Back to Federal guidance

Crane swing-radius barricades versus audible alarms

Summary A crane company asked whether audible alarms could replace barricades around the rotating rear of a crane. OSHA said alarms did not adequately protect people entering the swing radius and that the required barricades remained necessary. OSHA archives the letter.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1976-08-13
Date issued
August 13, 1976
Status
Archived by the agency
OSHA labels this an archive document and warns that it may no longer represent OSHA policy.
Status last verified October 10, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

The current status of this document is unclear
OSHA labels this an archive document and warns that it may no longer represent OSHA policy. It may no longer reflect the agency's current position. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance, and verify current law before relying on anything here.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

August 13, 1976

Mr. Robert I. Slaughter
Corporate Safety Supervisor
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Mr. Slaughter:

This is in response to your correspondence of June 22, 1976, addressed to Mr. Frank C. Memmott, regarding an alternate to the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(9).

This standard states: "accessible areas within the swing radius of the rear of the rotating superstructure of the crane, either permanently or temporarily mounted, shall be barricaded in such a manner as to prevent an employee for being struck or crushed by the crane."

The question of frequent moving of cranes, both crawler and wheel-mounted, was reviewed thoroughly before this rule was promulgated and again approximately a year later. The use of audible alarms in lieu of physical barriers was determined to be unsatisfactory on several counts. First, there is no means of satisfactorily monitoring an employee's entrance into the hazardous location. Secondly, the degree of such a person's ability in time and effort to clear himself from the hazardous location in relation to an audible alarm is not mechanically (by electronics or otherwise) feasible. In addition to those problems, the person in the hazardous location be confused by other similar alarms either by tonal and activated frequency, the surrounding noises, or hearing loss. Since noise standards which are presently enforced call for significant efforts to reduce the ambient noise level, one more audible warning device which could be confused with others, would only raise the noise level unnecessarily and probably fail to accomplish its purpose.

A number of employers have found ways to satisfactorily attach the required barricades to their machines. These systems have apparently met their needs without undue hardship.

If I may be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

John K. Barto, Chief
Division of Occupational Safety Programming

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace