Greater-hazard claim for crane anti-two-block devices

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

September 30, 1991

Mr. Kelly Sears
Safety Director
Jensen Construction Co.
[Recipient address omitted]

Dear Mr. Sears:

This is in response to your June 3, letter in which you request the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to recognize the existence of a "hazardous position greater than that which existed before installing" an anti-two blocking device as required by 29 CFR 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(c). We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Before a "greater hazard" defense is recognized by OSHA, an employer must show, among other things, that there are no alternative means of employee protection. Your letter indicates that you have problems with a particular brand of anti-two blocking device and that repeated attempts to have the particular device redesigned have failed. However, there is no indication that other brands or designs have been used, nor is there a full showing of the events or reasons leading to the individual failures you mention. Consequently, based on the information received, it is not appropriate to recognize the existence of a "greater hazard", nor to suspend the requirements of .550(g)(3)(ii)(c).

If we may be of further assistance please call Mr. Roy F. Gurnham or Mr. Dale Cavanaugh at (202) 523-8136.

Sincerely,

Patricia K. Clark, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs

[The requester’s June 3 letter and its attached correspondence reproduced on the OSHA page are omitted here.]