Ezel / Labor Guidance / US
Back to Federal guidance

Alarm devices versus automatic anti-two-blocking protection

Summary A contractors' association asked whether alarms could satisfy the crane personnel platform anti-two-blocking requirement. OSHA said alarms depended too heavily on operator reaction time and did not provide effective protection for hoisted workers. OSHA now archives the letter as potentially outdated.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1988-10-05-0
Date issued
October 5, 1988
Status
Archived by the agency
OSHA archives this letter and says it may no longer represent OSHA policy.
Status last verified October 10, 2026
Topics
Workplace Safety OSHA 1926 Cranes Personnel Platforms
Source
View the official document

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OSHA archives this letter and says it may no longer represent OSHA policy.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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance, and verify current law before relying on anything here.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NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

October 5, 1988

Robert X. Peyton, Director
Safety and Health Services
The Associated General Contractors
of America
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Mr. Peyton:

This is in response to your letter of September 20 concerning your request for an interpretation of 29 CFR 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(c).

After a thorough review of the evidence submitted during the processing of this standard, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration does not believe that alarm devices would provide effective protection for hoisted personnel. Such devices would place too much reliance on operator reaction time, as outlined on page 29125 of attached 29 CFR part 1926, "Crane or Derrick Suspended Personnel Platforms; Final Rule."

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Thomas J. Shepich, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs

Related guidance

Permanently labeled locks for electrical lockout Opinion Letter · August 17, 2026 Helmet selection for lateral head-impact hazards Opinion Letter · August 17, 2026 Asbestos precautions when restoring drywall after flood damage Opinion Letter · May 7, 2026 Enforcement policy for recording and reporting COVID-19 cases Guidance · March 31, 2026

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