“Docket No. 85-1061 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v.AUSTIN BRIDGE COMPANY Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 85-1061ORDER The Commission approves the parties’ Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. The Commissionapproves the settlement regarding subitem 1b and thus vacates the item. The Commissionalso affirms the Administrative Law Judge’s decision vacating subitem 1a.FOR THE COMMISSION RAY H. DARLING, JR.EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Dated: December 19, 1986SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v.AUSTIN BRIDGE COMPANY, Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 85-1061STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTI.The parties stipulate as follows:(a) As a result of an accident at respondent’s jobsite on July 11, 1985, the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA) investigated respondent’s workplace and issued torespondent a citation which alleged violations of 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(1) and 29 CFR1926.21(b)(2).(b) On September 10, 1985, Austin filed its notice of contest.(c) On March 28, 1986, OSHRC Judge Dee C. Blythe issued a decision in which he found thatrespondent did not violate 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(1) and 29 CFR 1926.21(b)(2).(d) On May 27, 1986, the Secretary petitioned for review that portion of Judge Blythe’sdecision on the issue of whether respondent violated 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(1). The ReviewCommission directed review on May 28, 1986 and thereafter, on September 30, 1986, itissued a briefing order. No petition for review was filed by the Secretary concerningJudge Blythe’s decision vacating 29 CFR 1926.21(b)(2) and it became, therefore, final as amatter of law.III.The Secretary of Labor and Austin Bridge Co., in order to conclude this matter without thenecessity of further litigation or review, agree that the Secretary, by the filing of thisdocument with the Review Commission, withdraws his petition for review and the citationalleging a violation of 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(1) and that the case is hereby closed.IV. The Secretary and respondent agree that each party shall bear its own costs.V. Respondent agrees to post this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in accordance withCommission Rule 7.EUGENE A. LOPEZAttorney for the SecretarySTEVEN R. MCCOWN Jenkens & Gilchrist Attorney for RespondentDated this 21 day of November 1986.SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v.AUSTIN BRIDGE CO.,Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 85-1061DECISION AND ORDERAppearances:Robert A. Fitz, Esq., of Dallas, Texas, for the complainant.Steven R. McCown, Esq., of Dallas, Texas, for the respondent. PROCEDURAL HISTORYBLYTHE, Judge:Ruperto Solis suffered traumatic asphyxiation July 11, 1985, when a crane boom he wasdismantling fell on him. A compliance officer (\”CO\”) of the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration (\”OSHA\”) investigated the fatality July 11 – August22, 1985, and on August 27, 1985, OSHA issued one citation to Solis’ employer, AustinBridge Co. (\”Austin\”) alleging serious violations of ?5(a)(2) of theOccupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651-678 (\”the Act\”),and safety standards codified at 29 C.F.R. 1926 ?? 21(b)(2) and 550(a)(1), for which anaggregate penalty of $630 was proposed. Austin timely filed notice of contest on September10, 1985, thus invoking the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health ReviewCommission (\”the Commission\”) under ?10(c) of the Act. Subsequently thecomplainant Secretary of Labor (\”the Secretary\”) filed a formal complaint, andAustin filed an answer thereto. The matter came on regularly for hearing January 27, 1986,in Dallas, Texas. Both parties have filed posthearing briefs.FACTUAL BACKGROUNDAustin, a large employer with approximately 500 employees, was erecting a highway overpasswhen the accident occurred which resulted in this proceeding. It operates 35 or 40 cranes.Preparatory to moving the mobile crane here involved to a new location, it was necessaryto remove 20 feet (two 10-foot sections) of the 80-foot boom. A three-man crew wasdetailed to this task. Although the crew members’ primary duties were not concerned withcranes, all had had prior experience in disassembling crane booms.The boom is sectionalized, each pair of sections being held together by 4 steel pinsdriven through holes. To detach the last 2 sections simultanoeusly, 4 pins (2 on the topand 2 on the bottom) had to be removed. First, however, the pendant lines running from thetop of the cab to the peak of the boom had to be moved back of the sections to be removed;through an oversight to be explained later, this was not done. Thus when the 2 bottom pinswere knocked out, the 2 upper pins acted like a hinge, allowing the boom to fall on Solis.There are also questions as to whether the boom should have been in a raised position andwhether Solis should have been under the boom when he knocked out the lower pins.Austin blames the accident entirely on the failure to move the pendant lines back andseeks to excuse this failure on a distraction caused by a freakish circumstance in whichan intruder allegedly stole a paycheck from Austin’s office, was apprehended on thejobsite, and was being questioned by the police.THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONSThe two alleged violations will be discussed together because both involve themanufacturer’s instructions for disassembling the crane boom.Subitem 1a alleges that Austin failed properly to instruct employees \”in accordancewith the operations manual,\” in violation of ?1926.21(b)(2), and subitem 1b allegesthat Austin \”failed to ensure that its employees. . . read and adhered to specificsafety warnings. . .in the Operator’s Manual\” in violation of ?1926.550(a)(1). Thecited standards provide:1926.21-Safety Training and Education* * *(b) Employer responsibility* * *(2) The employer shall instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafeconditions and the regulations applicable to his work environment to control or eliminateany hazards or other exposure to illness or injury.1926.550-Cranes and Derricks(a) General requirements(1) The employer shall comply with the manufacturer’s specifications and limitationsapplicable to the operation of any and all cranes and derricks. Where manufacturer’sspecifications are not available, the limitations assigned to the equipment, shall bebased on the determinations of a qualified engineer competent in this field and suchdeterminations will be appropriately documented and recorded. Attachments used with cranesshall not exceed the capacity, rating, or scope recommended by the manufacturer.The Operator’s Manual (Exhibit C-3) gives detailed instructions for disassemblingpin-connected booms, including:(1) Lowering the boom until the peak rests on the ground.(2) Moving the main pendants from the peak back to the joint to be disassembled, thenexerting tension on the pendant lines without lifting the peak from the ground.(3) Removing the bottom pins at the joint to be disconnected. (4) Lowering the boom until the section(s) to be removed lie flat on the ground, thenremoving the upper pins.There is also a warning: \”Never Stand Under a Boom When Removing Pins.\”The procedure taught to Austin’s employees, in on-the-job training, is somewhat different,but Austin contends that it is safe. After the pendant lines have been moved back to thepoint to be disconnected, the boom is lifted so an employee can get under boom and knockout the bottom pins; then the boom is lowered to the ground and the top pins are removed.Austin introduced convincing and uncontradicted testimony that its method was safe; thatremoval of the bottom pins would not allow the boom to fall if the pendant lines had beenmoved back to the point of disassembly; that it is therefore safe for an employee to gounder the boom to knock out the bottom pins; and that it would be difficult to get at thebottom pins any other way due to the interfering latticework of the boom.The disassembly method prescribed by the Operator’s Manual does have the additionalsafeguard of having the peak rest on the ground while the bottom pins are removed, andthis would also lessen the friction on the pins and make them easier to remove. Whetherthe manual’s method is any safer depends on whether the pendant lines have been moved backto the point of disassembly.Here, of course, the pendant lines had not been moved back. Both parties lose sight,however, of the fact that the cause of this particular accident is not the issue indetermining whether Austin failed properly to instruct its employees \”in therecognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions\” as required by ?1926.21(b)(2). Nordoes this standard require that the instructions be in terms of the manual supplied by themanufacturer. It is sufficient if the employer properly instructs its employees torecognize and avoid the hazards to which they may be exposed.The boom disassembly crew in this case was composed of Johnny Vasques, a leadman with 13years’ experience in the construction business who had dismantled 15 or 20 booms and hadbeen trained by his brother, Luis Vasques, job superintendent; Wilson Wallace, a cementfinisher who had also been instructed by Luis Vasques and had previously assisted indismantling booms; and Solis, who had previously helped Johnny Vesques dismantle booms. Onthis record, I cannot say that they were not adequately instructed.Austin has pleaded the affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct. I do notbelieve this has any bearing on the central issue of whether the employees were properlyinstructed. However, if this is incorrect, I find in the alternative that this defense hasbeen proved with regard to subitem 1a.With regard to subitem 1b, Austin has raised the interesting issue of whether?1926.550(a)(1) is unconstitutional in that it delegates rule-making authority tomanufacturers, citing Chairman Moran’s dissenting opinion in Martin Iron Works, Inc., 75OSAHRC 28\/C7, 2 BNA OSHC 1531, 1974-75 CCH OSHD ?19,219 (No. 1690, 1975). This issue was not directed for review in Martin, however, andthe majority declined to address it. My research has disclosed no Commission decision onthis point. However, I do not find it necessary to decide this issue, for in my opinion?1926.550(a)(1) by its own terms does not apply to this case. This becomes apparent whenkey words in the standard are emphasized:(1) The employer shall comply with the manufacturer’s specifications and limitationsapplicable to the operation of any and all cranes and derricks. Where manufacturer’sspecifications are not available, the limitations assigned to the equipment shall be basedon the determinations of a qualified engineer competent in this field and suchdeterminations will be appropriately documented and recorded. Attachments used with cranesshall not exceed the capacity, rating, or scope recommended by the manufacturer. [Emphasisadded]The \”specifications and limitations\” must be applicable to the\”operation\” of the crane. As applied to a machine, \”operation\” means\”a method or manner of functioning.\” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Thedisassembly of a crane’s boom can hardly be said to be applicable to its\”operation.\” This is borne out also by the words \”capacity, rating orscope\” in the \”last sentence; these matters definitely are applicable to the\”operation\” of the crane and are illustrative of its meaning.Of course, it might be said that the boom of a crane has to be disassembled to permit itsmovement from one place to another and that in a larger sense this is part of itsoperation. However, standards should not be stretched to fit a particular hazard notcovered by the plain meaning of its words. Butler Constructors, Inc., 76 OSAHRC 149\/A2, 4BNA OSHC 1928, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ?21,394 (No. 11,553, 1976). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. The Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of thisproceeding.2. On July 11, 1985, Austin was not in violation of 29 C.F.R. 1926.21(b)(2) or 29 C.F.R.1926.550(a)(1).ORDERIn consideration of the foregoing Decision, it is ORDERED that:Items 1a and 1b of citation 1, alleging serious violations of 29 C.F.R. 1926.21(b)(2) and29 C.F.R. 1926.550(a)(1), are VACATED.DEE C. BLYTHE Administrative Law JudgeDate: April 18, 1986 Dallas, Texas”