derricks) manufactured after March 29, 2003. That was the date when
ASME B30.5 first called for all mobile cranes with a rated capacity
over 6,000 pounds to be equipped with load weighing devices. The
proposed provision was thus keyed to the date when the industry first
began widely manufacturing or equipping mobile cranes with load
weighing or load moment devices.
    A trade association pointed out that ASME B30.5 does not apply to
articulating cranes and that the applicable consensus standard, ASME
B30.22, does not require the devices specified in paragraph (e)(4).
(ID-0206.1.) The commenter stated, however, that these are likely to be
required by the 2010 update of ASME B30.22.
    As discussed in Sec.  1926.1400, evidence in the record shows that
many articulating cranes are currently equipped with automatic overload
prevention devices which, like the devices specified in this section,
are designed to avoid the possibility of tipover. Therefore, the
tipover hazard addressed by paragraph (e)(4) can be addressed for
newly-manufactured articulating cranes by requiring such cranes to be
equipped with either automatic overload prevention devices or one of
the devices specified in paragraph (e)(4). To achieve this objective,
OSHA is therefore revising proposed paragraph (e)(4). The requirement
in proposed paragraph (e)(4) is revised to exclude articulating cranes
and is renumbered paragraph (e)(4)(i) in the final rule. New paragraph
(e)(4)(i) includes temporary alternative measures based on calculations
from sources recognized by the industry. The proposed rule had provided
for calculations based on a ``reliable'' source or calculation method,
or ``by other equally reliable means.'' To avoid the

potentially subjective interpretations of ``reliable,'' OSHA is instead
requiring that the measurements be from a source typically relied on in
the industry.
    A new paragraph (e)(4)(ii), applicable to articulating cranes, is
added. This new paragraph requires articulating cranes manufactured
more than one year after the effective date of the standard to be
equipped with either an automatic overload prevention device, a load
weighing device, a load moment (or rated capacity) indictor, or a load
moment (or rated capacity) limiter. Paragraph (e)(4)(ii) will protect
workers against articulating cranes tipping over while giving employers
a choice of means to achieve this objective. The temporary alternative
measure required under paragraph (e)(4)(ii) is the same as that
required under paragraph (e)(4)(i).
    A commenter informed OSHA that New York City requires a load
weighing or similar device on cranes manufactured after December 30,
1993, and requested that the final rule allow local governments to
impose stricter requirements. (ID-0156.1.) Whether local governments
can impose stricter requirements than provided under this final rule is
discussed under federalism in section V.D of this preamble.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(5) required two future operational aids--an
outrigger position sensor/monitor and a hoist drum rotation indicator--
on all equipment manufactured more than one year after the effective
date of this standard.\82\ As discussed in Sec.  1926.1404, certain
types of equipment are equipped with stabilizers rather than
outriggers, and OSHA is modifying the language of proposed
``outrigger'' provisions to clarify that such provisions also apply to
equipment with stabilizers. Therefore, paragraph (e)(5)(i) is being
reworded in the final rule to apply to equipment with stabilizers as
well as outriggers. Paragraph (e)(5)(ii), which requires hoist drum
rotation indicators, is promulgated as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ The proposed rule would have required these aids on
equipment manufactured after January 1, 2008. Here, as elsewhere,
OSHA believes that devices not commonly installed on equipment
should be not be required until more than one year after the
effective date of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that deadman controls should be required on
all cranes. (ID-0156.1.) Section 1926.1435(d)(2)(viii) requires that
tower cranes have deadman controls, but C-DAC did not determined these
should be required on other types of cranes. This commenter has not
stated why it believes such controls are needed for safe operation of
other types of cranes. Accordingly, OSHA defers to C-DAC's judgment
that deadman controls should not be required on cranes other than tower
cranes.
Section 1926.1417 Operation
    Section 1926.1417 addresses hazards associated with general
operation of equipment covered by this standard. Previously, 29 CFR
part 1926, subpart N primarily addressed safe operation by
incorporating national consensus standards and manufacturer
recommendations. For example, former Sec.  1926.550(b)(2) required
crawler, truck, and locomotive cranes to comply with the operation
requirements of ANSI B30.5-1968. The provisions in this section are
designed to update such requirements, make them more comprehensive, and
state them in a way that is clear and enforceable.
Paragraph (a)