[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5196-5280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-979]
[[Page 5195]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VI
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Part 1926
Safety Standards for Steel Erection; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 5196]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1926
[Docket No. S-775]
RIN No. 1218-AA65
Safety Standards for Steel Erection
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S.
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this notice the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) revises the construction industry safety
standards which regulate steel erection. The final rule enhances
protections provided to workers engaged in steel erection and updates
the general provisions that address steel erection. The final rule sets
performance-oriented criteria, where possible, to protect employees
from steel erection related hazards such as working under loads;
hoisting, landing and placing decking; column stability; double
connections; hoisting, landing and placing steel joists; and falls to
lower levels. To effectuate this, the final rule contains requirements
for hoisting and rigging, structural steel assembly, beam and column
connections, joist erection, systems-engineered metal building
erection, fall protection and training.
DATES: Effective dates. This standard will become effective on July 18,
2001.
ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates
the Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of
the Solicitor of Labor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 to receive petitions for
review of the final rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Bonnie Friedman, Director, Office
of Public Affairs, Room N-3647, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999. For additional
copies of this Federal Register notice contact: OSHA, Office of
Publications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1888.
Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as well as news
releases, fact sheets, and other relevant documents, can be obtained
from OSHA's web page on the Internet at http://www.OSHA.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Congress amended the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(CWHSA) (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) in 1969 by adding a new Section 107 (40
U.S.C. 333) to provide employees in the construction industry with a
safer work environment and to reduce the frequency and severity of
construction accidents and injuries. The amendment, commonly known as
the Construction Safety Act (CSA) [Pub. L. 91-54; August 9, 1969],
significantly strengthened employee protection by providing for
occupational safety and health standards for employees of the building
trades and construction industry in Federal and Federally-financed or
Federally-assisted construction projects. Accordingly, the Secretary of
Labor issued Safety and Health Regulations for Construction in 29 CFR
part 1518 (36 FR 7340, April 17, 1971) pursuant to Section 107 of the
Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (the Act) (84 Stat. 1590; 29
U.S.C. 651 et seq.), was enacted by Congress in 1970 and authorized the
Secretary of Labor to adopt established Federal standards issued under
other statutes, including the CSA, as occupational safety and health
standards. Accordingly, the Secretary of Labor adopted the construction
standards which had been issued under the CSA, in accordance with
Section 6(a) of the Act (36 FR 10466, May 29, 1971). The Safety and
Health Regulations for Construction were redesignated as part 1926 of
29 CFR later in 1971 (36 FR 25232, December 30, 1971). Subpart R of
part 1926, entitled ``Steel Erection,'' incorporating Secs. 1926.750
through 1926.752, was adopted as an OSHA standard during this process.
The requirements in the existing standard cover flooring, steel
assembly, bolting, plumbing-up and related operations. In 1974 a
revision in the temporary flooring requirement was made pursuant to a
rulemaking conducted under section 6(b) of the Act (39 FR 24361).
Since that time, OSHA has received several requests for
clarification of various provisions. The Agency began drafting a
proposed rule to revise several provisions of its steel erection
standard in 1984 and on several occasions discussed its intention with
its Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). The
discussions with ACCSH led to the development of several draft notices
requesting information or proposing changes to the rule. None of these
draft notices was published, nor was public comment sought, except
through the proceedings of the Advisory Committee.
In 1986, the Agency issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
subpart M (Fall Protection) and announced that it intended the proposed
rule to apply to all walking/working surfaces found in construction,
alteration, repair (including painting and decorating), and demolition
work, except for five specific areas. Although none of the specific
areas pertained to steel erection, the Agency noted that ``Additional
requirements to have fall protection for connectors and for workers on
derrick and erection floors during steel erection would remain in
subpart R--Steel Erection.''
This statement led to confusion. Many of the commenters to the
subpart M rulemaking noted that they were not sure whether subpart M or
subpart R would govern their activities. In one case, two sets of
comments were provided, one to be used if subpart M applied and the
other if subpart R applied. In the face of this uncertainty, the Agency
decided that it would regulate the fall hazards associated with steel
erection in its planned revision of subpart R.
OSHA announced its intention to regulate the hazards associated
with steel erection, and in particular the fall hazards associated with
steel erection, in a notice published in the Federal Register on
January 26, 1988 (53 FR 2048). In that notice OSHA stated the
following:
The rulemaking record developed to date indicates that the
Agency needs more information in order to develop a revised standard
covering fall protection for employees engaged in steel erection
activities. The comments received to date have convinced the Agency
to develop a separate proposed rule which will provide comprehensive
coverage for fall protection in steel erection. OSHA intends,
therefore, that the consolidation and revision of fall protection
provisions in subpart M do not apply to steel erection and that the
current fall protection requirements of Part 1926 continue to cover
steel erection until the steel erection rulemaking is completed.
Accordingly, in order to maintain coverage under existing fall
protection standards pending completion of the separate steel
erection fall protection rulemaking, OSHA plans to redesignate
existing Secs. 1926.104, 1926.105, 1926.107(b), 1926.107(c),
1926.107(f), 1926.500 (with Appendix A), 1926.501, and 1926.502 into
subpart R when the Agency issues the final rule for the subpart M
rulemaking.
Since that time, the Agency drafted several documents which it
presented to
[[Page 5197]]
ACCSH for comment. The Agency was also petitioned by affected parties
to institute negotiated rulemaking. The first request for negotiated
rulemaking was submitted to the Agency in 1990. At that time, it
appeared the Agency would soon publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) in the Federal Register and, therefore, the request was denied.
However, affected parties once again made their concerns known, and the
Agency delayed publication of the NPRM while it made a further, more
comprehensive study of the concerns raised.
OSHA retained an independent consultant to review the fall
protection issues raised by the draft revisions to subpart R, to render
an independent opinion on how to resolve the issues, and to recommend a
course of action. In 1991, the consultant recommended that OSHA address
the issue of fall protection as well as other potential revisions to
subpart R by using the negotiated rulemaking process.
Based on this recommendation and continued requests for negotiated
rulemaking by affected stakeholders, on December 29, 1992, OSHA
published a Federal Register notice of intent to establish a negotiated
rulemaking committee (57 FR 61860). The notice requested nominations
for membership on the Committee and comments on the appropriateness of
using negotiated rulemaking to develop a steel erection proposed rule.
In addition, the notice described the negotiated rulemaking process and
identified some key issues for negotiation.
In response to the notice of intent, OSHA received more than 225
submissions, including more than 60 nominations for membership on the
Committee and several sets of comments. After an evaluation of the
submissions, it was apparent that an overwhelming majority of
commenters supported this action, and OSHA decided to go forward with
the negotiated rulemaking process. The Agency selected the members of
the Committee from among the nominations.
On May 11, 1994, OSHA announced that it had established the Steel
Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (SENRAC) (59 FR
24389) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5
U.S.C. App. I), the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (NRA) (5 U.S.C.
561 et seq.) and section 7(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 656(b)) to make a recommendation to OSHA on the
contents of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Appointees to the
Committee included representatives from labor, industry, public
interests and government agencies. OSHA was a member of the committee,
representing the Agency's interests.
The members of the Committee who participated in the 18 months of
negotiations to develop the recommendation to OSHA are: Richard Adams--
Army Corps of Engineers, replaced by Donald Pittinger and later
replaced by Sam Testerman; William W. Brown--Ben Hur Construction
Company; Bart Chadwick--Regional Administrator, Region VIII,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (since retired); James E.
Cole--International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental
Ironworkers; Stephen D. Cooper--International Association of Bridge,
Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers; Phillip H. Cordova--El Paso Crane
& Rigging, Inc.; Perry A. Day--International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, later
replaced by David Haggerty; James R. Hinson--J. Hinson Network, Inc.;
Jim Lapping--Building and Construction Trades Department (AFL-CIO),
replaced by Brad Sant, replaced by Sandy Tillett and later replaced by
Phyllis Israel; John R. Molovich--United Steelworkers of America; Carol
Murkland--Gilbane Building Company; John J. Murphy--Williams
Enterprises of Georgia, Inc., replaced by Fred Codding--NAMOA; Steven
L. Rank--Holton & Associates, Ltd.; Ray Rooth--CAL/OSHA; Alan Simmons--
International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental
Ironworkers; William J. Smith--International Union of Operating
Engineers; Ronald Stanevich--National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) later replaced by Tim Pizatella, Division of Safety
Research; C. Rockwell Turner--L.P.R. Construction Co.; and Eric
Waterman--National Erectors Association.
SENRAC was chaired by Philip J. Harter, Esq., a nationally
recognized expert in negotiated rulemaking and a trained facilitator.
SENRAC began negotiations in mid-June, 1994, and met 11 times as a
full Committee. Committee workgroups developed detailed reports and
recommendations which were presented at full committee meetings. At
each meeting, the Committee debated the workgroups' reports, heard
submissions from interested parties, and negotiated to find common
ground on regulatory issues. In December 1995, the Committee developed
a proposed revision of subpart R. OSHA then developed a preamble and
Preliminary Economic Analysis based on the recommended regulatory text.
The Agency presented this document to SENRAC for their review and
approval. After Committee approval, on July 24, 1997, SENRAC presented
OSHA with a consensus proposed standard at a signing ceremony held at
the Department of Labor in Washington, DC.
On August 13, 1998, OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) for subpart R--Steel Erection (63 FR 43452). The proposal set a
time period, ending November 12, 1998, during which interested parties
could submit written comments. In addition, the proposal provided a
notice of a public hearing to begin on December 1, 1998. OSHA received
367 submissions, including testimony and documentary evidence, in
response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). In addition, OSHA
received 55 submissions, including requests to testify at the public
hearing, in response to the notice of hearing contained in the NPRM.
The informal public hearing was held on December 1-11, 1998, with
Administrative Law Judge John Vittone presiding. Judge Thomas Burke and
Judge Richard Stansel-Gamm also presided at times during the nine days
of hearings. At the close of the hearing, Judge Stansel-Gamm
established a post-hearing comment period. The first part of the post
hearing comment period, ending March 11, 1999, allowed participants to
submit additional data and information. Participants were then
permitted to submit briefs, arguments and summations until April 12,
1999. OSHA received 27 post-hearing submissions.
After analyzing the rulemaking record, the Agency developed draft
final regulatory text. In accordance with the SENRAC's groundrules,
OSHA convened a public meeting of SENRAC on December 16, 1999 (64 FR
66595) to consult with the Committee on the Agency's draft final rule.
The purpose of the consultation meeting was to obtain comments and
feedback from the Committee on OSHA's proposed revisions, prior to the
issuance of a final standard. Among the topics discussed at the meeting
were erection bridging, scope, fall protection, slippery surfaces, and
joist holes. The discussions at the meeting aided OSHA in finalizing
the draft steel erection standard.
On June 12, 2000, Judge Vittone certified the rulemaking record,
including the hearing transcript and all written submissions to the
docket, which closed the record for this proceeding.
A wide range of employers, businesses, labor unions, trade
[[Page 5198]]
associations, state governments, and other interested parties
contributed to the development of this record. Many of these parties
also participated in the negotiated rulemaking process. OSHA
appreciates these efforts to help develop a rulemaking record that
provides a sound basis for the promulgation of a final rule for subpart
R--Steel Erection.
OSHA believes that the final subpart R will substantially reduce
the significant risk of death and serious injury that has continued to
confront workers engaged in steel erection. In addition, the clarified
and revised language of the final rule and consolidation of relevant
provisions will help employers and employees to understand the
requirements of the steel erection standard. The final rule provides
additional protection and closes gaps in the current rule's coverage of
steel erection hazards. These improvements have been achieved through
the SENRAC negotiations, and the record developed during the proposed
rule comment period, public hearing and post-hearing comment period.
In this final rule, OSHA provides notice to all affected employers
and employees of these revisions to subpart R, which the Agency
believes are necessary to protect employees. OSHA believes the
clarified language of the final rule will help employers to protect
their employees more effectively through a standard that is easier to
understand and comply with.
II. Pertinent Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C.
651 et seq. (``the Act''), is ``to assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To
achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to
promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards, 655(b)
(authorizing promulgation of standards pursuant to notice and comment),
654(b) (requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards)).
A safety or health standard is a standard ``which requires
conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means,
methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate
to provide safe or healthful employment'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)).
A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of Section 652(8) if it substantially reduces or eliminates
significant risk, and is economically feasible, technologically
feasible, and cost effective, and is consistent with prior Agency
action or is a justified departure, is supported by substantial
evidence, and is better able to effectuate the Act's purposes than any
national consensus standard it supersedes.
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be
expected to be developed. American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. OSHA, 452
U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (``ATMI''); AISI v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C.
Cir. 1991) (``AISI'').
A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass
on the costs of compliance without threatening its long-term
profitability or competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n.
55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is cost effective if the
protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available
alternatives that achieve the same level of protection. ATMI, 453 U.S.
at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C.
Cir. 1994) (``LOTO III'').
Section 6(b)(7) authorizes OSHA to include among a standard's
requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing and other
information gathering and transmittal provisions. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7).
All standards must be highly protective. See 58 FR at 16614-16615;
LOTO III, 37 F.3d at 669. Finally, whenever practical, standards shall
``be expressed in terms of objective criteria and of the performance
desired.'' Id.
As discussed in various places in this preamble, OSHA has
determined that hazards associated with steel erection activities pose
significant risks to employees and that the provisions of the final
rule are reasonable and necessary to protect affected employees from
those risks. The Agency estimates that full compliance with the
existing and revised steel erection standard will reduce the risk of
identified hazards (preventing 30 fatalities and 1,142 injuries
annually). This constitutes a substantial reduction of significant risk
of material harm for the exposed population of approximately 56,840
steel erection employees.
OSHA has determined that there are no technological obstacles to
compliance with the final rule. As discussed in Section IV, Summary and
Explanation of the Final Rule, the rulemaking record indicates that
many of the requirements contained in the final rule are already in
general use throughout the industry.
OSHA also concludes that compliance is economically feasible
because, as documented in the Final Economic Analysis, all regulated
sectors can readily absorb or pass on compliance costs and the
standard's costs, benefits, and compliance requirements are consistent
with those of other safety standards.
The record indicates clearly that steel erection employees face
significant risks and that compliance with the final steel erection
standard is reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from
that risk. OSHA has considered and responded to all substantive
comments regarding the proposed steel erection standard on their merits
in Section IV, Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule. In
particular, OSHA evaluated all suggested changes to the proposed rule
in terms of their impact on worker safety, their feasibility, their
cost effectiveness, and their congruity with the OSH Act.
III. Hazards Involved
Accidents during steel erection continue to cause injuries and
fatalities at construction sites. Based on a review of compliance
problems and public comments over the past several years, OSHA has
determined that the current standard, which has been in place with
little change for 30 years, needs a complete revision to provide
greater protection and eliminate ambiguity and confusion. OSHA believes
that reorganizing the standard's requirements into a more logical
sequence will help employers to understand better how to protect their
employees from the hazards associated with steel erection and will thus
reduce the incidence of injuries and fatalities in this workforce.
OSHA tracks workplace fatalities through its Integrated Management
Information System (IMIS) which captures a large percentage of the
fatalities in the steel erection industry. However, detailed
information on the conditions that give rise to steel erection
accidents is less readily available. The best available data on steel
erection hazards and accidents are derived from NIOSH and industry
studies and from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
During SENRAC negotiations, OSHA staff and a Committee statistical
workgroup analyzed accident information derived from OSHA's IMIS system
(Exs. 9-14A and 9-42). This data provided the best source of accident
descriptions. However, it was frequently difficult to determine several
critical elements, such as the precise activity being undertaken at the
time of the accident; whether the victim was a trained ironworker; or
the type of structure under construction or repair.
[[Page 5199]]
The following examples from OSHA's IMIS reports of accident
investigations illustrate the types of accidents that occur in steel
erection:
1. March 14, 1997: One fatality. Bundles of decking were being
placed on bar joists that spanned approximately 40 feet. In the area
where the decking was being landed, the joists had not been welded at
both ends and ``x'' bracing had not been installed between the joists.
Three bundles of decking had been landed near the ends of the joists.
When two employees attempted to land a fourth bundle farther out on the
unattached and unbraced joists, the joists moved and fell to the
concrete slab below fatally injuring one employee. OSHA believes that
compliance with the joist requirements of Sec. 1926.757(e)(4) and
(e)(5) of the final rule could have prevented this accident. Paragraph
(e)(4) requires that no bundle of decking may be placed on steel joists
until all bridging has been installed and anchored and all joist
bearing ends are attached. In addition, paragraph (e)(5) requires that
the edge of construction loads be placed within one foot of the bearing
surface of the joist end.
2. October 1, 1997: One fatality. A worker was on a 24 foot steel
I-beam attempting to connect to a 21 foot high steel column. The worker
was on a ladder placed on the concrete slab. The column displaced from
the foundation bolts during the connecting process, knocking the worker
from the ladder and fatally injuring him. OSHA believes that compliance
with the column anchorage requirements of Sec. 1926.755(a) of the final
rule could have prevented this accident by requiring that all columns
be anchored by a minimum of four anchor rods (anchor bolts) and if
applicable, paragraph (b) of that section requires that any repair,
replacement or field modification of anchor rod (anchor bolt) be
approved by the structural engineer of record.
3. October 1, 1997: One fatality. An employee was working at the 20
foot level re-positioning steel bar joists when three of the joists
twisted and fell to the concrete slab below fatally injuring the
employee. OSHA believes that compliance with the requirements of
Sec. 1926.757(b)(3), and possibly Sec. 1926.757(a)(8), of the final
rule could have prevented this accident. Paragraph (b)(3) requires that
unless joists have been panelized, they shall be attached to the
support structure, at least at one end, immediately upon placement in
the final erection position and before additional joists are placed. In
addition, if the joists are in bays of 40 feet or more, final rule
paragraph (a)(8) requires that these joists be bolted to the structure
to prevent such unintentional displacement of long limber joists.
4. January 27, 1998: One fatality. An employee fell 23 feet 6
inches while walking on a steel rafter. The employee finished bolting-
up a steel purlin to the rafter and was in the process of walking back
to get another purlin when he fell. OSHA believes that compliance with
the fall protection requirements of the final rule could have prevented
this accident. Sec. 1926.760(a)(1) of the final rule requires that,
with some exceptions, each employee engaged in steel erection be
protected from falls when working on a surface more than 15 feet above
a lower level. This includes workers engaged in bolt-up activities.
5. August 12, 1999: One fatality. A worker inadvertently picked up
a marked, unsecured wooden cover over a 3' x 3' skylight hole. The
worker accidently stepped into the hole and fell to the ground below.
OSHA believes that compliance with the requirements of
Sec. 1926.754(e)(3) for covering roof and floor openings could have
prevented this accident.
For its assessment of baseline risk in steel erection, OSHA used
1994-98 fatality data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS)
Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Based on analysis of the BLS
data, OSHA estimates that structural metal workers experience an
average of 35 fatalities per year. OSHA determined that, of the 35
fatalities, approximately 30 deaths per year are caused by factors that
are addressed by the final standard (see the final economic analysis,
Chapter III, summarized below in Section V). Furthermore, OSHA analysis
of the results from the BLS Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses for the years 1994 to 1998 identifies an average of 2,279
lost-workday injuries per year whose circumstances would be addressed
by provisions in the final standard. With an estimated workforce of
56,840 iron workers in construction ([BLS, Occupational Employment
Statistics Survey, 1998]; see the final economic analysis), OSHA
concludes that these baseline fatality and injury levels are high and
clearly pose a significant risk to these workers that justifies Agency
action.
In order to provide a more useful database for future rulemaking,
OSHA has developed and implemented an enhanced coding system to be used
by OSHA compliance officers when recording construction fatality
investigations for entry into the Agency's IMIS. This system was
implemented nationally on January 1, 1997. The data OSHA is now
recording when making fatality investigations will provide a greater
source of detailed information indicating how and where construction
fatalities occur.
Three years after this final rule is implemented, OSHA will use the
improved fatality data to evaluate the rule's effectiveness. Based upon
this evaluation, a determination will be made as to whether
modifications to the standard are necessary.
OSHA believes that this final rule will enhance employee
protections by adding new requirements to close gaps in current
coverage, strengthening many of the existing requirements, and
promoting compliance by clarifying and consolidating current
requirements. For further discussion of accident rates and significant
risk, see Section V, Summary of the Final Economic Analysis.
Based on the available information referenced in OSHA's economic
analysis and other record evidence, OSHA finds that structural metal
workers are faced with a significant risk of serious injury or death
that can be reduced substantially by the revisions contained in this
final rule. The Agency estimates that each year approximately 56,840
workers in the United States suffer 2,279 serious (i.e., lost-workday)
steel erection injuries. In addition, an estimated 35 steel erection
workers die every year as a result of hazardous workplace conditions
that are preventable. OSHA estimates that, of the 35 annual steel
erection fatalities, 8 fatalities will be averted by full compliance
with the existing standard and that an additional 22 fatalities will be
averted by compliance with the final standard. Additionally, of the
2,279 lost-workday steel erection injuries occurring annually, OSHA
estimates that 1,142 injuries will be averted by full compliance with
the existing and final standards (303 injuries will be averted by full
compliance with the existing standard and 838 injuries will be averted
by full compliance with the final standard; figures do not add to the
total due to rounding). Therefore, OSHA finds it both necessary and
appropriate to proceed with final rulemaking for steel erection
activities.
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
The following discussion explains how the final rule corresponds to
or differs from the proposed steel erection standard and the existing
standard, how SENRAC's negotiations and the comments and testimony
presented on each provision influenced the drafting of the final rule
and why we believe the provisions will protect steel erection
[[Page 5200]]
workers. Except where otherwise indicated, proposed provisions which
did not elicit comment have been promulgated as proposed, for reasons
stated in the preamble to the proposed rule which is incorporated by
reference (63 FR 43457).
In addition to revisions to subpart R, Steel Erection, this
rulemaking makes necessary revisions to Subpart M of this Part, Fall
Protection, for purposes of consistency. Current
Sec. 1926.500(a)(2)(iii) states: ``Requirements relating to fall
protection for employees performing steel erection work are provided in
Sec. 1926.105 and in subpart R of this part''. This final rule revises
the language of Sec. 1926.500(a)(2)(iii) to read: ``Fall protection
requirements for employees performing steel erection work (except for
towers and tanks) are provided in subpart R of this part''. This
revision clarifies that steel erection is covered exclusively by
subpart R. In addition, since tanks and towers are excluded from the
scope of subpart R, this final rule adds paragraph
Sec. 1926.500(a)(2)(iv) to subpart M to clarify that fall protection
requirements for tanks and communication and broadcast towers are
covered by Sec. 1926.105. This new provision states: ``Requirements
relating to fall protection for employees engaged in the erection of
tanks and communication and broadcast towers are provided in
Sec. 1926.105''. The final revision to subpart M is to revise
Sec. 1926.500(a)(3)(iv). Section 1926.500(a)(3)(iv) currently states
that the fall protection systems and criteria contained in
Sec. 1926.502 do not apply to steel erection. Since the final steel
erection standard refers to Sec. 1926.502 for the criteria for its fall
protection systems, it is necessary to revise this paragraph to exclude
only tanks and communication and broadcast towers from Sec. 1926.502.
The criteria for tanks and communication and broadcast towers will
continue to be covered by Sec. 1926.104. Section 1926.500(a)(3)(iv) is
revised read as follows: ``Section 1926.502 does not apply to the
erection of tanks and communication and broadcast towers. (Note:
Section 1926.104 sets the criteria for body belts, lanyards and
lifelines used for fall protection during tank and communication and
broadcast tower erection. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) of Sec. 1926.107
provide definitions for the pertinent terms.)
Section 1926.750 Scope
Paragraphs (a) through (c) of Sec. 1926.750 describe the scope of
subpart R. In the proposed rule, the scope section was in two
paragraphs, with the first designated ``Scope'' and the second
designated ``Application.'' To avoid confusion, these sub-titles have
been eliminated, and the entire section designated ``scope.''
Paragraph (a) provides that subpart R applies to employers engaged
in steel erection activities involved in the construction, alteration
and/or repair of any type of building or structure--single and multi-
story buildings, bridges, and other structures--where steel erection
occurs. The paragraph makes clear that differences in coverage under
the previous standards between single and multi-story (or tiered)
buildings, as well as buildings and other types of steel structures,
are no longer relevant. All the provisions of revised subpart R now
apply irrespective of such distinctions. Paragraph (a) also includes a
``Note,'' which sets out numerous examples of structures where steel
erection may occur (this is not an exclusive list). This list was also
in the proposed rule.
As indicated in the proposal, SENRAC discussed at length the
differences between construction and maintenance since the construction
industry performs millions of workerhours per year of ``industrial
maintenance'' work. 29 CFR 1910.12(b) defines ``construction work'' as
follows:
Construction work means work for construction, alteration, and/
or repair, including painting and decorating.
OSHA has interpreted this definition to include alteration, repair,
renovation, rehabilitation and remodeling of existing facilities or
structures.
The distinction between construction and maintenance is based on
the nature of the work being performed rather than on the job title of
the worker performing it. SENRAC acknowledged that the scope of
proposed subpart R was governed by the definition of construction work
contained in Sec. 1910.12(b) which applies to all of part 1926.
The final rule defines steel erection (in Sec. 1926.751) as ``the
construction, alteration or repair of steel buildings, bridges and
other structures, including the installation of metal decking and all
planking used during the process of erection.'' In the proposed rule,
steel erection was defined as ``the erection of'' these structures.
That unintentionally conflicted with proposed paragraph (a), which
stated that steel erection activities also included ``alteration and
repair,'' activities which include work on structures that have already
been erected. The definition of steel erection in the final rule was
changed to correct this error.
One commenter stated that the phrase ``alteration and/or repair''
is unclear in that some of these activities may be considered
construction work, while others may be considered maintenance. The
commenter suggests that OSHA define these terms (Ex. 13-183).
All OSHA construction standards apply to ``alteration and/or
repair.'' These terms play a significant role in determining the scope
of all of these standards. With respect to subpart R, there was little
discussion during the SENRAC negotiations of how to define these terms.
The Agency has decided that it would be inappropriate to define them
separately under these circumstances. Therefore, definitions for them
have not been added in the final rule. OSHA's general interpretation of
these terms will apply to the steel erection standard in the same way
as for other construction standards.
The requirements of subpart R apply to employers engaged in steel
erection unless otherwise specified. Subpart R does not apply to
electrical transmission towers, communication and broadcast towers, or
tanks.
Paragraph (b)(1) sets out a list of specific steel erection
activities covered under subpart R. These steel erection activities
include hoisting, laying out, placing, connecting, welding, burning,
guying, bracing, bolting, plumbing and rigging structural steel, steel
joists and metal buildings; installing metal deck and siding systems,
miscellaneous metals, ornamental iron and similar materials; and moving
point-to-point while performing these activities.
In the proposed rule, the erection of curtain walls and window
walls, as well as ``laying out,'' ``placing,'' ``burning,'' ``guying,''
``bracing'' and ``plumbing'' structural steel, steel joists and metal
buildings were inadvertently omitted from this paragraph; this has been
corrected in the final rule. Otherwise the paragraph is the same as
proposed.
A definition of ``structural steel'' has also been added to help
clarify this section. It means a steel member, or a member made of a
substitute material (such as fiberglass, aluminum, composites, etc.).
Structural steel includes, but is not limited to, steel joists, joist
girders, purlins, columns, beams, trusses, splices, seats, metal
decking, girts, and all bridging, and cold formed metal framing which
is integrated with the structural steel framing of a building. At the
hearing, SENRAC members (Ex. 205X; p. 258) explained that in some
instances buildings are now constructed with members that are
configured like structural steel members, but are made of a substitute
material (for example,
[[Page 5201]]
solid web beams made of fiberglass). Since the erection process, the
configuration of the structural framework and the members are the same
as in a structure made of structural steel, these are included in the
definition.
Cold formed metal framing is included in the definition of
``structural steel'' only when it is integrated with the structural
steel framing of a building. An example of where it is not integrated
with structural steel framing is in residential construction where such
framing is referred to as ``metal studs'' and is installed by
carpenters.
Paragraph (b)(2) lists a number of activities that are covered by
subpart R when they occur during and are a part of the steel erection
activities described in paragraph (b)(1). OSHA has changed the first
sentence to explicitly state that coverage depends on whether an
activity occurs during and is a part of steel erection. For example,
there are standing seam metal roofing systems that incorporate a layer
of insulation under the metal roof. In the installation process, a row
of insulation is installed, which is then covered by a row of metal
roofing. Once that row of roofing is attached, the process is repeated,
row by row, until the roof is completed. The installation of the row of
insulation is a part of the installation of the metal roofing (which is
steel erection), and so the installation of the insulation is covered
by subpart R.
A note to paragraph (b) of the proposed rule listed activities
``which could be considered covered by this subpart when they occur
during the process of steel erection activities * * *'' Some commenters
stated that the list as proposed was confusing and subject to
misinterpretation, since it was difficult to determine when the
activities would be covered by subpart R. One stated that the examples
are much too broad and confusing, subject to misinterpretation, and
that a literal interpretation would include the installation of
handrails, gaskets, sealants, doors and windows within a building as
steel erection whether or not it was actually a part of steel erection
activities (Ex. 201X; p. 54). Others stated that the text of the scope
paragraph was adequate and the note should be eliminated in order to
avoid misinterpretation (Ex. 13-163); that the note is confusing
because of its length, location and the implication that all listed
activities, performed on listed structures, constitute steel erection;
and that the note should be relocated to a non-mandatory appendix (Ex.
13-183). One commenter (Ex. 13-37) noted that many of the listed
activities are equally likely to occur on structures with other types
of structural frames (such as concrete, masonry or wood) which are
covered by other subparts in 29 CFR 1926. Examples of activities that
can be found on all buildings, regardless of frame type, are
``installing metal decks, siding systems, miscellaneous metals,
ornamental iron and similar materials.'' In this commenter's view, the
notes should be deleted, since it will be difficult for employers to
have a clear understanding of which subpart directly applies to the
different structural frames (Ex. 13-31). This commenter also expressed
concerns with the overly broad scope of the proposed standard as
described in Sec. 1926.750 and the effect this would have on achieving
a clear understanding of, and compliance with, the technical provisions
of the standard. That commenter stated that it is not clear how subpart
R and the other requirements in Part 1926 would apply to employers
doing very similar work, based on the building's structure and whether
steel erection is being done.
The changes to the first sentence of the list in the final rule are
intended to address these concerns and give a clearer indication of
when the listed activities are covered.
Several commenters asserted that the list of activities include
some which were outside the scope of proposed Sec. 1926.750(a). For
example, paragraph (a) specifically excludes tanks, yet water
containment structures, bins, and hoppers are listed as examples of
structures where steel erection may occur. These commenters indicated
that those examples should be omitted and that OSHA should include the
following definition of tank: ``A container made out of material
including metal, fiberglass, wood or concrete that can be any shape
including: cylindrical, rectangular, conical, spherical, spheroidal or
elliptical, and may be used, constructed, altered and/or repaired to
process, hold, store or treat any substance in various states including
under a vacuum, at atmospheric pressure or pressurized'' (Exs. 13-296,
13-207, 13-207D, 13-310, 13-317, and 13-316).
The Agency has added a definition of tank, but one that is simpler
than the one suggested above. The definition of tank in the final rule
is, ``a container for holding gases, liquids, or solids.'' Although
tanks are excluded, as the Agency explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule, subpart R does cover the steel structure that supports a
tank (63 FR 43458). Also, water containment structures other than
tanks, bins and hoppers do not meet the definition of tank, so these
examples are included in the associated list of examples as proposed by
SENRAC.
Others wanted to expand the list. One commenter (Ex. 205X; p. 233)
stated that ``structural precast'' should be included in the list of
examples because steel erectors erect many segments of a structure,
including columns, beams, as well as architectural materials mounted on
steel frames. Another commenter (Ex. 205X; pp. 239-265) stated that
``structural precast'' should be included because the associated
hazards during erection and hoisting, etc. of structural shapes made
out of something other than steel are identical to those associated
with steel.
A commenter (Ex. 13-129) requested that ``architectural precast
concrete'' be removed from the list. His reasons included: (1)
activities associated with architectural precast concrete are regulated
under subpart M; and (2) an erector would not consider the erection of
a precast concrete panel as steel erection---the process is simpler,
safer, and faster than steel erection.
When OSHA established SENRAC, it stated that the scope of subpart R
to be addressed by the Committee was limited to steel erection and did
not include the erection of precast concrete (59 FR 25848).
Furthermore, in an October 18, 1994 letter to the General President of
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, OSHA
reiterated the decision that subpart R would not cover precast
concrete.
The final rule does not cover the erection of precast concrete. The
final list of conditionally covered activities does not include
erection of precast concrete. In the proposed rule, the ``Note'' that
listed activities that could be covered by subpart R included
``architectural precast concrete''. Because OSHA clearly stated to the
public that precast erection would not be covered by subpart R, we have
removed ``architectural precast concrete'' from the listed activities
in Sec. 1926.750(b)(2) of the final rule. In addition, because precast
concrete is sometimes mounted on steel frames, ``stone and other
architectural materials mounted on steel frames'' has been changed to
``stone and other non-precast concrete architectural materials mounted
on steel frames.''
Paragraph (c) provides that the duties of controlling contractors
under this rule include, but are not limited to, the duties specified
in Sec. 1926.752(a) (approval to begin steel erection),
Sec. 1926.752(c) (site layout), Sec. 1926.755(b)(2) (notification of
repair, replacement or modification of anchor bolts), Sec. 1926.759(b)
(protection from
[[Page 5202]]
falling objects) and Sec. 1926.760(a)(2)(i) (perimeter safety cables).
The reference to the controlling employer provisions and the
notation that this is not an exclusive list of responsibilities were
added to the final rule to be consistent with OSHA's multi-employer
policy. In the proposal, in setting out particular duties of
controlling employers, it was not OSHA's intent to eliminate their
responsibilities under the multi-employer doctrine. Therefore, the
final rule specifically states that the controlling contractors' duties
are not limited to those specified in the rule.
Numerous commenters, most of which were general contractors,
objected to imposing any obligations on controlling contractors who
were not performing the steel erection work themselves. In their view,
requiring employers to take actions to protect the employees of other
employers is inappropriate and not permitted under the OSH Act. For
example, Massman Construction Company (Ex. 13-16); Robinson Quality
Constructors (Ex. 13-36); Hayner Hoyt Corporation (Ex. 13-223); St.
Louis Bridge Company (Ex. 13-244); J. F. O'Healy Construction
Corporation (Ex. 13-358), and other commenters wrote:
We also adamantly oppose the process of SENRAC taking upon
themselves to expand the scope of the OSHA Act of 1970 by
introducing a definition of controlling contractor that expands the
scope of OSHA. If controlling contractor language as presently
written is permitted in Subpart R, it is our belief that the
precedent set by such an action will lead to this same controlling
contractor language being introduced into future revisions to other
OSHA standards such as scaffolding, stairways and ladders, fall
protection, and excavation.
Another series of comments OSHA received also opposed the
controlling contractor provisions. The comments written by RK Building
Systems (Ex. 13-168); Fleischer-Seeger Construction Corporation (Ex.
13-169); Massman Construction Co. (Ex. 170A); WM. R. Montgomery and
Associates, Inc. (Ex. 13-170C); Robinson Quality Constructors (Ex. 13-
170D); J.F. O'Healy Construction Corporation (Ex. 13-327); and many
other commenters stated:
We are adamantly opposed to the introduction of controlling
contractor in the proposed standard revisions. If the proposed
standard becomes law, the general contractor or construction manager
will become responsible for many of the activities of the steel
erector subcontractors. This will be in spite of the fact that the
general contractor or construction manager subcontracts with the
steel erector because that particular subcontractor has expertise in
performing steel erection work. The subcontractor should be allowed
to perform its work without OSHA mandated intervention between the
general contractor or construction manager and the subcontractor.
OSHA recognizes that steel erection subcontractors are hired for
their expertise in performing steel erection work. In that respect,
steel erection subcontractors are similar to other subcontractors, all
of whom are hired because they are experts in their specialties. But
while each subcontractor has special expertise, it is typically the
general contractor or construction manager who controls the overall
project and coordinates the work of the subcontractors. The general
contractor's or construction manager's control over the project gives
it the ability to see that safety and health hazards created by
subcontractors are corrected. Accordingly, when the general contractor
or construction manager has reason to know of violative conditions
created by a subcontractor, has the authority to prevent or correct
that condition by reason of its supervisory authority over the
worksite, and fails to take appropriate action to prevent or correct
the violation, the general contractor or construction manager is liable
for the violation as a controlling employer. See OSHA Directive No. CPL
2-00.124 (Dec. 10, 1999). OSHA stresses that the general contractor or
construction manager is not strictly liable for subcontractor
violations but is only responsible if it fails to take reasonable and
feasible steps to discover and correct unsafe or unhealthful working
conditions on the work site. Id.
OSHA's policy of holding controlling employers liable for
violations they can prevent or correct by reason of their supervisory
capacity has been upheld by a number of courts and the Review
Commission. See, for example, Universal Construction Company, Inc. v.
OSHRC, 182 F.3d 726 (10th Cir., 1999); R.P. Carbone Constr. Co. v.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 166 F.3d 815 (6th Cir.,
1998); Grossman Steel & Aluminum Corp., 4 BNA OSHC 1185 (Rev.
Commission, 1975); Marshall v. Knutson Construction Co., 566 F. 2d 596
(8th Cir., 1977); Centex-Rooney Construction Co., 16 BNA OSHC 2127
(Rev. Commission 1994).
OSHA has, by regulation, placed specific obligations on controlling
employers for the protection of other employers' employees in a number
of standards. See, for example, Sec. 1910.1200(e)(2), Hazard
Communication; Sec. 1910.146, Permit-Required Confined Spaces; and
Sec. 1926.1101(d), Asbestos. Therefore, the assertion that the Agency
does not have the authority to place such obligations on controlling
contractors in subpart R is unpersuasive.
SENRAC found that many controlling contractors have already
accepted responsibility for the five specific duties now codified in
the final rule. This was corroborated in testimony by several general
contractors/construction managers at the rulemaking hearing. (See, for
example, Ex. 201X, pp. 35-38; Ex. 201X, p. 63; Ex. 201X, pp. 93-95 and
105-107; Ex. 201X, pp.150-151; and Ex. 201X, p.211.) Specifically, the
following is Mr. Jenkins' response (Ex. 201X, pp. 35-38) when
questioned during testimony at the public hearing:
QUESTION: In fact, most of the [controlling contractor]
requirements that have been mentioned through cross examination you
seem to be doing already.
MR. JENKINS: That's correct, because we try to run safe job
sites. (Id.)
Furthermore, controlling contractors were represented on SENRAC by
William Brown representing the Associated General Contractors of
America (AGC), Rockwell Turner representing the Associated Builders and
Contractors (ABC), and Carol Murkland representing Gilbane Building
Company. They endorsed the proposed rule, which contained these same
provisions. Accordingly, it is both necessary and appropriate to place
these obligations on controlling contractors.
Section 1926.751 Definitions
The final rule definition section lists and defines major terms
used in the standard. Approximately twenty of the proposed definitions,
all developed by SENRAC with input from the Steel Joist Institute
(SJI), the Steel Deck Institute (SDI) and others, received no comments
nor were they discussed in testimony at the hearing. Accordingly, these
definitions are promulgated as proposed and are not discussed in the
final rule.
In the proposal, OSHA defined the terms ``clipped connection'',
``cold formed joist'', and ``composite joists''. Because these terms
are not used in the final rule, OSHA has removed the definitions for
these terms. The term ``clipped connection'' is considered an
``equivalent connection device'' under Sec. 1926.756(c)(1) and has been
moved to Appendix H.
The remaining proposed definitions did receive considerable
attention during this rulemaking. Accordingly, the following discussion
addresses these definitions in more detail.
``Column.'' This term is defined in the final rule to mean a load-
carrying vertical member that is part of the primary skeletal framing
system.
[[Page 5203]]
Columns do not include ``posts'' such as wind posts, and posts
supporting stair landings, wall framing, mezzanines and other
substructures (see definition of ``post''). As discussed later in this
preamble (see discussion of final Sec. 1926.755), the Agency determined
that a definition for column is needed to clarify which members are
subject to the requirements of the column anchorage provisions in
Sec. 1926.755.
``Competent person.'' This term is already defined in
Sec. 1926.32(f), which applies to all construction work. A ``competent
person'' is a person who is capable of identifying existing and
predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions which are
unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has
authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them.
Because the term appears so frequently in this standard, OSHA is
repeating this definition in subpart R. One commenter (Ex, 13-153)
suggested adding ``typically, but not necessarily, the competent person
on a steel erection project will be the person responsible for the
steel erection.'' OSHA does not believe the recommended language
clarifies the definition. Also, the term is used in all construction
applications and the Agency does not feel it is appropriate to change
the definition for steel erection.
``Connector'' means an employee who, working with hoisting
equipment, is placing and connecting structural members and/or
components. This definition is unchanged from the proposal. Several
commenters (Exs. 13-365, 13-334; 13-193A; 13-173; and 13-215) stated
that this definition does not clearly indicate what activities are
performed by a connector. They specifically argued that the definition
does not indicate whether spreading and securing of bar joists would be
considered connecting. One witness testified (Ex. 201X; p. 81) that the
proposed definition was so broad that it would include almost any
operation performed by ironworkers. OSHA disagrees with these
commenters. SENRAC intended to make this definition as narrow as
possible, and the Agency believes that the final definition carries out
this intention. The definition is very specific; connecting is
distinguished from other steel erection activities by the elements in
the definition. For example, spreading and securing bar joists by hand
would not be considered connecting, since that work is not done ``with
hoisting equipment.'' Therefore, an employee is a ``connector'' only
when working with ``hoisting equipment''. This includes placing
components as they are received from hoisting equipment, and then
connecting those components while hoisting equipment is overhead.
``Constructibility.'' This term is defined to mean the ability to
erect structural steel members in accordance with subpart R without
having to alter the over-all structural design. As discussed in the
preamble of final rule Sec. 1926.755, the Agency has determined that a
definition for constructability is needed for clarification. In the
proposal, several provisions contained exceptions where ``design and
constructibility do not allow'' compliance. However, the term ``design
and constructibility'' was not defined. The term was included in the
proposal to allow exemptions from specific requirements where the
overall design of the structure prevents compliance with such
requirements. In other words, in order to comply with the requirements,
the overall design of the structure would have to be altered. Since
``constructibility'' includes ``design'' constraints, the Agency has
replaced ``structural design and constructability'' with
``constructibility.'' This term is used in several places in the final
rule, specifically Sec. 1926.754(e)(2)(i), Sec. 1926.756(e)(1) and
(e)(2), and Sec. 1926.757(a)(8)(ii).
``Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ).'' This term is defined to mean an
area in which certain work (for example, initial installation and
placement of metal deck) may take place without the use of guardrail
systems, personal fall arrest systems, restraint systems or safety net
systems provided that alternative procedures (for example, controlled
access combined with worker training, specified work practices and use
of control lines or equivalent) are implemented. Controlled decking
zones are discussed in final rule Sec. 1926.760(c).
``Controlling contractor.'' OSHA defines this term to mean a prime
contractor, general contractor, construction manager, owner acting as
the general contractor, or any other legal entity that has overall
responsibility for the construction of the project--its planning,
quality, and completion.
One witness (Ex. 201X; p. 8-39) suggested that a company would be
considered a controlling contractor under this definition if it
controls the schedule at the worksite, dictates when other contractors
will do their work, makes it a practice to inform other contractors on
the site of safety problems and requires the other contractors to take
corrective action. He further argued that, while these are not all of
the relevant factors, they are typical of the types of authority that
controlling contractors have.
Some commenters stated that the definition of a controlling
contractor was vague and could be interpreted to include a ``private or
public owner, the project architect, general contractor or other
contractors on a multiple prime contractor project[s].'' The provision
defines the term with respect to the extent of control of the worksite.
A controlling contractor is an entity that has general supervisory
authority over the worksite such that it can correct safety and health
violations itself or have others correct them. So, an owner, project
architect or any other entity that has this authority would be
considered a controlling contractor.
The proposed phrase ``by contract with other parties'' has been
omitted in the final rule because an employer may have the ``overall
responsibility for the project, its planning, quality and completion''
without it provided for by contract.
``Critical lift'' means a lift that (1) exceeds 75% of the rated
capacity of the crane or derrick, or (2) requires the use of more than
one crane or derrick. A commenter (Ex. 13-210) stated that critical
lifts are not unique to steel erection and should be addressed in
OSHA's crane standard, 29 CFR 1926.550. While OSHA agrees that these
types of lifts occur in industries other than steel erection, there
currently are no special requirements in OSHA's crane standard that
specifically address these types of lifts. Since cranes are the primary
equipment used in steel erection to lift/hoist steel members, the
Agency feels it is important to address critical lifts in the steel
erection standard. As stated in the proposal, this definition was
developed by a SENRAC workgroup.
``Decking hole.'' This term is defined to mean a gap or void more
than 2 inches (5.1 cm) in its least dimension and less than 12 inches
(30.5 cm) in its greatest dimension in a floor, roof or other walking/
working surface whereas ``opening'' means a gap or a void large enough
to present a fall hazard. Pre-engineered holes in cellular decking are
not included in the definition of ``decking hole''.
SENRAC believed that it was important to distinguish between holes
that are too small to fall through (but are a tripping and falling
object hazard), and holes which are large enough to fall through. This
allowed the proposed rule to have safety requirements tailored to
whether the hole presents a tripping/falling object hazard or a fall
hazard. It therefore used the terms ``decking hole'' for small holes
and ``opening'' for large holes.
[[Page 5204]]
Two commenters stated that the definitions of hole and opening
should be consistent with the definitions in the general fall
protection standard for construction, 29 CFR subpart M,
Sec. 1926.500(b) (Ex. 13-210 and 13-222). They pointed out that the
definition of ``opening'' in the proposal is different from the
definition for that term in Sec. 1925.500(b). Another commenter (Ex.
13-1) noted that the proposal's definitions of holes and openings are
consistent with the definitions in ANSI A1264.1-1995, although the ANSI
standard does not apply to construction.
The definition of ``decking hole'' in subpart R, which has both a
minimum and maximum measurement--2 inches in its least dimension and 12
inches in its greatest dimension--refers to small holes. In contrast,
the definition of ``hole'' in subpart M (Sec. 1926.500(b)) includes
large as well as small holes; it has only a minimum measurement--2
inches or more in its least dimension. Additionally, in subpart R, the
term ``opening'' refers to holes large enough to be a fall hazard. In
subpart M, the term ``opening'' refers to gaps or voids large enough to
be a fall hazard, but only in walls (or partitions).
The definition of ``decking hole'' and ``opening'' in the proposal
were developed by SENRAC specifically for the steel erection industry
for this purpose. While the terms are inconsistent with comparable
terms in subpart M, the Committee found that the proposal's definitions
reflect the steel erection industry's use of these terms. While
consistency between standards is desirable, the subpart M terms would
not meet the needs of this standard. Therefore, the Agency has retained
the subpart R terms from the proposal.
``Derrick floor.'' This term is defined to mean the elevated floor
of a building or structure that has been designated to receive hoisted
pieces of steel prior to their final placement. A commenter (Ex. 13-
308) suggested changing the term to ``staging floor'' since it is not
clear if the references in Sec. 1926.754(e)(5)(i) and (e)(5)(ii) are
intended to refer to floors used to support crane derricks or staged
materials. SENRAC has noted that the term ``derrick floor'' is a term
commonly used in the steel erection industry to refer to the floor on
which the erection process for the floors above is taking place. The
derrick floor may or may not have a derrick on it but it is considered
the erection floor and serves as a staging area for construction loads
that are necessary to perform the work at the levels above. Since the
term is a generally understood term within the industry, the Agency
feels that the term ``staging area'' is too limiting and may lead to
confusion over the intended use of the floor. The Agency concurs with
SENRAC's recommended term and is promulgating the final definition as
proposed.
``Double connection seat'' means a structural attachment that,
during the installation of a double connection, supports the first
member while the second member is connected. This definition replaces
the proposed definition of ``seat''. The definition was modified to be
consistent with the revisions made to final Sec. 1926.756(c). ``Seat''
was changed to ``double connection seat'' to clarify that these devices
are used in double connections.
``Erection Bridging'' means the bolted diagonal bridging that is
required to be installed prior to releasing the hoisting cables from
the steel. One commenter stated that the term should be replaced with
``bridging'' (Ex. 13-308). He asserts that ``erection bridging''
incorrectly implies that the bridging is temporary and required for
erection proposes only, similar to erection bracing, erection bolts,
etc. However, the Agency disagrees. Erection bridging refers to
bridging that must be installed during the erection process, and
becomes a permanent part of the structure. This term was recommended by
SJI, and accepted, as a term that is commonly understood by the
industry. Therefore, the term is unchanged in the final rule.
``Fall restraint system.'' The final rule defines a fall restraint
system as a fall protection system that prevents the user from falling
any distance. The system is comprised of either a body belt or body
harness along with an anchorage, connectors and other equipment
necessary for the system to prevent the worker from falling any
distance. The other components typically include a lanyard, and may
also include a lifeline and other devices. When used while working on a
horizontal surface, the system prevents the worker from stepping past
the edge of the walking/ working surface (in contrast, a fall arrest
system limits the distance of a fall).
In the proposed rule, the Agency used the term ``fall restraint
(positioning device).'' In the final rule, OSHA has deleted the
parenthetical reference to a positioning device, modified the
definition, and added a separate definition for the term ``positioning
device.'' The term used in the proposal was defined as a system used to
prevent an employee from falling more than two feet, consisting of an
anchorage, connectors, a body belt or full body harness and a lanyard,
lifeline or suitable combination of these, and permitting self-rescue.
The reasons for changing the term and its definition are discussed in
the discussion of final rule Sec. 1926.760.
``Final interior perimeter.'' This is a new term in the final rule
and means the perimeter of a large permanent open space within a
building such as an atrium or courtyard. This does not include openings
for stairways, elevator shafts, etc. The term, used in
Sec. 1926.760(a)(2), describes those areas that are considered a final
perimeter of the structure but are not exterior perimeters.
``Hoisting equipment.'' This term is defined to mean commercially
manufactured lifting equipment designed to lift and position a load of
known weight to a location at some known elevation and horizontal
distance from the equipment's center of rotation. ``Hoisting
equipment'' includes but is not limited to cranes, derricks, tower
cranes, barge-mounted derricks or cranes, gin poles and gantry hoist
systems. The definition for hoisting equipment includes all
commercially manufactured equipment that is used in steel erection to
lift loads to a specified location. The intent was to ensure that this
term is not strictly limited to cranes. The definition was also crafted
to prevent a steel erector from claiming as ``connectors'' employees
who are not true connectors (such as detailers) by providing them with
a ``come-a-long'' to meet the definition of connector. A ``come-a-
long'' is not included in the definition of hoisting equipment. A
``come-a-long'' is a mechanical device, usually consisting of a chain
or cable attached at each end, that is used to facilitate movement of
materials through manual force and leverage. It has been excluded from
the definition of ``hoisting equipment'' because it is manually
powered. A commenter (13-308) suggested deleting ``an erection'' from
the proposed definition since it is not necessary in the context of the
definition. OSHA agrees with the commenter that the phrase is not
necessary. In addition, this commenter suggested that ``come-a-longs''
should be considered hoisting equipment when they are used for overhead
loads. The Agency does not agree with the commenter on this point. A
``come-a-long'' is used to adjust the position of a member, not to
``hoist'' it from one level to another. Hoisting equipment has
purposely been defined to only include the traditional equipment used
for hoisting steel members into place. A ``come-a-long'' does not fit
into this definition. OSHA has also made editorial changes to the
definition to make it clearer.
[[Page 5205]]
``Opening.'' This term is defined to mean a gap or void 12 inches
(30.5 cm) or more in its least dimension in a floor, roof or other
walking/working surface. For the purposes of this subpart, skylights
and smoke domes that do not meet the strength requirements of
Sec. 1926.754(e)(3) are regarded as openings (see the discussion on
``decking hole'' for a more detailed explanation).
``Personal fall arrest system.'' The final rule defines a personal
fall arrest system (PFAS) as a system used to arrest an employee in a
fall from a working level. It consists of an anchorage, connectors and
body harness, and may also include a lanyard, deceleration device,
lifeline or suitable combinations of these. The final rule's definition
deletes the proposed reference in the proposal to body belts, since
these are no longer permitted to be used in fall arrest systems.
``Positioning device system.'' As discussed above under the
definition of ``fall restraint system,'' the final rule distinguishes
the terms fall restraint system and positioning device system.
Consequently, a separate definition for positioning device system has
been added. It defines this term as a body belt or body harness rigged
to allow an employee to be supported on an elevated, vertical surface,
such as a wall or column, and work with both hands free while leaning.
This definition omits the reference in the proposal's definition of
``fall restraint (positioning device)'' to the ability to self-rescue.
That capability is assured by the fact that the final rule, in
paragraph Sec. 1926.760(d)(1), requires positioning device systems to
comply with the requirements of Sec. 1926.502. Section 1926.502(e)
requires positioning device systems to limit the worker's fall to no
more than two feet, which allows workers using these devices to rescue
themselves in the event of an arrested fall. When using ``fall
restraint'' and ``positioning device systems,'' employers do not need
to provide employees with self rescue devices. The reason such devices
are not required is that ``fall restraint'' and ``positioning device
systems'' must be designed to prevent employees from being exposed to
fall hazards.
``Post.'' This term is defined to mean a structural member with a
longitudinal axis that is essentially vertical, that: (1) Weighs 300
pounds or less and is axially loaded (a load presses down on the top
end), or (2) is not axially loaded, but is laterally restrained by the
above member. Posts typically support stair landings, wall framing,
mezzanines and other substructures. As discussed in the summary and
explanation of final rule Sec. 1926.755, the Agency feels that a
definition for post is needed to clarify the application of
Sec. 1926.755. (See also the definition of ``Column'' in
Sec. 1926.751.)
``Project structural engineer of record.'' This term is defined in
the final rule to mean the registered, licensed professional
responsible for the design of structural steel framing and whose seal
appears on the structural contract documents. One commenter (Ex. 13-
356) suggested expanding the definition by adding ``and other
structural systems'' after structural steel framing. The necessity for
such an addition has not been demonstrated; the definition is
promulgated unchanged.
``Qualified person.'' This term is also defined in Sec. 1926.32(m),
which applies to all construction work covered by part 1926. A
``qualified person'' means one who, by possession of a recognized
degree, certificate, or professional standing, or who by extensive
knowledge, training, and experience, has successfully demonstrated the
ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the subject matter,
the work, or the project. As with the definition of ``competent
person'', because of the frequent use of the term in this standard, and
as a matter of convenience for users, the definition is repeated in
subpart R even though the definition already exists in Sec. 1926.32.
One commenter (Ex. 13-153) suggested changing the definition to be more
specific to steel erection. However, the record does not show a
significant need to have a different definition.
``Steel Erection.'' This term means the construction, alteration or
repair of steel buildings, bridges and other structures, including the
installation of metal decking and all planking used during the process
of erection. This is a revision of the definition in the proposal,
which defined steel erection as ``the erection of steel buildings,
bridges and other structures, including the installation of steel
flooring and roofing members and all planking and decking used during
the process of erection.'' One commenter indicated that steel erection
is understood to include alteration and/or repair activities, but that
the definition in the proposal was limited to the erection of entire
structures (Ex. 13-183).
The definition in the proposal unintentionally conflicted with the
proposed Sec. 1926.750(a), which stated that steel erection activities
also included ``alteration and repair,'' activities which include work
on structures that have already been erected. The definition of steel
erection in the final rule has been changed to correct this error.
``Steel joist.'' This term is defined to mean an open web,
secondary load-carrying member of 144 feet (43.9 m) or less, designed
by the manufacturer, used for the support of floors and roofs. This
term does not include structural steel trusses or cold-formed joists. A
commenter (Ex. 13-153) suggested adding ``designed by the
manufacturer'' to this definition to make it consistent with that of
steel joist girder and differentiate it from a steel truss which is
designed by the structural engineer of record. OSHA agrees with this
suggestion and has changed the definition in the final rule
accordingly.
``Structural steel'' means a steel member, or a member made of a
substitute material (such as, but not limited to, fiberglass, aluminum
or composite members). These members include, but are not limited to:
steel joists, joist girders, purlins, columns, beams, trusses, splices,
seats, metal decking, girts, and all bridging, and cold formed metal
framing which is integrated with the structural steel framing of a
building. This definition was added because it is an important term
that is used in the scope section of this standard. Also, at the
hearing and the December 16, 1999 SENRAC consultation meeting, SENRAC
members explained (Ex. 205X, pp. 230-233, 248-249, and 257-271; Ex.
206X, p. 70; and Ex. 208X, pp. 144-145) that in some instances
buildings are now constructed with members that are configured like
structural steel members, but are made of a substitute material (for
example, solid web beams made of fiberglass). Since the erection
process, configuration of the structural framework and the members are
the same as in a structure made of structural steel, these are included
in the definition as well.
``Systems-engineered metal building.'' This term replaces the term
``pre-engineered metal buildings'' that was used in the proposed rule.
The final rule definition of systems-engineered metal building is
essentially the same as the proposed definition of pre-engineered metal
building. It means a field-assembled building system consisting of
framing, roof and wall coverings. Typically, many of these components
are cold-formed shapes. These individual parts are fabricated in one or
more manufacturing facilities and shipped to the job site for assembly
into the final structure. The engineering design of the system is
normally the responsibility of the systems-engineered metal building
manufacturer. The definition was developed by a SENRAC
[[Page 5206]]
workgroup. Although no comments were received on the definition, the
term itself was changed for reasons explained in the discussion of
Sec. 1926.758.
``Tank'' is a new definition. It means a container for holding
gases, liquids or solids. Although, as explained in the discussion of
Sec. 1926.750(a), subpart R does not cover tanks, it covers the
erection of steel structures supporting tanks.
Section 1926.752 Site Layout, Site-Specific Erection Plan and
Construction Sequence
This section of the final rule sets forth OSHA's requirements for
proper communication between the controlling contractor and the steel
erector prior to the beginning of the steel erection operation and
proper pre-planning by the steel erector to minimize overhead exposure
during hoisting operations. Appendix A, which is referred to in this
section, also provides guidelines for employers who elect to develop a
site-specific erection plan. OSHA's current standard does not contain
provisions similar to those being adopted in this section.
SENRAC recognized that under current practices in the industry,
erection decisions are often made in the field when the steel arrives.
SENRAC believes that pre-planning and coordination are currently not
occurring to the extent they should be (63 FR 43461).
Paragraph (a) Approval To Begin Steel Erection and (b) Commencement of
Steel Erection
Paragraph (a) requires that the controlling contractor ensure that
written notifications be provided to the steel erector that (1) The
concrete in the footings, piers, and walls and the mortar in the
masonry piers and walls have cured to a level that will provide the
proper strength to support any forces imposed on the concrete during
steel erection; and (2) that any repairs, replacements, and
modifications made to anchor bolts meet the requirements of
Sec. 1926.755(b). The criteria for adequate strength for concrete
footings depend on the results of required American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) standard test methods. (Note: requirements for the
controlling contractor to notify the steel erector of any repair,
replacement or modification to anchor bolts are found in
Sec. 1926.755(b))
SENRAC found that many accidents involving collapse could have been
averted had adequate pre-erection communication and planning occurred
(63 FR 43461). This section of the rule is designed to ensure proper
communication and pre-planning between contractors pouring concrete
footings, contractors making repairs to repairing anchor bolts, the
controlling contractor, and the steel erector. This communication must
take place prior to the beginning of steel erection. The written
notification can be transmitted electronically.
Some commenters (Exs. 13-4, 13-7, 13-26, 13-63A and 13-193A) stated
that a controlling contractor would not know if concrete had cured to
the point that steel erection could begin. They go on to state that
steel erectors know more about how much concrete needs to cure, and
that they should be the ones to determine if the proper information has
been provided so that steel erection can start.
OSHA agrees that both the controlling contractor and steel erector
usually would not know if concrete has cured unless the ASTM standard
test method has been performed. This requirement is similar to the OSHA
requirement for concrete construction found in Sec. 1926.703(e)(ii),
which requires that formwork not be removed from cast-in-place concrete
``* * * until the concrete has been properly tested with an appropriate
ASTM standard test method designed to indicate the concrete compressive
strength, and the test results indicate that the concrete has gained
sufficient strength to support its weight and superimposed loads.''
Since the footings, piers and walls intended to be covered by this
proposed section will be supporting the steel structure being erected,
OSHA, as well as the Committee, wishes to ensure that this information
is provided to the steel erector before the steel is placed on the
concrete.
In the proposed rule, the controlling contractor would have had to
provide the ASTM test results to the steel erector. The final rule has
been changed to reflect that the controlling contractor must ensure
that the test results are provided to the steel erector. This
rephrasing will allow the controlling contractor to have a contractor
familiar with the ASTM test methods perform the test and provide the
results to the steel erector.
Commenters also stated (Exs. 13-164, 13-264, 13-334 and 13-359)
that the steel erection contractor, not the controlling contractor, was
the best person to evaluate site conditions and approve the
commencement of steel erection. The final rule, however, does not
contain a broad-based requirement that the controlling contractor
evaluate whether the site is in proper condition to begin steel
erection. Rather, it sets out two specific aspects of the site that the
controlling contractor must evaluate before approving the commencement
of steel erection. The controlling contractor is in a better position
to gather the required information than the steel erector, since much
of this information must be obtained from persons over whom the steel
erector has no control, such as the laboratory testing the concrete
samples or the concrete contractor repairing the damaged anchor bolts.
OSHA has also added a new provision, Sec. 1926.752(b), to ensure that a
steel erector does not begin erecting steel before receiving the
information required in Sec. 1926.752(a).
A commenter (Ex. 13-149) suggested that the word ``must'' in the
proposed Sec. 1926.752(a) be replaced with the word ``shall.'' Although
these words have the same meaning, the word ``shall'' is used
throughout this standard, and the change was made in the interest of
consistency.
Paragraph (c) Site Layout
Paragraph (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the final rule requires that the
access roads and a drained and graded area be provided and maintained
by the controlling contractor. These conditions enable the steel
erector to move around the site and perform necessary operations in a
safe manner. The provision does not apply to roads outside of the
construction site.
Some commenters (Exs. 13-26, 13-63A, 13-193A, 13-215 and 13-241)
pointed out that safe access roads are already required in Sec. 1926.20
(General Safety and Health Provision); Sec. 1926.550 (Cranes and
Derricks); and Sec. 1926.602(a)(3)(i) (Material Handling Equipment
standards). However, these standards do not protect employees from the
hazards addressed in Sec. 1926.752(b). For example, these standards do
not address adequate access roads into and through the site. As noted
earlier, OSHA has attempted to bring together the provisions that are
unique to steel erection work in subpart R.
Testifying as to the need for this provision in the steel erection
industry, Steve Rank, a member of SENRAC who represented the insurance
interest, stated the following:
I am talking about the site conditions. Normally, you don't talk
about fatalities when you talk about site conditions, but the
statistics that OSHA never got were those disabling injuries where
ironworkers' feet were crushed or legs were crushed because of
trying to off-load their material on job sites. Structural steel
iron has to be unloaded, sorted, and stood up before you can get it
in the air. We as an industry not only want to
[[Page 5207]]
focus on the fatalities, but also those disabling injuries that have
plagued our industry. (208X; p.34)
The final rule adds an exception for roads outside the construction
site in response to a commenter (Ex. 13-214) who objected to the
proposed provision because there are worksites that have city or county
owned access roads. When such conditions exist, the controlling
contractor does not have any authority to correct problems with the
road, or to assign lay down areas for steel erectors to prepare their
work. OSHA agrees with the commenters that there are circumstances
where the controlling employer would not have such control, such as
where a city or county owns the access roads. For this reason, OSHA has
added language to the final rule to provide an exception where the
controlling contractor does not have control over the road.
Paragraph (c)(2) requires that the controlling contractor provide
and maintain a firm, properly graded, drained area, readily accessible
to the work and with adequate space for the safe storage of materials
and the safe operation of the erector's equipment. As stated in the
proposed rule, SENRAC found that the controlling contractor is in the
best position to minimize the hazards associated with improper site
layout and conditions. The provisions in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)
were derived from the AISC code of standard practice for steel
buildings and bridges (Ex. 9-36).
Some commenters (Exs. 13-279, 13-210, 13-311, 13-193 and 13-164)
indicated that the term ``adequate'' in the requirement in (c)(1)
should be defined to delineate what would be acceptable for roads.
After considering this suggestion, OSHA has concluded that no
definition could be created that would encompass all possible site
conditions. For this reason, OSHA has left the word adequate in the
final rule, and it will be the responsibility of the controlling
contractor to determine that a road is properly graded to support
equipment without the danger of rollover and properly drained so that
equipment can be safely maneuvered.
One commenter (Ex. 13-155) objected to the provision on the grounds
that the steel erector, rather than the controlling contractor, is best
able to determine access and work area needs for the work. At the
hearing, a witness (Ex. 208X; p. 78-79) testified that the steel
erector does not have any ability to say where the access roads and
storage areas will be placed, or who can work in those areas. He went
on to state that these decisions are usually made by the controlling
contractor. Another witness (Ex. 202X; p. 42) testified that when he
needs the access road or storage area smoothed out, he contacts the
general contractor, or controlling contractor.
The record shows that it is the controlling contractor that is in
the best position to ensure that the necessary changes are made (see,
for example, Ex. 201X; pp. 93-95). Further, in these situations, the
controlling contractor is able to make necessary changes. It will
either have the personnel and equipment, or can assign the task to
another contractor, to maintain site conditions. For these reasons,
OSHA has not made any changes to the provision regarding the
responsibility to maintain adequate site conditions.
Paragraph (d) Pre-planning of Overhead Hoisting Operations
Paragraph 1926.752(d) requires that all hoisting operations in
steel erection be pre-planned to ensure that they comply with the
requirements of Sec. 1926.753(d), the paragraph regulating ``working
under loads.''
The purpose of final rule paragraph (d) (paragraph (c) of the
proposed rule), is to address the hazards associated with overhead
loads. Specifically, these hazards include failure of the lifting
device, which would create a crushing hazard, and items falling from
the load, which creates a struck-by and crushing hazard, among others.
Given the nature of the loads used in steel erection, either of these
events could result in serious injury or death.
After reviewing comments made on this paragraph (Exs. 13-170G, 13-
210, 13-218, 13-263, and 13-334) OSHA recognized that the title of the
proposed paragraph--``Overhead protection'' was confusing in that it
suggested that this paragraph dealt with the actual process of making
lifts. In response to the comments, OSHA has changed the proposed title
of paragraph (d) from ``overhead protection'' to ``pre-planning of
overhead hoisting operations'' to reflect that Sec. 1926.752(d)
addresses requirements for the pre-planning of lifts and not the
requirements for the actual hoisting and rigging of materials.
Commenters stated (Exs. 13-4, 13-7, 13-26, 13-63A, 13-180, 13-193,
13-215, and 13-334) that there are times when materials being lifted
would be required to have a swing area that would cover areas where
workers are present. In their view, this requirement would cause the
controlling contractor to clear the whole site. This is not what the
Committee intended nor is it what the provision requires. In addition,
a similar requirement already exists in OSHA's crane and derrick
standard. Sec. 1926.550(a)(19) requires that ``all employees shall be
kept clear of loads about to be lifted and of suspended loads.'' The
intent of final rule 1926.752(d) is to require employers to pre-plan
lifts to facilitate compliance with the overhead load requirements.
Through pre-planning, employers can adjust schedules and assignments to
avoid worker exposure to overhead loads. For a more detailed discussion
see preamble for Sec. 1926.753(d)--working under loads.
Paragraph (e) Site-specific Erection Plan
Paragraph Sec. 1926.752(e) sets out criteria for site-specific
erection plans. The plans must be developed by a qualified person and
be available at the worksite. The standard does not require such plans
for all steel erection worksites; three specific provisions of this
rule allow them as alternatives to specific provisions of the standard:
One, is when an employer wishes to provide ``equivalent protection'',
rather than deactivating or making safety latches on hoisting hooks
inoperable (Sec. 1926.753(c)(5)). The second is when an employer
provides an alternative erection method for setting certain steel
joists detailed in Sec. 1926.757(a)(4). The third is when an employer
places decking bundles on steel joists and, under certain
circumstances, must document in an erection plan that the structure can
support the load (Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i)). This paragraph is unchanged
from the proposal. OSHA has provided Appendix A as a guideline for
establishing the components of a site-specific erection plan, as
recommended by SENRAC. In the proposed rule, OSHA explained why it was
not requiring the employer to establish a site-specific erection plan
for every site (63 FR 43462). During initial discussions, SENRAC
considered a requirement for every steel erection employer to develop a
site-specific erection plan in writing for every project but decided
that such a requirement would be unnecessarily paperwork-intensive,
especially for small businesses. A site-specific erection plan will be
easier to complete once the erector has developed a model plan. Some
site-specific conditions that might lead an employer to rely on an
alternative rather than the requirements specified in paragraphs
Sec. 1926.753(c)(5), Sec. 1926.757(a)(4), and Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i),
and examples of possible alternative methods, are addressed in the
discussion of these paragraphs later in this preamble.
Section 1926.753 Hoisting and Rigging
Rigging and hoisting of steel members and materials are essential
activities in
[[Page 5208]]
the steel erection process. This section sets safety requirements to
address the hazards associated with these activities. In this final
rule, new paragraphs (a) and (b) were added to clarify the application
of the general crane requirements to subpart R. As indicated in the
proposed introductory language, the new provisions recommended by
SENRAC were designed to supplement rather than displace the
requirements in Sec. 1926.550.
Paragraph (a) of the final rule provides that all provisions of
Sec. 1926.550, the general construction requirements for cranes and
derricks, apply to hoisting and rigging operations in steel erection
except for Sec. 1926.550(g)(2), the general requirements for crane or
derrick suspended personnel platforms. Provisions for the use of
suspended platforms in steel erection are in paragraph (c)(4) of this
section.
Paragraph (b) provides that, in addition to the Sec. 1926.550
provisions, the requirements in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this
section apply as well. Final rule paragraphs (a) and (b) were added
because hoisting safety is critical in steel erection operations and
the Sec. 1926.550 provisions are, in many respects, outdated.
Paragraph (c) General
Paragraph (c) contains the requirements for pre-shift inspections
of cranes and rigging used in steel erection. This paragraph is
redesignated from the proposal where it was paragraph (a).
Paragraph (c)(1) requires that a competent person must perform a
pre-shift visual inspection of the cranes to be used for steel
erection. The inspection must meet the requirements of Sec. 1926.550
along with the supplemental requirements listed in paragraph (c) of
this section. The SENRAC committee recognized that OSHA's crane
standard incorporates ANSI B30.5-1968, Safety Code for Crawler,
Locomotive, and Truck Cranes (Ex. 9-114), which does not reflect the
most current safety requirements for modern cranes and the heavier
loads they are now able to hoist. As a result, the updated crane
requirements in ANSI B30.5-1994, Mobile and Locomotive Cranes standard
(Ex. 9-113), are used as the principal basis for the supplemental
provisions added in paragraph (c) of this section. SENRAC believed the
additional inspection criteria were needed to ensure that safe
equipment and procedures would be used to perform the specialized and
potentially hazardous types of hoisting operations in steel erection.
These include the use of cranes to hoist employees on personnel
platforms (Sec. 1926.753(c)(4)); to suspend loads over certain
employees (Sec. 1926.753(d)); and to perform multiple lifts
(Sec. 1926.753(e)). In addition, SENRAC believed that a more frequent
inspection is needed for cranes being used for steel erection.
According to SENRAC, an inspection prior to each shift is needed to
provide an added measure of protection for the specialized and
potentially hazardous hoisting operations (63 FR 43462).
Section Sec. 1926.550 requires pre-shift inspections by a competent
person but does not spell out the detailed inspection requirements
contained in the new Sec. 1926.753. SENRAC determined and OSHA agrees
that subpart R must address all issues relating to safety during steel
erection. Hoisting operations are integral to steel erection and
defects in hoisting equipment can harm steel erection workers in many
ways. Therefore, it is necessary to include these requirements in this
standard.
The complete visual inspection must be performed before each shift
by a competent person. This person might be the operator or oiler of
the hoisting equipment being used or, on a large project, the master
mechanic who checks each crane. The pre-shift visual inspection must
also include ``observation for deficiencies during operation'' and is
anticipated to take between 10 and 20 minutes (63 FR 43462). At a
minimum, the inspection must include the items listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i)(A) through (L); namely, inspection of (A) all control
mechanisms for maladjustment; (B) control and drive mechanisms for
excessive wear of components and contamination by lubricants, water or
other foreign matter; (C) safety devices, including, but not limited
to, boom angle indicators, boom stops, boom kick-out devices, anti-two
block devices, and load moment indicators where required; (D) air,
hydraulic, and other pressure lines for deterioration or leakage,
particularly those which flex in normal operation; (E) hooks and
latches for deformation, chemical damage, cracks, or wear; (F) wire
rope reeving for compliance with hoisting equipment manufacturer's
specifications; (G) electrical apparatus for malfunctioning, signs of
excessive deterioration, dirt, or moisture accumulation; (H) hydraulic
system for proper fluid level; (I) tires for proper inflation and
condition; (J) ground conditions around the hoisting equipment for
proper support, including ground settling under and around outriggers,
ground water accumulation or other similar conditions; (K) the hoisting
equipment for level position and; (L) the hoisting equipment for level
position after each move and setup during the shift.
Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) requires that if the inspection identifies a
deficiency, the competent person must immediately determine whether the
deficiency constitutes a hazard. The paragraph as proposed did not
specify who was to make this determination. Because this type of
determination requires the skills of a competent person and since the
inspection is conducted by a competent person, the paragraph in the
final rule explicitly states that a competent person must make the
determination as to whether the deficiency constitutes a hazard. There
were no comments about this paragraph.
Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of the final rule requires that if a
deficiency is determined to constitute a hazard, the hoisting equipment
shall be removed from service until the deficiency is corrected. There
were no objections to this paragraph.
The proposed rule contained a provision (proposed rule paragraph
(a)(1)(iv)) that would have required a certification record of the pre-
shift inspection of the hoisting equipment to indicate that the
inspection has been completed. This certification would have included
the date the hoisting equipment items were inspected, the signature of
the inspector, and a serial number or other identifier for the hoisting
equipment inspected. It is the Agency's policy to minimize paperwork
burdens on employers. In light of the fact that the pre-shift
inspection required in Sec. 1926.550(a)(5) does not require a written
certification, OSHA has omitted this requirement from the final rule.
Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) makes the operator responsible for operations
under his/her direct control and gives the operator the authority to
refuse any load that he/she deems unsafe. The Inpernational Union of
Operating Engineers (Ex. 208X; p.55) believed it was necessary to
clarify the operator's responsibilities during hoisting operations.
OSHA agrees that the operator must have the authority to shut down
unsafe operations of the crane. This requirement is the same as the
parallel requirement in the ANSI B30.5-1968 standard for operating
practices that are currently incorporated into 1926.550.
The most current ANSI standard, B30.5-1994, gives the authority to
the supervisor. OSHA has adopted the approach in the previous ANSI
standard because the crane operator is in a better position to make
these assessments than
[[Page 5209]]
the supervisor. This view was explained in a letter from a professional
engineering firm to the secretary of the B30 committee (Ex. 9-133):
Control of a heavy-lifting operation solely under the direction
of a supervisor or any other person who may be less qualified than
he, is not prudent. The crane operator has instrumentation in the
crane to base his action upon, and should be the ultimate person to
make decisions about the capacity and safety of both the machine and
lifting operations.
Unlike a qualified crane operator, who has the training and
experience to make informed decisions about handling a crane load, a
supervisor may not have the qualifications and experience necessary for
safe crane operation.
Paragraph (c)(2) requires a qualified rigger to inspect the rigging
prior to each shift. Two commenters (Exs. 13-148 and 13-222) stated
that there is a need for a definition of ``qualified rigger'' to
clarify what specific qualifications are required for that status. One
commenter (Ex. 13-149) indicated that the proposal is unclear as to who
is responsible for ensuring that a rigger is qualified. This commenter
also asserted that this provision would encourage unsafe acts by
untrained people who want to cut time and costs. Another commenter (Ex.
202X; p.7) also noted that the qualifications of a rigger were not
defined. According to this commenter, this is a significant issue
because a lot of responsibility is placed on the qualified rigger in
the standard.
OSHA is not adding a definition for a ``qualified rigger.'' As
discussed below, the Agency believes sufficient guidance exists on
assessing whether a rigger is ``qualified'' under this standard.
A qualified rigger is defined as a ``qualified person'' who is
performing the inspection of the rigging equipment. Based on the
definition of a ``qualified person'', a qualified rigger must have
demonstrated successfully the ability to solve or resolve rigging
problems. Since there are no degree or certification programs for
``riggers'', they must have extensive experience to support this
demonstration. The final rule requires the rigger to follow the
requirements in Sec. 1926.251, Rigging Equipment for Material Handling,
which requires significant knowledge in the areas it specifies. It
should be noted that a SENRAC member (Ex. 208X; p.69) testified that he
is a member of an industry committee that will issue an industry
standard defining the qualifications of a qualified rigger. OSHA
believes that the industry will develop criteria in the near future.
Paragraph (c)(3) prohibits the use of the headache ball, hook or
load to transport personnel except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of
this section. These practices are widely recognized as unsafe because
of the risk of falling off the ball, hook or load (or, in a case where
the load falls, falling with the load). No comments were received on
this paragraph.
Paragraph (c)(4) states that employers engaged in steel erection
work do not have to comply with the requirements of
Sec. 1926.550(g)(2)--Crane or Derrick Suspended Personnel Platforms if
they hoist employees on a personnel platform. Sec. 1926.550(g)(2)
requires an employer to demonstrate that the use of conventional
methods to access the work station ``would be more hazardous or is not
possible because of structural design or workday conditions'' if the
employer wants to hoist employees on a personnel platform. Final rule
paragraph (c)(4) is slightly re-worded from the proposed rule for
clarity. The preamble to the proposed rule explained why SENRAC
believed that hoisting employees using personnel platforms is safer
than climbing, why elevators cannot be used, and why hazards will be
reduced by using these platforms (63 FR 43464). The work station during
the steel erection process moves rapidly as pieces of structural steel
are connected to each other and elevators and stairways usually cannot
be installed until much of the structure has been completed. Exposure
to fall hazards and the other hazards associated with erection and
dismantling of scaffolds for extremely short term activities are
eliminated by the use of a personnel platform.
Some commenters objected to the provision as proposed because they
believe that it is feasible for steel erectors to use conventional
methods of gaining access to the work station. AGC of Metropolitan
Washington DC (Ex. 13-334) did not believe a blanket exemption from the
personnel platform requirements for those who do steel erection work
was a good idea. It was also noted by the a Department of Energy (Ex.
13-31) that relaxing the hoisting regulations for steel erection would
create a double standard, since all other trades would not have the
same exemption even though they often work side by side. DOE suggested
that the paragraph be deleted.
The SENRAC committee believed that many steel erection activities,
particularly those that are repetitive and of short duration, such as
bolting-up, can be performed more safely, with greatly reduced exposure
to fall hazards, when done from a personnel platform. This is largely
due to the fact that the ironworker's workstations are high up, far
apart, and change fairly rapidly. Use of the personnel platform would
eliminate the numerous climbs up and down scaffolds, long ladders, etc.
that would otherwise be required. OSHA has not relaxed the other
requirements of the hoisting standard and only allows the use of
personnel platforms as long as they comply with the crane standard.
These requirements include performing the lift in a slow, cautious and
controlled manner; holding pre-lift meetings; conducting trial lifts;
requiring a safety factor of ten; and the use of engineering controls,
such as anti-two blocking protection and controlled lowering
capability. The rulemaking record does not indicate that the
workstations of the other trades change as rapidly and span the same
large distances as those of the ironworkers.
The term ``notwithstanding'' was removed from the proposed standard
and the paragraph re-written for clarification of its intent.
Paragraph (c)(5) prohibits safety latches on hooks from being
deactivated or made inoperable except when a qualified rigger has
determined that the hoisting and placing of purlins and single joists
can be performed more safely by doing so, or when equivalent protection
is provided in a site specific erection plan.
SENRAC found that there are some activities in steel erection in
which it is safer to hoist lighter members with a deactivated safety
latch. One example is when deactivating the latch eliminates the need
for a worker to climb up or onto an unstable structural member, such as
a single bar joist, to unhook the member. The first part of paragraph
(c)(5) requires all latched hooks to be latched in the absence of a
determination by the qualified rigger that using the latch is unsafe.
The second part of paragraph (c)(5) states that if the latch is
deactivated without such a determination by a qualified rigger, the
employer must have some form of equivalent protection in its site-
specific erection plan.
Paragraph (d) Working Under Loads
Paragraph (d) (proposed rule paragraph (c)) requires routes for
suspended loads to be pre-planned and prohibits employees from working
under a hoisted load except for workers engaged in initial connection
activities or employees who are necessary for unhooking the load. It
also lists three specific requirements that must be met when these
exceptions apply. The materials shall be rigged by a qualified
[[Page 5210]]
rigger so that unintentional displacement is prevented. Also, hooks
with self closing safety latches (or their equivalent) must be used to
prevent components from slipping out of the hook. The requirements in
paragraph (d) were patterned after the California Code of Regulations
(Ex. 9-24D1), which regulates and limits exposure to overhead loads to
occasional, unavoidable instances.
In the proposal preamble, OSHA noted that although overhead passes
normally can be avoided, they cannot be entirely eliminated due to the
complexity of modern construction, which requires that many activities
take place concurrently. On many building sites, existing buildings,
structures, streets, overhead lines and similar factors make it
necessary to move loads over the same work areas throughout the course
of the project. On some large projects, such as the construction of
power plants, many hoisting operations take place simultaneously. In
such situations, cranes must be located throughout the site to provide
access to every part of the project. Scheduling the work to avoid
moving loads over occupied work areas is not always feasible. Although
paragraph (d) allows loads to be moved overhead, it requires the
employer to limit such exposure.
The final rule allows workers doing initial connection work and
those required to hook or unhook loads to work under the load because
overhead exposure is generally unavoidable during these activities and
while hooking and unhooking loads. This is similar to other OSHA rules
that allow employees to work under loads in specific work situations
where it has been sufficiently demonstrated that it is infeasible to
accomplish the work otherwise. For example, Sec. 1926.704(e) of the
Concrete and Masonry standard provides, ``no employee shall be
permitted under precast concrete members being lifted or tilted into
position except those employees required for the erection of those
members.'' Section 1926.705(k)(1) of that standard allows some
employees to work under suspended loads as well:
No employees, except those essential to the jacking operation,
shall be permitted in the building/structure while any jacking
operation is taking place unless the building/structure has been
reinforced sufficiently to ensure its integrity during erection.
An argument can be made in opposition to this paragraph that it
appears to be in conflict with Sec. 1926.550(a) of the crane standard,
which explicitly prohibits employees from being exposed to suspended
loads in section 1926.550(a)(19). However, the record has no data to
indicate that the new rule will result in an increase in exposure to an
overhead load, and OSHA is relying upon the expertise of SENRAC that
the new rule will indeed lower that exposure.
As explained above, OSHA already has two exceptions to
Sec. 1926.550(a)(19) in place, which allow employees to work under
loads. The final rule provides as much protection as is feasible by
limiting the steel erection exception to two groups of employees who
are occasionally exposed to a suspended load and specifying steps that
must be followed when they are exposed to overhead loads.
In the original proposal, SENRAC recommended that OSHA eliminate
the requirement to have tag lines on loads because they believed the
swinging lines presented a hazard to the connectors by being in the
way. They contended that these lines could knock a connector off
balance if left swinging freely. OSHA agreed but the final rule
continues to allow for the use of tag lines where need be to control a
load.
Paragraph (e) Multiple Lift Rigging Procedure
The procedure, known as ``Christmas Treeing,'' ``multiple
lifting,'' or ``tandem loading,'' is not explicitly addressed in OSHA's
current steel erection standard. A specific procedure for multiple lift
rigging was prescribed in the proposed rule and such a procedure is
included in the final rule. SENRAC believes this procedure, when
executed as prescribed in this paragraph, is a safe and effective
method for decreasing the number of total crane swings and employee
exposure on the steel while connecting. In the past, OSHA has not
looked favorably upon ``Christmas Treeing'' because, when performed
incorrectly, it can present significant hazards to workers. SENRAC
committee members and other interested parties demonstrated that there
is a safe way of performing christmas treeing. Multiple lifting can be
done safely in steel erection work if it is executed in compliance with
the method prescribed in the proposed standard (Ex. 208X; p. 51). Based
on the record of this rulemaking, OSHA defers to the expertise of
SENRAC on this particular practice.
Paragraph (e) of the final rule applies when a steel erector
chooses to lift multiple pieces of steel at one time as an alternative
to hoisting individual structural members. It limits the use of this
procedure to the lifting of beams and similar structural members and
requires specific equipment and work practices to be used. SENRAC (Ex.
208X; p. 51) believes that Christmas treeing is already an industry
practice and that the requirements of this standard will make it safer
to execute.
Some commenters (Exs. 13-60 and 13-182) assert that this is not an
accepted practice throughout the industry and do not agree that this is
a safe practice, even with the proposal's requirements. The record does
not substantiate the view that it is an unsafe practice when the
specified procedures are followed. As mentioned above, the record lacks
statistics on the injury and fatality rate associated with Christmas
treeing. One reason for the lack of reliable statistics pertaining to
Christmas treeing activities is that it is often difficult to identify
the exact cause of an accident during this activity. For example, the
fact that a person fell or was struck by an object during Christmas
treeing activities does not mean that it was caused by Christmas
treeing itself.
The record contains evidence that there are several advantages to
performing multiple lifts, especially (as demonstrated by SENRAC
members) when performed using the procedures specified by this
paragraph (Ex 208X; p. 44) (63 FR 43465). For example, multiple lifting
can be safer than individual lifting when connecting floor beams. Floor
beams are relatively light and in most cases will not safely support a
bundle of steel placed upon them. The normal erection procedure
requires them to be stacked on the ground and delivered to the bay one
by one. The multiple lifting technique allows multiple beams to be
brought to a bay in one swing of the crane. They are uniform in weight
and size, which makes a multiple load a lot easier to balance and
handle. Multiple lifting significantly decreases the number of times
that employees who are not involved in the connection process are
exposed to overhead loads. It also reduces the time a connector has to
spend out on the iron because the whole process is quicker.
Bill Brown of Ben Hur Construction testified that ``Christmas
treeing and your stringing iron, we find to be in our operation to be a
very safe, effective, and economical way of erecting generally
repetitive members in building construction.'' (Ex. 205X; p. 8)
After discussing how MLRPs can reduce the number of lifts by 80%,
Mr. Brown discussed the impact of this factor on his crane operators:
Well, the operators claim that once you get them set up in the
right way to do this, it's a lot easier on them.
[[Page 5211]]
Like I said because if they are in a boom-up swing in swing
mode, that's when steel erection seems to be the most fatiguing and
the most intense work for the operators, except for putting a piece
in the guy's hands who's going to make the connection.
Our operators say that by doing this and having repetition of
less cycles, it's a lot more less--or it's less stressful and
fatiguing * * * (Ex. 205X; p. 35)
In addition, Mr. Philip Torchio of Williams Enterprises testified
that ``Multiple lift rigging procedure will improve ironworker safety
as well as reducing exposure of other job site crafts through increased
training, inspections, improved equipment design and selection coupled
with reduced lift cycles and reduced total worker exposure time'' (Ex.
208X; p. 44). Mr. Torchio went on to state that ``* * * utilizing
multiple lift procedure reduces total worker exposure time, increases
worker training and mental focus. It increases equipment reliability
both for crane and rigging. It requires safer crane operation and
reduces total job duration. All these items contribute to increased
worker safety'' (Ex. 208X; pp. 45-46).
OSHA has acknowledged the potential advantages of multiple lifting
in interpretation letters such as the one dated September 9, 1993, from
the Director of the Office of Construction and Engineering to the
Regional Administrator of OSHA Region I which read:
Christmas treeing could indeed be productive and efficient on
projects when erecting floor or roof filler beams, all of the same
length and weight with similar details at each end of the beams. In
large industrial projects where the location of the crane is much
farther away from the bay under erection, Christmas treeing could
also prove to be efficient. Further, the practice reduces the total
number of swings the crane makes in each project, thus reducing the
risk of exposing the workers located in the vicinity of the crane or
in the path of travel of the load (Ex. 9-13G; p. 2).
The different parts of paragraph (e) address six aspects of the
MLRP process: lifting criteria (paragraph (e)(1)); design, capacity of
equipment (paragraph (e)(2)), load limits (paragraph (e)(3)); rigging
assembly (paragraph (e)(4)); setting the members (paragraph (e)(5));
and use of controlled load lowering (paragraph (e)(6)).
The first lifting criterion in paragraph (e)(1)(i) requires that a
multiple lift rigging assembly (defined in the definition section) be
used. By definition, the assembly must have been manufactured by a wire
rope rigging supplier. Since this is a specialized type of lift, the
rigging assembly must have been designed specifically for the
particular use in a multiple lift and meet each aspect of the
definition.
Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section states that a multiple lift
may not involve hoisting more than five members during the lift.
Limiting the number of members hoisted is essential to safety. SENRAC
determined that five members is the maximum number that can be hoisted
safely. This limit takes into account the need to control both the load
and the empty rigging. It also accounts for the fact that a typical
bay, which consists of up to five members, can be filled with a single
lift. Too many members in a lift may create a string that is too
awkward to control or allow too much empty rigging to dangle loose,
creating a hazard to employees.
Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) allows only beams and similar structural
members (like solid web beams and certain open web steel joists) to be
lifted during a multiple lift. Other items, such as bundles of decking,
meet the definition of structural members but do not lend themselves to
the MLRP. A typical multiple lift member would be a wide flange beam
section between 10 and 30 feet long, typically weighing less than 1,800
pounds.
Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) requires that employees engaged in a multiple
lift operation must be trained in these procedures in accordance with
1926.761 (c)(1), which contains specific training requirements for
employees engaged in multiple lifts. Due to the specialized nature of
multiple lifts and the knowledge necessary to perform them safely, this
training requirement is necessary to ensure that employees are properly
trained in all aspects of multiple lift procedures.
Paragraph (e)(1)(v) prohibits the use of a crane in a multiple lift
if the crane manufacturer recommends that the crane not be used for
that purpose. This new provision is included for clarification
purposes. Crane manufacturers often recommend that employers do not
execute multiple lifting with their cranes. It has been argued that
there are too many variables associated with attempting Christmas
treeing and any miscalculations of those component variables (such as
the weights and center of gravity of the beams, crane capacity, the
stability of the load under lift conditions, and inconsistent rigging
techniques) could contribute to an accident. A commenter (Ex. 13-182)
noted that if crane manufacturers prohibit the practice, paragraph (e),
as proposed, would allow the erector to violate 1926.550(a) of the
crane standard, which requires the employer to comply with the
manufacturer's specifications and limitations applicable to the
operation of any and all cranes and derricks.
OSHA remains consistent in requiring employers to follow the
manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for its product. If
the manufacturer of a crane prohibits the use of its crane in multiple
lifts and an employer uses that crane to perform a multiple lift, that
employer is in violation of both Sec. 1926.550(a) and
Sec. 1926.760(e)(1)(v) which states:
No crane is permitted to be used for a multiple lift where such
use is contrary to the manufacturer's instructions.
Paragraph (e)(2) requires that employers that perform multiple
lifts use multiple lift rigging assembly components assembled and
designed for a specified capacity. The employer must ensure that each
multiple lift rigging assembly is designed and assembled with a maximum
capacity for both the total assembly and for each individual attachment
point. This capacity, which must be certified by the manufacturer or
qualified rigger, must be based on the manufacturer's specifications
and must have a 5 to 1 safety factor for all components. The rigging
must be certified by the qualified rigger who assembles it or the
manufacturer who provides the entire assembly to ensure that the
assembly can support the whole load, and that each hook is capable of
supporting the individual members. The appropriate rigging assembly to
be used is the lightest one that will support the load. Typically, one
assembly is manufactured and certified for the heaviest anticipated
multiple lift on the job, and this rigging is then used for all the
MLRPs.
To ensure that a MLRP does not overload the hoisting equipment, the
Committee recommended prohibiting the total load of the MLRP from
exceeding either the rated capacity of the hoisting equipment as
specified in the hoisting equipment load charts, or the rated capacity
of the rigging as specified in the rigging rating chart. Several crane
manufacturers have recognized that MLRP is becoming an industry
practice and have accepted the use of their cranes for this purpose,
provided that the crane is utilized in a manner consistent with the
safe practices defined in the operator's manual and crane capacity
chart (Ex. 9-30). Paragraph (e)(3) reflects these provisions.
Another commenter (Ex. 13-60) felt that multiple lifting is unsafe
because forces such as rigging torques and the wind tend to make the
beams helicopter, increasing the chances of the steel coming out of the
choker hitch.
[[Page 5212]]
The commenter also felt that the only justification for taking such
risks is to benefit production.
SENRAC (Ex. 208X; p. 44), however, found that these conditions can
be either eliminated through engineering or controlled with proper
training of the employees engaged in the lift.
Several members of SENRAC stated in full committee that the use of
an MLRP reduces total employee exposure to suspended load hazards as
well as to the hazards associated with crane-supported loads traveling
horizontally. An MLRP is treated as an engineered lift and therefore
receives the full attention of the entire raising gang. The lifts are
made in a more controlled fashion due to the special rigging and
physical size of the assembled load. In addition, cranes used for
multiple lifts must have controlled load lowering devices.
A Committee workgroup was formed (Ex. 208X; pp. 42-60) to develop
the MLRP section of the proposed regulatory text. This workgroup noted
several additional benefits of MLRPs. For example, the increased weight
of the load hoisted using an MLRP results in reduced swing, boom, and
hoist speeds, which increases the amount of control the operator has
over the lift. The workgroup also stated that crane operators report
that the swing operation has the greatest potential for operator error
and loss of load control, and therefore reducing the number of swings
enhances safety. The workgroup believed that the reduced number and
speed of swing operations associated with MLRPs would increase safety,
and that lift precision would also be increased because MLRPs require
that controlled load lowering devices be used on cranes making such
lifts. According to the workgroup (63 FR 43466), when the operator is
working in the blind (where the connectors cannot be seen), reducing
the number of swing cycles is particularly important because it
minimizes the opportunity for a communication error, which could cause
an accident. Furthermore, the workgroup stated that the total suspended
load time and the frequency of loads passing overhead are reduced for
all non-erection personnel on the job when an MLRP is being performed.
This was considered particularly important, because these workers
normally are occupied with other tasks and often do not pay attention
to suspended loads that may be passing overhead. This group of
employees includes those working under canopies and partially completed
floor systems who cannot see hoisted material passing overhead but
could be injured if a load were dropped.
In addition, when single pieces of steel are hoisted, the emphasis
is often on speed. The load is often hoisted, swung and boomed at
maximum crane speed in an effort to maximize production. Under these
circumstances, the Committee felt that single piece hoisting increases
the potential for problems in the hoist sequence and in the final
placement of each member and additionally contributes to operator
fatigue.
According to the workgroup (63 FR 43466), a major safety benefit of
multiple lifting is that the manipulation of the members at the point
of connection limits the movement of the hoist hook, in most cases, to
an area less than 10 feet in diameter and additionally requires that
such movement be done at a slow speed and with maximum control. The
hazard that connectors consider the most serious, that of a high speed
incoming beam, is thus minimized using the MLRP process.
Paragraph (e)(4) requires that the multiple lift rigging assembly
be rigged with the members attached at their center of gravity and be
kept reasonably level, be rigged from the top down, and have a distance
of at least 7 feet (2.1 m) between the members. In practice, these
procedures mean that the choker attached to the last structural member
of the group to be connected is the one attached on the rigging
assembly closest to the headache ball. The next-to-last member to be
connected is attached to the next lower hook on the rigging assembly,
and so on. As each member is attached, it is lifted approximately two
feet off the ground to verify the location of the center of gravity and
to allow the choker to be checked for proper connection. Adjustments to
choker location are made during this trial lift procedure. The choker
length is then selected to ensure that the vertical distance between
the bottom flange of the higher beam and the top flange of the next
lower beam is never less than 7 feet. Thus, when the connector has made
the initial end connections of the lower beam and moves to the center
of each beam to remove the choker, there will be sufficient clearance
to prevent the connector from contacting the upper suspended beam.
Furthermore, although the OSHA letter referred to earlier (Ex. 9-13G)
suggested that the beam spacing could be eight or nine feet, the
Committee determined, and OSHA agrees, that seven feet is more
appropriate since, in addition to the necessary clearance just
mentioned, a typical connector could easily reach up and grab the
member at seven feet but might have some trouble doing so if the
spacing were greater.
Paragraph (e)(5) requires that the members be set from the bottom
up. This is the only practical way that the members can be set, and
OSHA is including this requirement for clarity and completeness.
Paragraph (e)(6) requires controlled load lowering (through the use
of a controlled load lowering device) to be used whenever the load is
over the connectors. This means that the cranes in a multiple lift must
use controlled load lowering when lowering loads into position for the
connectors to set the members. The record shows that control load
lowering is essential to prevent accidents that could result from the
crane operator's foot slipping off the brake, brake failure, or from
the load slipping through the brake. It assures that the operator has
maximum control over the load. Compliance with his requirement would
have prevented the July 20, 1990, fatality in Austin, Texas, referred
to in Ex. 9-13G (p. 4).
A commenter (Ex. 13-340) advocated limiting MLRP required training
to those involved in the MLRP and specifying levels of training that
these individuals must achieve. The commenter apparently believes the
word ``all'' in section 1926.753(e)(iv) means all steel erection
employees on the site. The standard states:
All employees engaged in the multiple lift have been trained in
these procedures in accordance with section 1926.761(c)(1).
The standard requires that only the employees engaged in the
multiple lift have to be trained in the requirements of this paragraph
in accordance with Sec. 1926.761(c)(1), not all employees affected by
the lift as the comment seems to indicate.
Section 1926.754 Structural steel assembly
This section sets forth the requirements for the assembly of
structural steel. Paragraph (a) requires that the structural stability
be maintained at all times during the erection process. This is a
general requirement for any type of steel structure, including single
story, multi-story and other structures. Since structural stability is
essential to the successful erection of steel structures, this section
is intended to prevent collapse due to lack of stability, a major cause
of fatalities in this industry. The Agency received no comments on
paragraph (a) and it is unchanged from the proposed rule. Additional
requirements that specifically apply to
[[Page 5213]]
multi-story structures are provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
Paragraph (b)(1) requires that permanent floors be installed as the
erection of structural members progresses and that there be not more
than eight stories between the erection floor and the upper-most
permanent floor, except where the structural integrity is maintained as
a result of the design. This paragraph is identical to both the
proposed rule and the existing Sec. 1926.750(a)(1) in OSHA's previous
steel erection standard.
Paragraph (b)(2) prohibits having more than four floors or 48 feet
(14.6 m), whichever is less, of unfinished bolting or welding above the
foundation or uppermost permanently secured floor, except where the
structural integrity is maintained as a result of the design. This
paragraph is the same as proposed and essentially the same as existing
Sec. 1926.750(a)(2), except for the addition pertaining to situations
where structural integrity is maintained as a result of the design. The
Committee recommended an exception similar to that in paragraph (b)(1)
to allow for flexibility in design, and this recommendation is
reflected in the final rule.
Paragraph (b)(3) requires that a fully planked or decked floor or
nets be maintained within 2 stories or 30 feet (9.1 m), whichever is
less, directly under any erection work being performed. This is
essentially the same provision as existing Sec. 1926.750(b)(2)(i),
except for the option of installing nets in addition to the planked or
decked floor options. This provision serves many purposes: limits falls
of employees to 30 feet, provides falling object protection, and can be
used as a staging area for emergency rescue. Paragraph (b) thus retains
many of the requirements of OSHA's existing steel erection rule. No
comments were received and paragraph (b) is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c) of the final rule sets forth requirements that
address slipping/tripping hazards encountered when working on steel
structures. SENRAC pointed out that the tripping hazards posed by shear
connectors (a type of attachment) on working surfaces need to be
addressed in the revision of subpart R. Shear connectors are commonly
found in bridges and in other types of steel structures. As explained
in the preamble to the proposed rule, the Committee found that when
attachments, like shear connectors, are shop-welded to the top flange
of beams, the resulting projections can create a significant tripping
hazard. Field installation of these attachments can significantly
reduce exposure to this hazard. It is much safer to walk on a beam that
is not studded with these shear connectors or otherwise covered with a
temporary working surface. It also found that this would increase the
productivity of employees who walk on the top flange of the structural
steel because they can walk less hesitantly. Shear connectors are
addressed in paragraph (c)(1) of the final rule.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) prohibits the attachment of shear connectors
(such as headed steel studs, steel bars or steel lugs), reinforcing
bars, deformed anchors or threaded studs to the top flanges of beams,
joists or beam attachments so that they project vertically from or
horizontally across the top flange of the member until after the
decking, or other walking/working surface, has been installed.
Additionally, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) requires that when shear connectors
are used in the construction of composite floor, roofs and bridge
decks, the laying out and installation of the shear connectors shall be
done after the decking has been installed, using the deck as a working
platform. This paragraph also prohibits the installation of shear
connectors from within a controlled decking zone (CDZ), as specified in
Sec. 1926.760(c)(8).
Many comments were received in response to the proposed paragraph
(c)(1). Those opposed to the proposal shared several concerns:
technical problems with field welding caused by outdoor atmospheric
conditions, increased exposure to fall hazards, back injuries from
field-installation of the connectors, an increased risk of falling
objects, and additional costs with field installation. A wide variety
of components are commonly welded in the field (such as the K, LH and
DLH series steel joists addressed in Sec. 1926.757(b), discussed
below). Most of the steel beams/girders available on the market can be
field welded. Preheating of steel flanges is generally not required for
either shop or field installation. In addition, some commenters
indicated that there are companies that already routinely field-weld
shear connectors (Exs. 202X; p. 29, 44, 87; 205X; p. 359). While one
commenter described extra steps that are needed for field-welding (Ex.
201X; p. 45), another commenter found that productivity was higher for
field-installation (Ex. 208X; p. 166). The record does not show that
atmospheric conditions or other technical obstacles pose any greater
difficulties for welding shear connectors in the field than for welding
other components, or that welding them in the field presents
significant technical obstacles.
The claim that field-installation of shear connectors will increase
the likelihood of falls (Exs. 13-176; 13-180; 13-210) is based on the
assumption that workers installing shear connectors will have greater
exposure to fall hazards. The provisions of this standard, however,
will protect these workers. For example, Sec. 1926.754(c)(i) prohibits
the installation of the connectors until the metal decking (or other
walking/working surface) has been installed. Once the decking has been
installed, under Sec. 1926.760(a)(2), perimeter safety cables must be
installed. Therefore, those installing the shear connectors will have a
safe walking/working surface to work from, and will be protected from
the exterior fall hazard by the perimeter safety cable. Furthermore,
SENRAC, as well as several commenters (Exs. 202X; p. 29, 44, 87; 203X;
p. 185; 205X; pp. 166, 359), were of the view that field installation
is safer then factory installation. The concern about an increased risk
of back injuries has not been substantiated. In addition, the provision
is designed to address the greater problem of fatal falls, which can
occur if a worker trips on a shear connector.
While field-installation of shear connectors will increase the
number of objects and tools aloft, and thus increase the potential for
falling objects, the requirements in Sec. 1926.759 are designed to
protect against that type of risk in this and other contexts.
There were also objections raised on the grounds that compliance
with paragraph (c)(1) may not always be possible in bridge construction
(Exs. 13-113; 13-170G; 13-210). Specifically, a commenter stated that,
in bridge construction, ``installation of shear connectors from a deck
may not always be possible.'' It appears that these commenters are
asserting that, in bridge construction, there may be instances where
compliance with some or all of the provisions is not feasible. Because
the extent and types of circumstances where this would be the case are
not well defined, the Agency believes that it would be inappropriate to
provide an exception for bridge work. Nor does the record clearly
indicate that paragraph (c)(1) would not be feasible for bridge
construction. An employer may raise these problems as an affirmative
defense in individual situations.
In sum, the record shows that the use of shop installed shear
connectors poses a significant safety hazard, and that the use of
field-installed connectors is a feasible means of reducing that hazard.
Shop-welded shear connectors result in projections on top flanges of
beams/
[[Page 5214]]
girders that create a tripping hazard to the workers engaged in steel
erection. The record supports the contention that it is safer to
install the shear connectors after the decking has been installed, so
that the deck can be used more safely as a working platform. Using the
deck as a work platform, combined with the presence of perimeter safety
cables, effectively eliminates the fall hazards associated with field
installation of shear connectors. The record does not show that there
are significant technical or other obstacles to field-installation.
Accordingly, the provision is promulgated as proposed with only minor
wording changes.
Final rule paragraph (c)(2) ``slip resistance of metal decking'' is
reserved. OSHA is reserving paragraph (c)(2) to allow additional time
to study the slippery surface aspects of metal decking and identify
appropriate rules to reduce the risk factor from those conditions. A
coalition of steel-producing and steel-related organizations (the Steel
Coalition) continues to gather data and prepare recommendations to a
SENRAC workgroup on slippery surfaces with respect to paragraph (c)(2).
The Steel Coalition intends to identify the principal factors
contributing to slip and fall injuries resulting from slippery metal
decking, and devise feasible and effective approaches to reduce those
risks (Ex. 9-151). Once SENRAC reviews this information and makes
recommendations, the Agency will determine what actions will be taken
in this area.
Paragraph (c)(3) will reduce the risk of steel erection workers
slipping on coated steel members installed three years after the
effective date of this standard. At that time, it will prohibit
employees from walking on the top surface of any structural steel
member that has been coated with paint or similar material, unless the
coating has achieved a minimum average slip-resistance of 0.50 when wet
on an English XL tribometer, or the equivalent measurement on another
device. This paragraph does not require that the particular coated
member be tested. Rather, it requires the test to be done on a sample
of the paint formulation produced by the paint manufacturer. The
testing laboratory must use an acceptable ASTM method and an English XL
tribometer or equivalent tester must be used on a wetted surface and
the laboratory must be capable of employing this method. The test
results must be available at the site and to the steel erector.
Appendix B lists two appropriate ASTM standard test methods that may be
used to comply with the paragraph. If other ASTM methods are approved,
they too are allowed under this provision.
The final paragraph differs from the proposal in two significant
respects. Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would have prohibited employees
from walking on the top surface of any structural steel member with a
finish coat that decreased the coefficient of friction (CoF) from that
of the uncoated steel. The final text sets a specific slip-resistance
for the coated surface, when tested wet. In addition, proposed
paragraph (c)(3) stated that the paragraph applied to coated steel
installed at the effective date of the standard, rather than, as in the
final, three years later.
The Hazard
Based on SENRAC's discussions, and the rulemaking record, OSHA
finds that working on steel surfaces coated with paint or other
protective coatings presents slip and fall hazards to employees and
that this standard must reduce this hazard using feasible means. SENRAC
described the hazards as the use of paint or coatings on steel for
structures exposed to highly corrosive materials (such as those used in
mills and chemical plants) or exposed to varying weather conditions
(such as stadiums). In the proposal, OSHA set out SENRAC's concerns as
follows:
The Committee found that a major cause of falls in the steel
erection industry is the presence of slippery walking, working and
climbing surfaces in steel erection operations when fall protection
is not used. The problem initially arises from the application of
protective coatings on structural steel used, for example in the
construction of mills, chemical plants and other structures exposed
to highly corrosive materials as well as in the construction of
stadiums or other structures exposed to varying weather conditions.
It is usually impractical to leave the steel uncoated and then to
paint the entire structure in the field after erection.
Unfortunately, steel coated with paints or protective coatings can
be extremely slippery. When there is moisture, snow, or ice on
coated steel, the hazard is increased * * * (63 FR 43467).
As discussed below regarding Sec. 1926.760, accident data in this
record demonstrate that falls from elevations of 30 feet or less
resulted in many ironworker injuries and fatalities. In addition, the
Agency recognizes that slips on the same level also lead to many
injuries. We believe that provisions to reduce the slip potential of
surfaces walked on by steel erection workers are clearly needed. OSHA
and SENRAC examined the factors involved in slippery surfaces and
determined that the most effective and feasible approach is to increase
slip resistance and allow employees to walk on only those coated
surfaces which meet a threshold for acceptable slip resistance. Much of
the discussion in this rulemaking involves issues regarding which slip-
resistant threshold to set; whether it is feasible to measure it; and
whether compliance with such a provision is technically and economially
feasible.
Commenters affirmed the existence of a serious hazard from coated
surfaces; many asserted that slick or slippery paint is very dangerous
(Exs. 13-49, 13-66, 13-95, 13-345, 13-348, and 13-355B). Most of these
commenters (Ex.13-66 and a group of 124 ironworkers in Ex. 13-355B)
added that slippery paint is the worst condition they run into on
structural steel, and they asked that the paint be made safe. Other
ironworkers (Ex. 13-355B) asserted that epoxy paint was hazardous to
erectors. All together, 230 of these ironworkers commented in support
of a provision to make painted steel less slippery. A comment from a
structural steel fabricator (Ex. 13-228) stated that they agreed that
``painted [steel], moist or wet, is slipperier.''
In contrast to the comments asserting that coated surfaces present
a slipping hazard, a comment from an engineer for a state government
agency (Ex. 13-359) stated that slippery surfaces were attributable to
a variety of causes, such as weather conditions, which can reduce
traction on coated or uncoated surfaces (Ex. 13-359). He added that
there was no basis for the requirements that addressed a CoF in subpart
R ``since there are no accepted methods for determining friction at the
job site and tests would not be relevant to site conditions.'' In
addition, the American Iron and Steel Institute Steel Coalition
submitted a consultant's report asserting that it is not really
necessary to know a CoF in evaluating pedestrian traction, and that it
is important to rate the traction under various relevant conditions
(Ex. 13-307A, pp. 24-25).
In response to the first concern that slippery surfaces are
attributable to a variety of causes, OSHA points out that requiring
less slippery coatings in no way suggests that employers should ignore
other unsafe conditions. The general construction standard for training
Sec. 1926.21 requires employers to ``instruct each employee in the
recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions * * *'' This includes
slipping hazards due to factors such as moisture from weather
conditions and unsafe footwear. OSHA agrees however, with its expert
witnesses, William English, David Underwood and Keith Vidal, who stated
in their report, that
[[Page 5215]]
``contaminants'' (including rain water, condensation and ice) and shoe
bottom construction are important factors, but are not as easily
controlled as surface coatings (Ex. 17, p. 2). Also, the rule will
require wet testing, thus accounting for most weather-related slip
hazards.
In response to the second concern that it is not really necessary
to know a CoF in evaluating traction, the final rule text does not set
a required CoF--the 0.50 measurement is a slip resistance measurement
for the walking surface. While related to CoF (a ratio of forces), the
0.50 referred to in the final rule is a measurement on a tester that is
designed to mimic (to some extent) the dynamic forces involved in
walking on a surface. While different types of shoe material (and
different amounts of wear) affect the amount of traction experienced by
the worker, the record shows that it is not feasible to establish a
requirement that would account for all the factors that relate to the
CoF. Nor would it be feasible to measure slip resistance at the site
under the numerous and ever-changing ``relevant conditions.'' The
English reports and testimony of English, Underwood and Vidal (as
discussed below) shows that setting a requirement for the walking
surface (when wet) will improve traction.
A commenter suggested that OSHA focus on ironworkers' footwear
rather than specifying a slip resistance for the paint (Ex. 13-307A,
pp. 2-5). The Agency finds that this type of approach would not work as
a substitute for addressing the slip resistance of the paint because
ironworkers' footwear typically become contaminated with mud, gravel,
and other substances that would alter the slip resistance
characteristics of the sole material (Exs. 203X, p. 213 and 204X, p.
292).
Other commenters recommended that only uncoated surfaces be allowed
to be erected (Exs. 13-41, 13-138 through 13-142, 13-234, and 13-341).
The record does not demonstrate that uncoated steel is necessary for
employee safety since surface coatings can provide equivalent or
greater protection against falls. Also, SJI identified several
significant problems with requiring the steel to be uncoated when
erected. Among these would be increased costs associated with painting
the steel in the field after it was erected, which it estimated would
amount to $450 to $800 million, and a slowing of the construction
process by two to four weeks (Ex. 204X; p.17).
Use of the Term ``Finish Coat'
The final rule specifies the acceptable slip resistance of
structural steel ``coated with paint or similar material,'' whereas the
proposal limited the provision to steel which had been ``finish-
coated''. This change clarifies that the provision applies to the
surface of the coated structural steel when the steel is erected. OSHA
believes that the rulemaking record demonstrates that the hazard posed
by slippery coated steel is present irrespective of whether the coat is
part of a multi-coat system. In addition, we note that both the English
I study (Ex. 9-64) commissioned by SENRAC and the English II study (Ex.
17) commissioned by OSHA, which tested slippery coated surfaces,
evaluated coatings that were not necessarily ``finish'' coats.
According to Paul Guevin, an OSHA expert witness, the English II study
looked at three types of slip-resistant primers: Alkyd paints without
additives; zinc-rich primers, and alkyds or other resin-based primers
with polyolefin (Ex. 18, p. 2). The modification to ``coating'' also
responds to concerns that it would be difficult to determine which
paints are ``finish'' coats. Thus, the reworded provision now clearly
applies to steel members coated with standard shop primers where the
shop primer is the uppermost coat when the steel is erected.
A number of commenters asked OSHA to clarify and/or define the term
``finish coat'' (Exs. 13-182, 13-209, 13-228, 13-363, and 13-367). One
of these commenters (Ex. 13-182) opined that finish-coated means
painting after erection, which they indicated was done in many
situations. A fabricator (Ex. 13-228) commented that a finish coat is
the final coat of a multi-coat paint system, whether it was applied in
the shop or the field is immaterial. Another commenter (Ex. 13-367, p.
16) noted that ``it is frequently not possible to determine if an
applied coating is a single coat or a multi-coat system''. The American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) speculated (Ex. 13-209, pp. 31-
32) that SENRAC's use of ``finish-coat'' was an attempt to address
certain epoxies and polyurethanes, which are typically the second and
third coats found in multi-coat paint systems, but that ``[t]he scope
of the proposed rule could be twisted to apply to all paints, not
merely that small segment of the market that may present a problem.''
OSHA disagrees with this characterization of the provision's intended
application. By deleting the term ``finish coat,'' OSHA clarifies that
the provision applies to coated steel on which employees must walk,
regardless of whether the coating will remain the last coat of paint
after the steel erection is over, and regardless of the chemical
composition of the coating.
Benchmark Slip-Resistance Criterion
The final standard requires that coated steel must score at a
minimum average slip resistance of 0.50 as measured on an English XL
tribometer or equivalent reading on another tester. Proposed
Sec. 1926.754(c)(3) would have required that the structural steel
surface be no more slippery than bare, uncoated steel. OSHA stated in
the proposal that SENRAC, after reviewing various industry
presentations, ``concluded that it could not determine a minimum value
for slip-resistance or CoF, given all the variables to be considered,
nor could it agree on an acceptable testing method'' (63 FR 43468).
After reviewing the entire record, OSHA has determined that it is
necessary to set a specific slip-resistance value for coated steel. No
other regulatory approach to reducing the risk of slipping is as
appropriate. The record supports using the English XL value of 0.50 (or
the equivalent) as the cutoff for acceptable coated steel surfaces on
which employees may walk. The record demonstrates that acceptable
testing methods will be available when the provision goes into effect.
The English II report noted that a level of 0.50 was reasonably
safe and has been recognized for many years:
The non-controversial 0.50 threshold of safety that has been
recognized in the safety engineering literature and case law for 50
years would provide a vast enhancement of footwear traction that
would produce a significant improvement in the safety of ironworkers
working at high elevations. (Ex. 17, p.12)
In post-hearing comments (Ex. 64), Mr. Guevin explained that when
the Federal Trade Commission published a proposed rule for floor
polishes in 1953 it determined a minimum of 0.50 when measured on a
James machine to be a safe value (Ex. 64, pp.3-4). In his testimony at
the hearing (Ex. 200X; p.120), Dr. Underwood added that he understood
that 0.50 came from rounding up a CoF of 0.35 to give a small margin of
safety for walking slowly in a normal way. He indicated that the CoF of
0.35 came from determining a ratio of an average hip height of 3 feet
(0.91m) and a common distance of 2 feet (0.61m) per step taken in a
normal stride.
The English II study indicates that the recommendation of 0.50 on
the English XL scale was based on the previously established benchmark
of 0.50 CoF (Ex. 17, p.12). We find that the information and testimony
from the rulemaking record show that 0.50 on the English XL
[[Page 5216]]
scale is an appropriate minimum value to designate slip-resistant
surfaces when measured under wet conditions using the ASTM methods
referenced in Appendix B to this subpart.
As noted above, OSHA is changing the proposed benchmark for
acceptable slip-resistance, from bare steel, to a specific slip
resistance value for the coated steel. Thus, there is no need for
employers, paint companies or fabricators to measure the slip
resistance of bare steel for purposes of complying with this standard.
Some participants objected to using the slip-resistance of bare steel
as the benchmark. OSHA believes that the revised provision addresses
these concerns. A comment from a builder's association (Ex. 13-121)
stated that ``it is next to impossible to provide CoF equal to original
steel after coating it.'' The Steel Coalition wrote that the proposal's
reference to a test for a comparative coefficient of friction in
Sec. 1926.754(c)(3) would not be practical or meaningful, and that
coatings with a high slip-resistance score would be considered
unacceptable when compared to original steel with a higher score (Ex.
13-307, pp. 35-36). The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
(Ex. 13-209, p. 36) stated that ``[t]he benchmark of bare steel is
ambiguous.'' AISC explained that using bare, uncoated steel as a
benchmark was problematic because it was impossible to find a single
uniform steel surface with which to make comparisons--``there is no
such thing as a uniform piece of bare steel'' (Ibid, p. 30). The AISC
also objected on the grounds that each piece of steel would have to be
tested, before and after it was coated (Ibid, p. 30).
The Society for Protective Coatings (SSPC) (Ex. 13-367, p 16)
stated that ``* * * data from the English study [English I study] shows
that a pristine millscale steel surface received one of the poorest
ratings by ironworkers and by the English machine. Therefore, it is
extremely risky to make an assumption about slip resistance based on
whether the steel is coated or uncoated.''
During the hearing, Mr. English testified that he did not support
the benchmark of original or bare steel:
First of all, * * * pristine bare steel is pretty rare.
Secondly, * * * the baseline would be variable. Thirdly, we find
that pristine bare steel, it's slippery * * * And as a practical
matter, it rarely occurs as a problem at erection sites (Ex. 200X;
pp.115, 128-129).
Some comments supported using bare steel as the benchmark of
acceptable slip-resistance. Journeymen ironworkers (54 individuals,
Ex.13-207C) signed statements saying that they backed limiting coatings
to the equivalent of bare steel. However they did not provide
information concerning the feasibility or adequacy of relying on ``bare
steel'.
In sum, the record supports OSHA's decision that bare steel is not
an appropriate benchmark. We agree with the commenters who stated that
there is considerable variability in bare steel surfaces due to both
manufacturing specifications and extent of oxidation, that variability
would also pose substantial problems in implementing the requirement,
and that some bare steel is unacceptably slippery.
Test Methods
The final rule requires that beginning three years after the
effective date of the rest of the standard, employees may not walk on
coated steel unless the coating has been tested and found to meet the
threshold 0.50 using an appropriate ASTM test method. Appendix B
specifies two methods now approved by ASTM. The record shows that these
methods are sufficiently accurate and yield sufficiently reproducible
results for use in testing coatings to determine their compliance with
the specified 0.50 measurement.
Evidence in the record shows that testing using the VIT (English
XL) according to ASTM F1679-96 will provide reproducible and accurate
results of the slip-resistance of coated steel: the authors of the
English II study stated that the VIT has achieved satisfactory
precision and bias according to ASTM E691-92 Standard Practice for
Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a
Test Method. The report of their testing showed that highly consistent
results were produced from repeating the VIT tests, and that there was
substantial correlation between the ironworker rankings with VIT
rankings.
Also, the final rule's designation of approved ASTM testing methods
as appropriate to determine compliance with a performance criterion is
consistent with other OSHA standards. For example, in OSHA's standard
for nationally recognized testing laboratories, an ``ASTM test standard
used for evaluation of products or materials'' falls under the term
``appropriate test standard'' (as set out in the introductory text to
paragraph (c) of that section, Sec. 1910.7).
Various participants, however, claimed that the two ASTM testing
methods lack precision and bias statements, which in their view render
those standards ``meaningless'' (see e.g. Dr. Kyed's testimony Ex.
204X; p. 262 and Ex. 13-367; pp. 3-4). However, various witnesses
(including one who offered the position above) stated that precision
and bias statements often lagged behind a new approval by ASTM of a
test method. ``Test methods can be temporarily issued without these
statements, but they must eventually comply with this requirement.
Generally, it's a 5-year period.'' (Ex. 204X; p.262). Dr. Mary McKnight
from the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST),
testifying with a panel from the Society for Protective Coating (SSPC)
[formerly the Steel Structures Painting Council], agreed that ``* *
within 5 years, there will be a group of laboratories that become
proficient in running the test method and who will participate in a
round-robin study. At the end of this process, ASTM includes a number
describing statistical significance of different responses, with a 95-
percent repeatability limit and/or confidence level'' (Ex. 205X; pp.
56-68). In post-hearing comments (Ex. 71, p. 4), Mr. English stated
that the ASTM F1679 precision and bias study has been approved by
letter ballot, and at a recent meeting of the F13.10 Traction
subcommittee, two-thirds of those present voted to find all negatives
non-persuasive.
OSHA concludes that the rulemaking record demonstrates that the
methods identified in Appendix B are sufficiently reliable in
evaluating the slip-resistance of coated steel. The record also shows
that this reliability is likely to be confirmed by the ASTM precision
and bias statement process within the 5-year period this provision will
be delayed.
In post-hearing comments, the major industry groups who objected to
OSHA's designating ASTM methods stated that ``several of their
organizations actively participate in research and development efforts
involving the validation and adoption of a testing machine and test
methodology appropriate to coated structural steel'' and recommended
that OSHA delay the effective date for 3 years to allow further expert
evaluation (Exs. 63, p. 7 and 75, p. 4). These groups also wanted this
additional time to determine if implementation of the provision was
feasible.
Although the ASTM methods are the best available, OSHA acknowledges
that the ASTM methods lack a protocol for representative samples of
steel and their preparation. The Agency anticipates that either these
parallel issues will be addressed by ASTM within the time frame before
paragraph (c)(3) becomes final (5 years after the effective date of the
final rule) or alternative steps can be
[[Page 5217]]
taken to ensure accounting for these parameters.
Availability of Paints to Meet the Slip-resistance Benchmark
The final standard delays the effective date of the slip-resistant
coating provision for 5 years from the date the rest of the standard
becomes effective. This is a change from the proposal, which would not
have delayed the effective date. OSHA finds that although some slip-
resistant coatings suitable for use in the steel erection industry are
now available, widespread distribution and use of suitable coatings
will take additional time. We have chosen a 5-year delay in agreement
with the post-hearing requests of the major organizations commenting on
this issue. These organizations submitted their comments as the Unified
Steel Construction Consensus Group (USCCG) (Ex. 63), a group that
consists of eight large organizations as signatories. The USCCG
explained that their membership represents design, engineering,
fabrication, manufacturing, and field installation components of the
steel construction industry. (The following organizations were listed
as signatories: The Steel Joist Institute; Steel Erectors Association
of America; National Council of Structural Engineers Associations;
National Institute of Steel Detailing; Council of American Structural
Engineers; American Institute of Steel Construction; Metal Building
Manufacturers Association; and the Society for Protective Coatings).
They stated that the rulemaking record was uncertain about the extent
adequate coatings were now available, and that developing, testing and
distributing appropriate slip-resistant coatings for the industry would
take time. Also, during the rulemaking, many paint formulators and
steel fabricators stated that they do not now use the specific paints
tested in the English II study. (For example, see Ronner at Ex. 204X,
pp. 15 and 108-109; and Appleman at Ex. 205X, pp. 139 and 157-158.) In
addition, some formulators and fabricators and their representatives
stated that there is a lack of information about whether the paints/
coatings in use can meet the standard's slip-resistant threshold. (For
example, see Ex. 13-367, pp. 7 and 17; Ex. 13-307, pp. 38-39; Ex. 13-
209, pp. 36-37; and Ex. 206X, pp. 34-35.)
OSHA finds that there is some uncertainty as to the extent to which
there are adequately slip-resistant coatings currently available that
would meet the industry's needs. In view of the fact that there are
many such coatings presently on the market (see Ex. 17, pp. 3 and 10-
11; Ex. 18, pp. 1-2; Ex. 200X, pp. 54, 62-63, 70, 137-139, and 168-169;
Ex. 204X, pp.193-194; Ex. 205X, pp. 139 and 157-158) and the technology
for developing additional coatings is in place (see Ex. 205X, pp. 51,
93-94, 99-102, 139, 151-152, 157-158, 167-168 and 217-219; Ex. 63, pp.
3 and 7; and Ex. 64, pp. 2-3), it is reasonable to expect that the 5-
year delay will provide enough time for the industry to develop
coatings that comply with the final rule.
OSHA agrees that the record evidence on the availability of slip
resistant paint which meets the standard is conflicting. The witnesses
who conducted the English I study commissioned by SENRAC (Ex. 9-64),
and the English II study commissioned by OSHA (Ex. 17), testified that
one reason for conducting these studies was to determine whether slip-
resistant paint was widely available for use by the steel erection
industry. They contended that slip resistant paints are available. They
surveyed fabricators first, to identify coatings actually in use for
steel erection, tested these coatings in their studies, and found that
most of them passed the tests for slip-resistance (Ex.18, pp. 1-2). In
post-hearing comments (Ex. 71, p. 4), Mr. English stated that ``paints
now being applied on something over 80 percent of the fabricated steel
products in the U.S. can be easily made to comply with the proposed
specification with no complications to application methodology,
coatability, corrosion or UV resistance or any of the ``problems''
raised by * * * those opposed to this standard.'' He added that the
paints that do not already comply could be brought into compliance with
``the simple addition of the plastic powder * * *'' Another witness
(Ex. 205X; pp. 220-221) acknowledged that zinc-rich primers that are
currently being used ``extensively'' had good slip-resistant qualities.
However, he also stated that they are not generally used by the
industry (Ibid; pp. 139 and 157-158).
Various other rulemaking participants told OSHA that the coatings
used in the English studies represented only a small percentage of
coatings used in steel erection. According to a telephone survey of 180
fabricators conducted by Mr. Ronner for the Steel Joist Institute (SJI)
(Ex. 28), only 14 (7 percent) used the paints tested in the English II
study (Ex. 204X; p. 15), and that although slip-resistant coatings are
now used for various military applications such as helicopter flight
decks and aircraft carriers, they are not generally used by the steel
erection industry (Ex. 205X, pp. 139 and 157-158). The SSPC commented
that slip-resistance has not been a design factor for coatings used on
structural steel and that slip-resistant paints have not generally been
tested for durability (Ex. 13-367, p. 7). A representative of the SJI
(Ex. 204X, p. 13) testified that the zinc-rich primers, paint with
polyolefin beads and some alkyd-based primers used in the English II
study are for spray applications only, are not recommended for dip
operations. He added that steel joists typically are coated by dipping
them in dip tanks (Ex. 204X; p. 13), and that the industry could not
spray on paints due to state and Federal environmental restrictions.
These commenters assert that there is no basis for assuming that the
same slip resistance would be achieved if the paints were dipped, and
that there are technical problems with applying some of the slip
resistant paints by dipping (See for example Mr. Ronner's testimony,
Ex. 204X; p.13, and Mr. Appleman's testimony at Ex.205X; p. 93). Both
Mr. Guevin and Mr. English acknowledged that they do not know if the
same slip results reported in the English II study for the paints with
beads would be obtained if that paint had been applied by dipping (Ex.
200X; pp. 62-63).
Promising approaches to providing slip-resistant coatings for the
steel erection industry were identified during the rulemaking. As
explained in the English II study (Ex. 17, p. 11) and as Mr. Guevin
(Ex. 200X, p. 56) stated by ICI Devoe in Western Canada developed a
slip-resistant 3-coat system, using ``DevBeads,'' an additive of
polyolefin beads. However, various participants questioned whether grit
particles such as polyolefin beads could be added to paints and primers
in steel erection. For example, George Widas (OSHA expert witness who
peer reviewed the English II study) questioned whether such coatings
would retain their corrosion protection (Ex. 204X; p. 240); Mr.
Sunderman of KTA Tator, Inc., questioned whether polyolefins would be
degraded by ultraviolet light (Ex. 206X, p. 34-35). Mr. Sunderman also
challenged the notion that specific properties of paint can be modified
``randomly'' without affecting the balance of properties, and without
extensive testing and evaluation (Id, p. 35-36).
Several participants stated such that slip resistant coatings could
be developed for use in steel erection , but that time would be needed
to do this. Robert Kogler, a research engineer, explained that testing
corrosion control materials takes several years, and they still rely
very heavily on long-term exposure data, but are coming up with
accelerated testing that gives us
[[Page 5218]]
reasonable data (Ex. 205X; p. 74, to same effect, see testimony of Dr.
Appleman Ex. 205X; p. 51).
On a related issue OSHA finds that obtaining documentation or
certification that coated steel meets this requirement also is
feasible. However, paint manufacturers told OSHA in their post-hearing
comments that they will work with interested parties to formulate, test
and evaluate coatings to meet the standard's criteria (See Exs. 63, p.
7 and 75, p. 4 and 205X, p. 218). Mr. Guevin testified that based on
his experience with contacting paint manufacturers to obtain slip-
resistant coating for the English II study, and his knowledge of
typical paint technical bulletins issued by manufacturers setting out
specifications, tests conducted, and results, companies would readily
certify if their coatings meet OSHA slip-index requirements in
accordance with the recognized ASTM Method (Ex. 200X; p. 168). Thus,
OSHA does not agree with a project manager for a steel fabricator (Ex.
13-300) who commented that the requirement was ``not viable'' because
paint manufacturers will not provide documentation out of concerns for
liability.
In sum, OSHA finds that although there are slip resistant coatings
in use for structural steel in limited specialized applications, most
of them have not been adequately tested to determine whether they
comply with the standard and meet the performance needs of other kinds
of structures. The coatings industry has committed to develop, test and
distribute coatings that comply with this standard in a reasonable time
frame. OSHA believes that the hazard of slipping on coated steel is
significant; that the paint and fabrication industries feasibly can
produce and use coated steel that complies with this provision within
the time frame stated in the regulatory text; and in any event, there
are now coatings on the market that meet the standard that can be used
to some extent even before the widespread production of new slip-
resistant coatings. The need for this provision is amply supported in
the record. We believe that by issuing a delay of the effective date of
this provision the needs of the industries affected by this provision
will be met and the long-term safety concerns of the workers who must
walk on these surfaces will also be met.
Paragraph (d) Plumbing-up
Paragraph (d)(1) requires that, when deemed necessary by a
competent person, plumbing-up equipment shall be installed in
conjunction with the steel erection process to ensure the stability of
the structure. The proposed rule contained the requirement that
``connections of the equipment used in plumbing-up shall be properly
secured.'' In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA requested public
comments on whether the final rule should contain an additional
requirement that ``plumbing-up equipment shall be installed in
conjunction with the steel erection process to ensure the stability of
the structure.'' This request for public comment was based on concerns
that SENRAC members raised regarding whether or not the plumbing-up
provisions are specific enough to ensure structural stability at all
times during the erection process.
The Agency adopts the provision as stated in the final rule, based
upon consultations with SENRAC members. To avoid the implication that
plumbing-up equipment is always installed during steel erection, OSHA
had added the phrase ``when deemed necessary by a competent person'' to
the beginning of paragraph (d)(1). Consistent with this change, OSHA
introduces final rule paragraph (d)(2) with the phrase ``when used''.
The Structural Engineers Association of Illinois (Ex. 13-308)
requested that the following requirement be added: ``Plumbing-up
equipment shall be in place and properly installed before the structure
is loaded with construction material such as loads of joists, bundles
of decking or bundles of bridging.'' The commenter stated that loading
the structure before it is plumbed can change the true lines of beams
and columns, altering the final alignment of the members. The Agency
agrees that this clarifies the intent of the requirement to ensure that
connections of the equipment used in plumbing-up shall be properly
secured, and has modified the provisions by adding paragraph (d)(2) as
proposed by the commenter and several SENRAC members (63 FR 43484).
Paragraph (d)(3) (proposed paragraph (d)(2)) requires the approval
of a competent person before plumbing-up equipment is removed. This
paragraph is slightly different from OSHA's current standard, which
provided that, ``Plumbing-up guys shall be removed only under the
supervision of a competent person.'' In the final rule, which is
identical to the proposed rule, ``guys'' has been changed to
``equipment.'' This is necessary because ``guys'' implies guy lines
only, while plumbing equipment also includes stabilizer bars and solid
web members. Additionally, the term ``under the supervision'' has been
changed to ``with the approval'' of a competent person for greater
regulatory clarity. In addition, with respect to open web steel joists,
the stabilizer plate requirement of Sec. 1926.757(a)(1)(i) will greatly
facilitate the plumbing-up of structures.
There were no comments received regarding paragraph (d). The Agency
adopts the changes as proposed.
Paragraph (e) Metal Decking
This paragraph of the final standard addresses specific
requirements to protect employees during the installation of metal
decking. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the
requirements in Sec. 1926.754(e) address many of the hazards which
cause decking accidents.
One commenter (Ex. 13-312) asserted that it is difficult to apply
rules designed for steel frame erection and floor decks in high rise
buildings to metal roofing, and suggested that OSHA address metal
roofing in a separate section. However, there is insufficient
information in the record for this Agency to develop a separate
provision.
In the proposal, the terms ``decking'' and ``floor decking'' were
used. In order to clarify that Sec. 1926.754(e)(1) through (e)(5)
applies to all activities associated with the use of metal decking used
as a support element in a floor or roof system, the terms decking and
floor decking have been changed to metal decking. Metal decking as
defined in Sec. 1926.751 means a commercially manufactured, structural
grade, cold rolled metal panel formed into a series of parallel ribs;
for this subpart, this includes metal floor and roof decks, standing
seam metal roofs, other metal roof systems and other products such as
bar gratings, checker plate, expanded metal panels, and similar
products. After installation and proper fastening, these decking
materials serve a combination of functions including, but not limited
to: a structural element designed in combination with the rest of the
structure to resist, distribute and transfer loads, stiffen the
structure and provide a diaphragm action; a walking/working surface; a
form for concrete slabs; a support for roofing systems; and a finished
floor or roof.
The National Riggers and Erectors commented (Ex. 13-314) that, as a
group of steel erectors and installers of metal decking, they agree
with the proposed requirements to protect employees during decking
activities because decking installation is one of the most hazardous
operations for an ironworker and orientation, training, and good laws
are key to ensuring employee safety.
The Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers
submitted
[[Page 5219]]
a written comment (Ex. 13-198) in support of the decking requirements
and expressed their opinion that over time, accident statistics will
support the proposed changes.
Paragraph (e)(1) of the final rule addresses some of the common
hazards associated with hoisting, landing and placing of deck bundles.
Many of the requirements of this paragraph are adapted from the Steel
Deck Institute Manual of Construction With Steel Deck (Ex. 9-34A).
Paragraph (e)(1)(i) of the final rule requires employers to ensure
that the packaging and strapping on the deck bundle are specifically
designed for hoisting purposes. Bundle straps usually are applied at
the factory and are intended to keep the bundle together until it is
placed for erection and the sheets are ready to be spread. Decking is
bundled differently; some manufacturers design the strapping to be used
as a lifting device. However, hoisting a bundle by straps that are not
designed for lifting is extremely dangerous. The bundle straps can
break apart or loosen, creating a falling object hazard or, if a
structural member is hit by the bundle or its contents, it could cause
the structure to collapse (63 FR 43468). OSHA believes that compliance
with this requirement will prevent these hazards. There were no
comments received regarding this requirement.
Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) requires employers to secure loose items such
as dunnage, flashing, or other materials placed on the top of deck
bundles before a bundle is hoisted. Sometimes, to expedite unloading
and hoisting, items such as dunnage or flashing are placed on the
decking bundle to save time. Dunnage, for example, will be sent up with
the bundle to help support it on the structure and to protect the
decking which has already been installed. Id. This requirement will not
allow hoisting loose items or ``piggy backing'' unless the items are
secured to prevent them from falling off the bundle in the event that
it catches on the structure and tilts. There were no comments regarding
this requirement.
Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) requires employers to land bundles of decking
on joists in accordance with Sec. 1926.757(e)(4), which sets out the
six conditions that must be met by employers before a bundle of decking
is placed on steel joists where all bridging has not been installed and
anchored. First, a qualified person must determine, and document in the
site-specific erection plan, that the structure or portion of the
structure is capable of supporting the load. The bundle of decking must
be placed on a minimum of three steel joists and the joists supporting
the bundle must be attached at both ends. At least one row of bridging
must be installed and anchored and the edge of the bundle must be
placed within one foot of the bearing surface of the joist end. The
total weight of the bundle of decking may not exceed 4,000 pounds. SDI
commented that a portion of the preamble to the final rule
misrepresented the position of SDI in the sentence, ``The Steel Deck
Institute (SDI) has indicated that, in the future, manufacturers will
deliver decking in bundles that will accommodate this load limit'' (Ex.
203X; p. 99-101). Also, SDI suggested adding the following requirement:
``When an erection plan requires any maximum weight, this information
must be provided to the deck manufacturer along with any other bundling
instructions, i.e. provide approval labels or special marking
instructions' (Ex. 13-356). SDI also stated that this must be done with
sufficient lead time to allow production coordination between the
erector and the manufacturer.
OSHA believes it is unrealistic to require buyers to give
sufficient lead time to manufacturers. The 4,000 pound weight limit for
decking bundles applies only if the employer has determined that all
six conditions can be met prior to landing a bundle of decking on steel
joists where all bridging has not been installed and anchored. At this
time, the employer may negotiate with the manufacturer to restrict a
specific bundle weight to 4,000 pounds, or the employer may also opt to
install and anchor all bridging in order to continue with the erection
process without delay.
Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) requires employers to land bundles on framing
members in such a manner that the decking can be unbanded without
losing the support of the structure. If the blocking were to move while
the bundle is being unbanded, the bundle would need to have enough
support to prevent it from tilting and falling.
One commenter requested adding, ``When cutting bundle straps or
breaking down crates, care must be taken to prevent straps or dunnage
from falling on personnel or equipment'' (Ex. 13-356). OSHA agrees that
unbanding decking bundles poses hazards from falling objects and
Sec. 1926.759(b) addresses this issue. That section prohibits work
below on-going steel erection activities unless overhead protection is
provided.
OSHA considers hazards associated with cutting banding straps to be
widely recognized throughout construction and general industries. In
addition to falling straps and dunnage, cutting banding straps poses
serious hazards to eyes as well as cuts, abrasions, as well as bruises,
strains or other injuries while attempting to hold or secure the
contents of the bundle. Training in the establishment, access, proper
installation techniques and work practices required by Sec. 1926.754(e)
would be covered by Sec. 1926.21(b)(2), OSHA's general training
requirements for construction work. In addition, special training
programs in Sec. 1926.761(c) [which supplements Sec. 1926.21]
specifically address employees who work in a controlled decking zone.
All recognized hazards, including those associated with cutting banding
straps, would be part of the work practices training to ensure that
employees recognize unsafe conditions in the work environment and know
the measures to control or eliminate hazards.
Paragraph (e)(1)(v) requires employers to secure decking against
displacement after the end of the shift or when environmental or job
site conditions warrant. Decking may become dislodged from the
structure or bundle because of conditions such as high winds. Wind can
also move a sheet of loose decking and create a hazard where an
employee inadvertently steps onto a sheet of loose piece of decking,
believing it to be secured.
Paragraph (e)(2) Roof and Floor Holes and Openings.
This paragraph sets requirements for installing metal decking to
minimize the risks of falling through holes and openings in decking.
There are differences between the use of the terms ``holes'' and
``openings'' in subpart M and subpart R. Subpart M uses the term
``hole'' to describe all holes and openings in floors, roofs and other
walking surfaces and uses the term ``opening'' to apply only to holes
and openings in walls. However, SENRAC used these terms differently in
the proposed steel erection standard, incorporating the terms as they
are commonly used by steel erection employers and employees (see the
definition of ``decking hole'' for a more detailed discussion). For
instance, in steel erection, the term ``hole'' means a small gap or
void that presents a tripping hazard or a falling object hazard, while
``opening'' means a gap or void that is large enough for an employee to
fall through.
OSHA made changes in the proposed regulatory text to clarify that
Sec. 1926.754(e)(2) applies to the installation of all metal decking
supporting either a floor or roof system. The terms ``decking'' and
``floor
[[Page 5220]]
decking'' have been changed to read ``metal decking''.
Paragraph (e)(2)(i) requires employers to ensure that all framed
metal deck openings have structural members turned down to allow
continuous deck installation, except in cases where structural design
constraints and constructibility do not allow this. Requiring framed
deck openings to be turned down allows continuous decking to be
performed without having to cut the deck around the opening. This
procedure would apply to smaller openings rather than larger openings,
such as elevator or mechanical shaft openings. Whereas smaller openings
may be cut at a later time, it may not be appropriate to delay larger
openings.
A group of fifty-four ironworkers commented and specifically agreed
with the requirement that framed deck openings be turned down in order
to allow continuous decking (Ex. 13-207C).
Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) requires roof and floor openings to be decked
over. Where large size, configuration or other structural design does
not allow for covering of the roof and floor holes and openings, they
must be protected in accordance with Sec. 1926.760(a)(1).
The committee intended the proposed standard to require continuous
decking except in certain cases where continuous decking is not
feasible due to structural design. For example, large openings such as
elevator shafts and stairways, are typically too large to cover, and
would usually be protected with a guardrail. The standard has been
reworded to clearly reflect this intention.
Paragraph (e)(2)(iii) requires employers to delay cutting decking
holes and openings until immediately before they are permanently filled
with the equipment or structure needed or intended to fulfill their
specific use. That equipment or structure must either meet the strength
requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this section, or be immediately
covered. This has been revised from the proposed rule for clarity and
in response to a commenter who requested a clear and concise definition
of ``essential to the construction process'' in order to eliminate the
many possible interpretations (Ex. 13-222).
Two commenters indicated that paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (iii) can
be interpreted to require continuous decking over all holes which are
cut out later and that this requirement would be a cost issue as well
as a safety issue because covering large openings with decking may
require temporary supports to sustain anticipated working loads on the
deck (Exs. 201X; p.76 and 201X; p.11). We note, however, as discussed
above, that paragraph (e)(2)(ii) specifically states that large
openings do not have to be decked over if the employer protects
employees using guardrails or other fall protection pursuant to
Sec. 1926.760 (a)(1).
Fifty-nine comments were received which expressed agreement with
the proposed decking requirements (Exs. 13-207C; 13-345; 208X, pp.136-
139; 203X, p.108-161; 13-198; and 13-347). One commenter indicated that
his company does not allow any hole to be cut in any raised level
unless the person using the hole is there, ready to cover or protect it
(Ex.13-198). Fifty-four commenters agreed with delaying the cutting of
deck holes and the requirement to immediately cover or protect the deck
openings (Ex. 13-207C). Another 195 letters were received in support of
``covering and marking of deck holes and openings (Ex. 13-355B). One
commenter added that there is no good reason to not deck over and
clearly mark roofing holes (Ex. 13-355B). A commenter suggested that
barricades be used to protect floor openings (Ex. 13-355B). One
commenter stated that ``Covering and marking holes in the deck with
strong material and painting with high visibility paint will prevent a
lot of injuries.'' (Ex. 13-355B). Another commenter strongly urged that
all holes and openings on the work floor be covered with plank, screens
or nets and that all sheets of decking around columns should be cut
into their proper place, and welded down (Ex. 13-355B).
Delaying the cutting of holes in decking was established to prevent
the employee and objects from falling through the holes and eliminate
tripping hazards that may be presented by covers over holes that would
not be used for some time. The holes are typically smaller than those
addressed in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section. OSHA has revised the
standard to clarify these points and address the issues raised in the
comments.
Paragraph (e)(3) Covering roof and floor openings.
Final rule paragraph (e)(3) addresses proper coverings required by
Sec. 1926.754(e)(2)(iii), which will protect employees from falling
into or through openings in roofs and floors. These provisions have
been moved in the final from proposed Sec. 1926.760(d).
Paragraph (e)(3)(i) requires that covers be strong enough to
withstand the weight of employees, equipment and materials by requiring
that covers support twice that combined weight.
Proposed provision Sec. 1926.760(d)(1) stated that covers must
support the greater of (1) 30 pounds per square foot (psf) for roofs
and 50 psf for floors, or (2) twice the combined weight of the
employees, equipment and materials that may be on the cover. The final
rule, Sec. 1926.754(e)(3)(i), deletes the specific strength requirement
of 30 psf for roofs and 50 psf for floors. These figures were based on
strength requirements specified in the Steel Deck Institute's Manual of
Construction with Steel Deck (Ex. 9-34A).
Mr. Philip Hodge from HABCO Inc. (Ex. 13-153), stated that some
buildings designed for snow loads may not meet the 30 psf requirement
and that the temporary cover, in some instances, may be stronger than
the remainder of the roof if this section remained. In subpart M, in
Sec. 1926.502 (i), the Agency instituted a requirement that covers
support twice the combined weight of employees, equipment and
materials, rather than specifying a particular minimum psf. We believe
that the subpart M approach is also appropriate here. Because the
proposed provision would require unnecessarily strong covers for roof
and floor openings, the provision has been modified to accord with
subpart M.
Paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) and (e)(3)(iii) are unchanged from the
proposal, except for being re-numbered. Paragraph (e)(3)(ii) requires
that all covers be secured when installed so as to prevent accidental
displacement by the wind, equipment or employees. This provision
eliminates a fall hazard. Paragraph (e)(3)(iii) requires that all
covers be painted with high visibility paint or be marked with the word
``HOLE'' or ``COVER'' to warn of the hazard and to prevent an employee
from inadvertently removing the cover. These provisions are consistent
with the requirements in subpart M.
Paragraph (e)(3)(iv) addresses the hazards associated with smoke
domes and skylight fixtures. Installed smoke domes and skylight
fixtures are not to be considered covers for the purposes of this
section unless the strength requirement of paragraph (e)(3)(i) is met.
If these structures are not capable of supporting the load, they may
give way, causing a fall. Unless they have adequate strength, these
structures cannot be relied upon to protect employees from falls.
Employees commonly lean or sit on skylights or smoke domes and these
structures need to be capable of supporting the load without failure.
Paragraph(e)(4) Decking gaps around columns.
[[Page 5221]]
Final Sec. 1926.754(e)(4) (proposed paragraph Sec. 1926.754(e)(3))
requires that wire mesh, exterior plywood, or equivalent be installed
around columns where planks or metal decking do not fit tightly thus
leaving a gap. The materials used must be of sufficient strength to
provide fall protection for personnel and prevent objects from falling
through.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) used the term ``space.'' Three commenters
explained that the proposed standard did not identify what a space is
and how big a space must be (Exs. 201X, p.76; 13-173 and 13-31). One of
the three commenters added that the standard should require that the
material used to cover these gaps must be strong enough to prevent
people and objects from falling through (Ex. 201X; p.76).
OSHA agrees that the term ``space'' is not defined and that this
could lead to misinterpretations. The proposed regulatory text did not
discuss the strength of the materials to be used, the only reference to
the strength is in the preamble to the proposed standard which explains
that gauge metal, typically cut out to the profile of the column, is
commonly used for this purpose and would be considered an equivalent
material.
OSHA has revised the standard to clarify the issues addressed in
the comments by changing the title to ``Decking gaps around columns''
and adding strength and fit requirements to the final rule.
Paragraph (e)(5) Installation of metal decking.
Paragraph (e)(5) of the final rule (proposed paragraph (e)(4))
requires metal decking to be laid tightly and immediately secured upon
adjustment to prevent accidental movement or displacement, except as
provided in Sec. 1926.760(c). Section 1926.760(c) provides for a
``Controlled Decking Zone'' (CDZ) which allows up to 3,000 square feet
of decking to be unsecured until adjustment when safety attachment is
then required (see discussion on ``safety deck attachment'' in
Sec. 1926.760(c)).
There were three comments received in support of the requirement to
secure decking immediately after it is laid and aligned (Exs. 13-198;
13-356 and 202X, pp. 129-130). A representative of the Bridge,
Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers (Ex. 13-198)
commented that bays of unfastened sheets are unnecessary. SDI (Ex. 13-
356) agreed that all decking, whether single or multi-span, should be
fastened immediately after alignment and should not be used as a
working platform until properly attached. A witness (Ex. 202X, pp. 129-
130) testified that stepping on, or leaving a deck sheet unsecured
should be prohibited because of the following: (1) Decking can separate
due to ice, snow, water, oils, or combinations of these that cause side
laps to uncouple easily, (2) loose decking has an aerodynamic effect
and in some winds it can fly, resulting in injuries and property
damage, and (3) there are situations where the supports are not level
resulting in a sag in the decking that increases the chance that two
sheets could unmarry.
OSHA agrees with the requirement that all metal decking must be
laid tightly and secured, once it has been aligned and adjusted, to
prevent accidental movement or displacement. This may be accomplished
by installing final deck attachments or safety deck attachments such as
tack welding the panel, or with a mechanical attachment, such as self-
drilling screws or pneumatic fasteners. In order to be consistent with
the rest of Subpart R, we have revised the final rule by changing the
terms ``decking,'' ``metal deck,'' ``deck,'' and ``floor decking'' to
``metal decking.'' This was done to clarify that Sec. 1926.754(e)(5)
applies to all metal decking used as a support element for either a
floor or roof system. Also, the proposed requirement in the CDZ
provision (proposed Sec. 1926.760(c)(5)) that during initial placement,
metal decking panels must be placed to ensure full support by
structural members, has been moved to final rule paragraph
Sec. 1926.754(e)(5)(ii). This was determined to be more of an erection
procedure than fall protection. Paragraph (e) of Sec. 1926.754
(Structural steel assembly) now encompasses all of the procedures for
the installation of all metal decking, whether in a CDZ or not.
Paragraph (e)(6) Derrick Floors.
Paragraph (e)(6) of the final rule (proposed paragraph (e)(5)),
addresses the use of derrick floors during erection. Paragraph
(e)(6)(i) requires that a derrick floor be fully decked and/or planked
and the steel member connections be completed to ensure that the floor
will support the intended load.
Paragraph (e)(6)(ii) requires that temporary loads on a derrick
floor be distributed over the underlying support members in order to
prevent spot overloading. These provisions contain essentially the same
requirements as those in existing Sec. 1926.750(b). There were no
comments received regarding these provisions and they remain, in final,
unchanged from the proposed rule.
Section 1926.755 Column Anchorage
This section addresses the hazards associated with column stability
and, specifically, the proper use of anchor rods (anchor bolts) to
ensure column stability. Section 1926.755 of the final rule specifies
the criteria for column anchorage. Inadequate anchor rod (anchor bolt)
installation has been identified both by SENRAC and by witnesses at the
public hearing as a contributing factor to structural collapses. One
participant, a connector by trade, addressed a SENRAC meeting and
asserted that collapses due to poor footings and anchor bolts are
currently the primary cause of connector accidents (Ex. 6-3, p. 4).
This section sets out requirements for ensuring that columns are
adequately stabilized during their erection to withstand construction
loads.
Paragraph (a) General requirements for erection stability
The final rule differs from the proposal in several areas. First,
the title of the section has been changed from ``Anchor bolts'' to
``Column anchorage''. Two commenters suggested changing the section
title, the Safety Advisory Committee of the Structural, Ornamental,
Rigging and Reinforcing Steel Industry (SAC) (Ex. 55) and the Unified
Steel Consensus Group (USCCG) (Ex. 63). The SAC Committee suggested
``Erection Stability'' while the USCCG recommended changing the title
to ``Column Anchorage''. Since the section contains several means of
achieving column stability in addition to the anchor bolt requirements,
the Agency believes ``column anchorage'' better describes the subject
of the section.
Paragraph (a)(1) of the final rule requires that all columns be
anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor rods/bolts. In addition, paragraph
(a)(2) requires that each column anchor rod/bolt assembly, including
the column-to-base plate weld and the column foundation, be designed to
resist a minimum eccentric gravity load of 300 pounds (136.2 kg)
located 18 inches (.46m) from the extreme outer face of the column in
each direction at the top of the column shaft. These provisions are
similar to those in proposed paragraph (a)(1) with minor changes that
clarify the type and location of the eccentric load. The proposed
paragraph (a)(1) has been split into two paragraphs in the final rule
because there are two distinct requirements.
Several commenters objected on the grounds that this section
imposes design requirements for the structure. In their
[[Page 5222]]
view, it is inappropriate for OSHA to set such requirements. In
particular, Korte Construction Company (Ex. 13-170F) asserted that
while having four anchor bolts is a good practice, the general
contractor/construction manager cannot guarantee that the engineers and
designers will design the building to OSHA's specifications.
Additionally, they indicated that the engineers and designers specify
by contract that the means and methods of construction are the
contractor's responsibility. Another commenter, Summit Construction
Group (Ex. 13-200) questioned whether engineers and designers will
follow the regulations in the design of the structure since the
engineers and designers are not identified as being required to follow
Subpart R. Engineers and designers design structures for compliance
only with building codes and other related industry standards to assure
public safety after completion of the structure. KEUKA Construction
Corporation (Ex. 13-154) opposes the idea that OSHA can, by regulation,
determine how many column anchor bolts are necessary regardless of what
the design architect or engineer may require. They also state that it
is inappropriate for OSHA to ``micro-manage'' steel erection.
OSHA, however, strongly believes that it is as appropriate for the
Agency to require that avoidable safety hazards be engineered out for
the protection of those erecting the building as it is for local
jurisdictions to set design criteria for the safety of the building's
occupants. The report of the SENRAC statistical workgroup (Ex. 9-42 and
9-49) shows that connector fatalities are 17% of the total fatalities
involving falls from heights. In addition, during SENRAC meetings,
ironworker connectors identified insufficient anchor bolts as the
primary cause of connector accidents (Ex. 6-3, p. 4). The record
establishes that there is a hazard of columns collapsing due to anchor
rod/bolt problems and this requirement is necessary to reduce the
fatalities and injuries caused by inadequate anchor bolt assemblies.
An overwhelming majority of commenters agreed that 4 anchor rods/
bolts should be required. According to testimony from Robert Murman of
E-M-E, Inc. (Ex. 202X; pp. 83-85 ), ``* * * a four-bolt system is a lot
safer, it's a lot easier to plumb.'' Mr. Murman went on to describe the
differences between using two anchor bolts and using four, stating
that:
* * * a four-bolt system, you've got four corners holding it
down. Two bolts, you've got only half of it and the other side is
rocking. A lot of times you're using shims, you're shim packing,
trying to get these things to plumb. The more shims you put under
there, the less stability you're going to have and the greater
chance of pulling the anchor bolt out or breaking an anchor bolt,
shearing them off, or it could snap. If it's not placed properly,
then you have to chemically or epoxy it in, and you have a chance of
pulling the after-bolt out, which is only like a pencil. An anchor
bolt, traditionally, is on a 90 [a 90 deg. angle], or it's built so
that it's in the concrete and holding under the footing. So when
you're plumbing a column that's on a shim pack, sometimes you're
loosening the nut.
Upon questioning, Mr. Murman further stated:
When the column is going in, 90 percent of the time we set a
column without a person--they'd have the guy on the ground with the
impact wrench and he's going to tighten up. It's set with the crane
and they cut him loose and let the choker slide down the column, and
95 percent of the time he's not up on that column, unless you have a
problem with the choker not coming down, or he has to get the ladder
to get up on top of your beam to connect the column and the beam
together. That's when you have your greater exposure.
In describing the loads imposed on the column during erection, Mr.
Murman added, ``a 200 or 250 pound person up on that ladder is really
putting some stress on that [the column]. As long as you've got two
anchor bolts, you've got the potential there of having it going into
the hole.'' Also, Mr. Mike Cushing, testifying as part of the
Ironworker panel (Ex. 205X; p. 337), when questioned whether he thought
four anchor bolts on every column will make a safer situation than we
have today, stated:
I don't think I've ever seen a column go over that had four
anchor bolts in it that didn't have an installation problem with the
bolts * * * [h]owever, two anchor-bolt columns, I can think of about
a dozen that I've seen go over. And they don't go the way the two
bolts are. They go to the left or the right of the bolts, you
wouldn't have that situation [with the proposed language].''
In addressing paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed rule, several
commenters suggested that the standard allow for exceptions to the 4
anchor rod/bolt for posts and small columns and where four anchor rods/
bolts are otherwise not feasible or necessary. The American Institute
of Steel Construction (AISC) (Ex. 13-209) commented that ``[t]he
provision for four anchor bolts is appropriate for large columns, but
not necessarily needed for smaller posts used for stair platforms,
architectural features, wall framing, mechanical support platforms,
mezzanines and similar structures.'' In addition, Mr. Jim Larson (Ex.
203X; pp.16-17) testified:
* * * [t]he requirements for four anchor bolts in all major
columns is endorsed by [Steel Erectors Association of America] SEAA
for additional stability according to the ironworker when they are
exposed to the initial phase of erecting steel. There may be
specific limited applications in which four anchor rods (anchor
bolts) are not feasible on minor columns and/or secondary posts.''
Following up, Mr. Eddie Williams (Ex. 203X; pp. 24-25) stated that
a small column sitting on an eight inch wall could have two anchor
bolts and be stronger than four if there is not enough concrete to get
coverage on the four anchor bolts. LeMessurier Consultants (Ex. 13-127)
commented that ``* * * there are cases where a 4-anchor rod pattern is
neither practical nor feasible, such as a column base bearing on a
narrow wall, at the edge of a pit, or at some corners. For such cases,
the standard should allow the structural design engineer the design
flexibility of using 2 or 3 anchor rods to safely resist the 300 pound
load applied at the 18-inch prescribed eccentricity.'' Another
commenter (Ex. 13-151) shared the same view that ``* * * there are
certain foundation considerations which prohibit an effective 4 anchor
rod pattern. Typical of these are column bases on narrow walls, near
the edges of pits, and at corners.'' Another commenter (Ex. 13-153)
commented that the requirement as proposed ``* * * would reduce the use
of steel columns embedded in masonry walls. This would encourage the
construction of free-standing CMU [concrete masonry unit] walls
supporting steel roofs, which is generally recognized as not as safe a
construction method as a complete steel framed structure with CMU in-
fill.'' The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (Ex.
13-308) stated ``[i]n some cases, 4 anchor bolts may not provide any
more stability for the column than 2 anchor bolts. The proposed rule
needs to differentiate between main load bearing columns and posts.''
In addition, Basic Metal Products, Inc. (Ex. 13-245) commented that the
four anchor bolt minimum is proper for main columns, but should not be
required for miscellaneous ``post columns'' such as those supporting
stairs, wind posts, etc.
Similarly, The Council of American Structural Engineers (Ex. 13-
320) recommended that OSHA either clarify its intent as to the scope of
this provision, or define ``column'' to exclude small posts, roof
mounted machinery platforms and other supports which are not subject to
being climbed by an ironworker during installation. The American
Institute of Steel Construction (Ex. 13-209) suggested
[[Page 5223]]
distinguishing between columns, which clearly require the safety of
four or more anchor bolts and posts, which would not.
The proposed four anchor bolt requirement appeared to cover all
columns, without exception. Neither SENRAC nor OSHA intended this
requirement to apply to all vertical members. Some vertical members
(also called posts), are typically smaller, do not support the main
structure, and are not climbed by a connector. For these reasons, such
vertical members do not require the anchorage described in this
paragraph. These structural members are either attached at both ends or
are hung from above (such as wind posts). In contrast, a column
attached at its base functions as a freestanding cantilever during some
period of time in the construction process and is climbed by the
connector.
The Agency agrees with the commenters that some flexibility should
be provided for in the standard for these situations. The final rule,
therefore, defines ``column'' to exclude posts. The Agency feels that
this definition adequately addresses the feasibility concerns expressed
in the record. The definitions, in the final rule, of column and post
read as follows:
Column means a load-carrying vertical member that is part of the
primary skeletal framing system. Columns do not include posts.
Post means a structural member with a longitudinal axis that is
essentially vertical, that: (1) is axially loaded (a load presses
down on the top end) and weighs 300 pounds or less, or (2) is not
axially loaded, but is laterally restrained by the above member.
Posts typically support stair landings, wall framing, mezzanines and
other substructures.
Therefore, in the final rule, the ``Column Anchorage'' section only
applies to columns and does not apply to posts. The record does not
support the need to add additional exceptions. OSHA believes that the
changes in the definitions are sufficient to address the concerns
expressed by the commenters.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) also stated that, ``each column anchor
bolt assembly, including the welding of the column to the base plate,
shall be designed to resist a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric load
located 18 inches (0.46 m) from the column face in each direction at
the top of the column shaft.'' One commenter (Ex. 13-127) suggested
that ``[t]he standard must clarify how the 18 inch eccentricity is
measured along the weak axis of a typical H-shaped column. For these,
the 18 inches probably should be measured from the edges of the column
flanges.'' Another commenter (Ex. 13-151) suggested that when
calculating the moment to be applied at the column base in the weak
axis direction, OSHA needs to define whether ``face'' of a column means
face of the column web or edges of the column flanges. For clarity,
final paragraph (a)(2) specifies that the eccentricity is measured from
the extreme outer face of the column at the top of the column shaft.
In addition, the final rule revises the term ``eccentric load'' to
read ``eccentric gravity load'' to clarify the design criteria for
columns. This issue was addressed by a commenter (Ex. 13-207) who felt
``horizontal load'' would better describe all of the forces imposed on
the column including pulling and prying by the ironworker along with
any wind factor. Mr. Doug Rutledge (Ex. 207X; pp. 116-118) testified
that describing the load as a horizontal load more closely
characterizes the nature of the forces. After evaluating all the
characteristics of the forces applied to the column during erection,
the Agency determined that ``eccentric gravity'' is a better term to
describe those forces. In addition, ``and the column foundation'' has
been added to clarify that the anchor bolt assembly must be designed
such that the foundation (as well as the column-to-base plate weld) can
resist the forces applied.
Another change is the introduction of the term ``anchor rod''
wherever the term ``anchor bolts'' was used in the proposal. Two
commenters stated that the term ``anchor rod'' is the industry term
that is commonly used and would be consistent with the current AISC
design specifications. LeMessurier Consultants (Ex. 13-127) suggested
changing the term ``anchor bolts'' to ``anchor rods'' in the standard.
They stated that the AISC and the Steel Industry now refer to the
anchors at column bases as anchor rods. The Structural Steel
Fabricators of New England, Inc. (Ex. 13-228) commented that since not
all anchorages of steel column base plates to foundations fall under
the definition of ``bolts'', the industry has changed the terminology
to ``anchor rods''. They recommended the new term ``anchor rods'' be
substituted through the standard.
The term ``anchor bolt (anchor rod)'' has been inserted in the
final rule wherever the term anchor bolt was used in the proposed rule.
Since the term has just recently been changed in the industry, the
Agency has elected to keep both terms in the standard for purposes of
clarity.
Paragraph (a)(3) of the final rule requires that columns be set on
level finished floors, pre-grouted leveling plates, leveling nuts, or
shim packs which are adequate to transfer the construction loads. This
provision is identical to proposed Sec. 1926.755(a)(2). No comments
were received on this paragraph.
Final rule paragraph (a)(4) requires that all columns be evaluated
by a competent person to determine whether guying or bracing is needed
and, if needed, be installed. This is changed from proposed paragraph
(a)(3) which limited the required evaluations to ``unstable columns.''
Several commenters noted that the proposed provision was too vague
because of its reliance on the term ``unstable columns.'' Others
criticized it on the grounds that all columns should be guyed or
braced. At the hearing, upon questioning, Mr. Jim Larson (Ex. 203X; p.
41) stated ``[i]n and of itself, * * *, the anchor bolt, four anchor
bolts or two anchor bolts, I do not believe were intended to be the
only method of stability''. Gibble, Norden, Champion (Ex. 13-70)
commented that ``[a]ll columns must be stabilized by guy cables and to
imply that a column can be safely stabilized by anchor rods will lull
erectors into ignoring proper guying, resulting in an unsafe
condition.''
Since the condition of a column is not known until it is evaluated,
all columns need to be evaluated in order to determine whether any of
them are unstable and need to be guyed or braced. Therefore, the final
rule paragraph (a)(4) (proposed paragraph (a)(3)) requires that all
columns be evaluated by a competent person and be guyed or braced where
necessary. The Agency feels that anchor bolts alone cannot be assumed
to be capable of achieving the necessary stability, and that all
columns need to be evaluated and guyed or braced to resist the normal
effects of wind on the partially completed structure. In support of
this, Mr. Doug Rutledge (Ex. 207X; pp. 63-64) testified:
[p]rovision should be made for allowing design innovation and
improvement while still meeting the necessary performance criteria.
Furthermore, I believe the standard must recognize the impossibility
in some instances and the economic impracticability in other
instances of achieving column stability in all instances. Such
columns, I believe, should be identified by the designer of the
structures, thereby signaling the erector or responsible individual
that these columns require special attention. They require temporary
bracing. They require guying. They require some means other than the
ordinary standard of simply erecting the column and assuming the
column will be self-stable.
[[Page 5224]]
In summary, paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) requires that all
columns must be secured with 4 anchor rods (anchor bolts) and evaluated
by a competent person to determine whether guying or bracing is needed.
In addition, posts will be excluded from the 4 anchor rod/bolt
requirement by definition.
Paragraph (b) Repair, Replacement or Field Modification of Anchor Rods
(Anchor Bolts)
This paragraph addresses the situation where the steel erector
encounters an anchor bolt that has been repaired, replaced or modified.
The steel erector often cannot visually tell when an anchor bolt has
been repaired and thus will not be aware of the repair unless notified
that a repair has been made. If an anchor bolt has been improperly
repaired, replaced or modified, it could lead to a collapse. The intent
of this paragraph is to ensure that the erector has the opportunity to
make sure that any work on anchor bolts has been adequately performed.
The title of this paragraph has been changed by adding ``of anchor
rods (anchor bolts)'' to clarify that this section deals with the
repair, replacement and field modification of anchor rods/bolts.
Paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule prohibits the repair,
replacement or field modification of anchor rods (anchor bolts) without
the approval of the project structural engineer of record. Commenters
supported this requirement, and it is unchanged from the provision in
the proposal. Emile Troup of The National Council of Structural
Engineers Association (Exs. 13-308 and 52) commented that most
structural engineers would agree that repairs or necessary
modifications to structural steel components should be designed or
reviewed by the Structural Engineer of Record (SER). However, he also
stated, that the safety or stability of the structure during
construction, is the direct responsibility of the steel erector and
its' ironworkers, and should not be transferred to the SER as a result
of repairs or modifications. The Structural Steel Fabricators of New
England (Ex. 13-228) commented that they ``* * * agree with the
standard in requiring the project structural engineer of record to
approve repair, modification or replacement of anchor rods.'' The
Structural Engineers Association of Illinois (Ex. 13-294) agreed that
modification, repair or alteration of any component should require
approval from the project structural engineer of record. They went on
to state that the rule ``* * * should clarify that the project
structural engineer of record is not responsible to ensure that the
conditions requiring modification, repair or alteration are identified
* * *''
Paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed rule would have required that the
Structural Engineer of Record (SER) determine whether guying or bracing
is necessary if an anchor bolt was repaired, replaced or modified. This
provision has not been included in the final rule. Commenters asserted
that it was not within the SER's expertise to determine when guying or
bracing is necessary for repaired, replaced or modified anchor rods
(anchor bolts). One commenter (Ex. 13-294) stated that ``[t]he project
structural engineer of record is not familiar enough with erection
procedures, and is not trained to assess the stability of any column or
post for interim construction loads that may or may not require
temporary bracing.'' Furthermore, ``[a] competent person should make
this determination based on the notification required by paragraph
(b)(3) [of the proposal].''
OSHA is persuaded by this comment. Under Sec. 1926.755(a)(4), all
columns need to be evaluated by a competent person to determine whether
guys or braces are necessary, including those instances where anchor
rods have been repaired or replaced. The repair or replacement of
anchor rods/bolts needs to be approved by the SER, but the SER should
not be the one to determine whether guying or bracing of the column and
frame is necessary.
Paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule (proposed paragraph (b)(3))
requires that prior to the erection of a column, the controlling
contractor must provide written notification to the steel erector if
there has been any repair, replacement, or modification of the anchor
bolts for that column. This requirement, working in conjunction with
Sec. 1926.752(a)(2), completes a crucial communication loop. The steel
erector generally does not have contact with the project structural
engineer of record. The steel erector cannot rely on the controlling
contractor at present to convey the approval of the project structural
engineer of record for repair, replacement or modification of anchor
bolts because it is not required.
OSHA received comments that fell into three categories: (1)
Controlling contractors should notify the steel erector of
modifications and repairs to anchor bolts (Ex. 208X, p. 77); (2)
contractors that make the repairs or modification should contact the
steel erector (Exs. 13-173, 13-210, 13-215, 13-222, 13-334); and (3)
the steel erector should find out if repairs or modifications have been
made (Exs. 201X, P. 77; 13-13-173; 13-210; 13-215; 13-222; 13-334).
OSHA agrees with the commenters who supported requiring controlling
contractors to notify the steel erector of modifications and repairs;
that is what the final rule requires. On the second point, OSHA notes
that a problem with relying solely on the contractor or individual that
makes the repair to notify the steel erector is that the steel erector
may not be on site at the time of the repair. Therefore, the
controlling contractor is in the best position to obtain and relay this
type of information.
With regard to the comments stating that the steel erection
contractors should be responsible for finding out if repairs or
modifications have been made, OSHA believes that if a steel erector
notices that modifications have been made, the steel erector will
contact the controlling contractor as a result of this provision. The
purpose of this provision is to address the fact that it is often
difficult, if not impossible, for the steel erector to tell if a repair
or modification has been made. This provision is designed to ensure
that the erector is made aware of such changes.
Section 1926.756 Beams and Columns
Section 1926.756 sets forth requirements for connections of beams
and columns to minimize the hazard of structural collapse during the
early stages of the steel erection process. Recognizing that
inappropriate or inadequate connections of beams and columns is
hazardous and can lead to collapses and worker fatalities, OSHA, in
this section, establishes performance and specification requirements to
address these hazards.
Paragraph (a) General
Paragraph (a) requires that during the final placing of solid web
structural members, the load must not be released from the hoisting
line until the members are secured with at least two bolts per
connection, of the same size and strength as shown in the construction
documents. The members must be drawn up snug tight or secured by an
equivalent connection as specified by the project structural engineer
of record. While reflecting Sec. 1926.751(a) of OSHA's current steel
erection standard, the proposal added the alternative provision, ``or
the equivalent as specified by the project structural engineer of
record''. This phrase was added to allow for alternative types of
connections approved by the SER, such as welding or, in the case of
heavier members, the use of more than two bolts.
[[Page 5225]]
In addition, the final rule allows only bolts of the same strength
and size as shown in the erection drawings to be used in securing the
member until the final connections can be made. This will prevent
collapses caused by the use of lesser strength/size bolts.
This paragraph, as set out in the proposal, did not contain the
reference to cantilevered members. While no commenters directly opposed
the paragraph as proposed, one commenter (Ex. 206X; p. 55) asked OSHA
to address cantilevered connections. OSHA agrees that cantilevered
connections need to be addressed as they may require more than two
bolts due to the different load angles placed upon them while executing
a double connection. Therefore, a new paragraph (a)(2) has been added
requiring a competent person to determine if more than two bolts are
necessary to ensure the stability of cantilevered members, and that
additional bolts be installed if necessary.
Paragraph (b) Diagonal Bracing
Paragraph (b) requires that solid web structural members used as
diagonal bracing be secured by at least one bolt per connection drawn
snug tight or secured by an equivalent connection as specified by the
project structural engineer of record. In many cases, solid web
structural members, such as channels or beams, are used as diagonal
bracing or wind bracing. When used for this purpose, a one-bolt
connection is sufficient. These members play a different role in
erection stability than members used for other purposes since these
members are designed to provide stability for the final completed
structure and are not used as walking/working surfaces. Compliance with
this provision will provide safe connections for these members. No
comments were received addressing this paragraph and the final rule is
issued as proposed.
Paragraph (c) Double Connections
A double connection is a type of attachment in which the ends of
two steel members join to opposite sides of a central (carrying)
member--such as a beam, girder or column web--using the same bolts. The
erection process is as follows: the first member is bolted to a beam,
girder or column web. Later, a second member is added to the opposite
side of the existing connection. This second member is attached using
the same bolts (going through the same holes) that are being used to
attach the first member. To attach the second member, the nuts on the
first beam's bolts have to be removed and the bolts backed most of the
way out; the ends of the bolts have to be flush with the surface of the
central member so that the second member can be lined up with the
existing holes. Only fractions of an inch of the ends of the bolts are
now preventing the first beam from falling. Once the holes in the
connection plate of the second member are lined up with the first
beam's bolts, the bolts are pushed back through all the holes and the
nuts are put back on the bolts and tightened to secure the three pieces
of steel together.
This maneuver is extremely dangerous. The process often takes place
with a worker sitting on the first beam. If the first beam collapses,
the worker falls. The risk of collapse is high because of the tenuous
grip of the loosened bolts and the possibility that the connector's
spud wrench, which is used to align the second (incoming) member, may
slip. If at any time the carrying member (the central member to which
the first and second members are being attached) reacts to residual
stresses developed through welding and/or misaligned connections at
lower elevations, the carrying member can move suddenly, causing the
bolts or the spud wrench to become dislodged. The second (incoming)
member can also cause problems if it bumps up against the fitting or
wrench end. Additionally, crane operators, wind, structural movements
and the connector straining to make a tough connection impose stresses
that can lead to disengagement of the connection.
The current steel erection standard does not address this hazard.
SENRAC believed that double connections are essential in some steel
erection designs (63 FR 43471). SENRAC's analysis of NIOSH and BLS
fatality statistics (Exs. 9-14, 9-39, and 9-42) indicated that
structural collapses constitute a significant cause of steel erection
deaths. SENRAC also concluded that failed double connections are a
major cause of structural collapses. One commenter (Ex. 207X; p. 111)
believed that the ``engineering community'' could accommodate a
standard that prohibited employee exposure to double connections with a
few exceptions. While the record indicates that designers can engineer
structures with minimal use of double connections, it does not appear
to be necessary to prohibit double connections since there are means
available to perform double connections safely.
Testimony on behalf of SEAA (Ex. 203X; p. 77) that attachments such
as seats are already being used in the field to eliminate the double
connection hazard strongly supports the view that this is a feasible
means of making these connections safe. OSHA believes that the severity
of the consequences of a failed double connection warrant these
provisions.
The Ironworkers International Union (Ex. 208X; p. 120) commented
that the hazard associated with double connections is not a design
problem that should be prohibited but is a safety issue and should be
addressed in the standard like other things, such as stairs, that
employees use on a regular basis. Huber, Hunt, and Nichols (Ex. 201X;
p. 216) emphasized the frequent exposure of connectors to the hazards
of double connections and that it has become something that the
individual employee has to deal with in everyday connecting They assert
that when a double connection is not properly executed, the resulting
failure can lead to the immediate collapse of the entire structure,
endangering the connector and every other worker on or around the
structure.
A commenter (Ex. 207X; pp. 57-165) suggested that double
connections be identified on the erection drawings so that erector
recognizes where there will be difficult connections in advance and can
assure that the appropriate devices are present to eliminate the
hazard. OSHA believes that double connections are already commonly
indicated on erection drawings.
Paragraph (c)(1) requires that when making a double connection, the
first member must remain connected to a supporting member by at least
one connection bolt at all times unless a connection seat (see
definition) or equivalent connection device is supplied with the
members to secure the first member and prevent the column from being
displaced. This requirements is the same as proposed. At a minimum, one
bolt must remain wrench tight in order to keep the first member from
separating from the supporting member when the nuts are removed from
the bolts that are to be shared with the second member. Appendix H is
added to the final rule to provide examples of equivalent connection
devices. They include ``clipped end'' and ``staggered bolt''
connections.
Steel Erectors Safety Association of Colorado (SESAC) (Ex. 13-207)
suggested that the provision cover all double connections, including
the installation of floor beams in the web of a beam not over a column.
OSHA is deferring to SENRAC expertise that it is not necessary for this
provision to address floor beam (filler beam) connection hazards.
SENRAC noted that the connector does not have to sit on the floor beam
when making floor beam
[[Page 5226]]
type of double connections--the connector can sit on the header beam to
which the other members are being attached. Also, the structure is much
more stable by the time floor beams are ready to be installed.
Several commenters, such as FABCO (Ex. 13-21), described ways of
minimizing the double connection hazard by maintaining the one bolt
connection throughout the connection process. OSHA agrees that there
are methods of engineering a connection point that maintain the one
bolt connection requirement of paragraph (c)(1). The staggered bolt
method and clipped end connection method are two ways of maintaining
the one bolt connection at all times, and do not require the use of any
of the alternative methods listed under paragraph (c)(1). These two
methods are described in Appendix H.
A commenter (Ex. 13-207) suggested that we include a graphic to
show the clipped connection as an example of how to comply with the
``one bolt in place rule''. Diagrams are included in Appendix H to show
an illustration of a clipped end and a staggered bolt connection.
Methods like clipped end and staggered bolt connections were discussed
during the hearing and in comments but were not directly addressed in
the proposed standard. The record shows that these are relatively
simple and safe methods of engineering out the hazards presented by
double connections.
The National Council of Structural Engineers (Ex. 13-308) suggested
that we change ``wrench-tight'' to ``snug-tight'' because, they argue,
the latter is a known and defined term in the steel erection industry.
However, wrench-tight is a term that is consistent with 1926.751(a) of
the current steel erection standard. Wrench-tight is also the term
recommended by SENRAC , and OSHA defers to SENRAC on this issue
The proposed standard stated that at least one bolt with its
wrench-tight nut had to remain connected to the first member unless an
attached seat or similar connection device ``is present.'' That phrase
has been changed to ``is supplied with the member'' to make it clear
that the member must come with the device in order for the erector to
be permitted to erect it.
The Steel Erectors Association of America (SEAA) (203X; p. 18)
strongly supports the requirement to have seats for double connections
because of the historical evidence that collapses occur from the
failure of inadequately secured bolts and connection work done on semi-
stable structures. The Safety Advisory Committee of the Structural,
Ornamental, Rigging, and Reinforcing Steel Industry (205X; p. 328) also
thought this was a simple solution to a very big problem.
The record does not include any persuasive evidence to oppose the
use of a connection seat to increase the level of safety in making a
double connection. However the majority of the debate was in reference
to the provision in the proposal that stated: in a double connection,
there must be either ``a shop-attached or field-bolted seat or similar
connection device present * * *''. The testimony of SENRAC members and
AISC panels indicated that there is disagreement as to whether the
seats need to be shop-attached, or if a field-attachment should be
permitted if there is no shop attached seat.
Some commenters, however, interpreted the proposed standard to
allow only shop-attached or field-bolted seats. Under these options,
the fabricator would have to either attach the seats itself in the shop
or provide holes in the members for the erectors to bolt the supplied
seats on in the field.
For example, the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
(Ex. 13-209) believed that the proposed paragraph required the
attachments to be bolted to the beam and prohibited other field
attachment methods like welding or clamping. They would like other
methods of adding a seat to be available such as, clamping, welding,
and similar positive attachment methods. Also, the Metal Building
Manufacturers Association (MBMA) (Ex. 207X; p. 244) indicated that a
determination by erectors in the field would be the most efficient
method of complying with the standard.
On the other hand, SEAA (Ex. 203X; p. 75) believes the seats should
be attached in the controlled environment of a fabrication shop. SEAA
testified that while they use extra holes and clips in most of their
jobs, a shop-attached clip would be greatly preferable. The SENRAC
panel addressing anchor bolts, double connections, and specificity on
plumbing-up (Ex. 208X; p. 108) testified that even though the placement
of extra holes where double connections occur has been a standard
engineering practice in 1964, the hazards that occur during double
connections have not been eliminated. The panel (Ex. 208X; p. 206) also
had no confidence in ``seat clamps'' and engineering clamps due to the
unpredictable loads on the beams. The language ``supplied with the
member'' has been substituted for ``is present'' to better reflect
SENRAC's and OSHA's intent that the member arrive at the site along
with the unattached seat placed on the member in close proximity to
where the double connection is to be made on the member. If the seat
does not accompany the member to the site, then there is no guarantee
that the erector will know that it needs to field attach the seat
before making the double connection. Many commenters, including the
SENRAC panel and SEAA, were concerned that both the clamps and the
unattached seats would end up stored in trailers or in places other
than where double connections are being made. Another commenter (Ex.
203X; p. 76) was confident that if the fabricators needed to attach the
seats to the beams, the chances that they would be in place during the
erection process would be much greater than if the responsibility were
left up to erection supervisors.
Some erectors argued in favor of a requirement to shop-attach the
seats because they would have too many seat installation methods to
deal with on different jobs, they contend that it will be confusing and
inefficient for them to try to figure out how to install the seats in
each case. Erectors also thought that it would be easier and less time
consuming for them to erect steel safely if the fabricators were to
install the seats in the shop.
Those who opposed the shop-attached seats, such as the Metal
Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA) (Ex. 207X; p. 244) and Basic
Metal Products (Ex. 13-245), stated that there are many other devices
that are available to erectors to use for the many difficult
connections that they have to face. The phrase in the proposed
standard, ``or similar connection devices,'' meant that methods other
than ``field-bolted or shop-attached seat'' are permitted. While
bolting the attachment to the member is the preferred alternative
method, it was not the intent of the proposed standard to prohibit
other, equally effective methods. OSHA agrees that equivalent devices
supplied with the member are acceptable and provides illustrations of
such devices in Appendix H.
The final rule incorporates several clarifications. First, in
paragraph (c)(1), the proposed phrase ``similar connection device'' has
been changed to ``equivalent connection device'' to clarify that
devices other than a shop attached or field bolted seat are permitted,
as long as they provide equivalent protection. OSHA did not intend that
the alternative ``device'' had to physically resemble a ``seat'' as
implied by the term ``similar''. ``Equivalent connection device''
requires that the function of the device must mirror that of a seat and
be equally effective.
[[Page 5227]]
Secondly, the term ``field-bolted'' has been changed to ``field-
attached'' to clarify that other attachment methods, such as welding,
is permitted.
Haven Steel (Ex. 206X; p. 22) asserted that OSHA does not have
jurisdiction to mandate product specifications and designs over which
the parties affected by the rule had little or no input. They argued
that the standard should put more emphasis on the actions of the steel
erector and its employees. Commenters opposing the provision were not
necessarily opposed to using an attachment to secure double connection
members but were opposed to requiring the manufacturers and designers
to shop-install the attachments for the erectors.
Some commenters (Exs. 13-320, 13-21, and 207X; pp. 57-65) argued
against both drilling holes in the members for attachments and welding
the attachments because of the possibility that some structural
integrity of the beams may be lost. The argument against drilling holes
for attachments is the same as the one against drilling holes in
columns for attaching perimeter cables in Sec. 1926.756(f)(3) of the
proposed standard. When holes are drilled in members, they argued, it
may require the use of heavier, more expensive, members where they
would not otherwise be needed. FABCO (Ex. 13-21) testified that putting
holes in the flanges could weaken the flanges unless heavier, more
expensive members were used. The Council of American Structural
Engineers (Ex.13-320) added that damage may occur due to welding
attachments to the columns without proper preheat and that adding holes
to members that were not designed to accommodate them could degrade the
structural integrity of the member. However, there is no indication in
the record that the industry could not engineer in holes or weld on
attachments for safety devices for the erection process, just as it
routinely accommodates public safety requirements and specifications.
Since double connections are a part of the design of the structure,
those designing the members would know if they needed to pre-engineer
additional holes for a seat or to specify a welded attachment.
OSHA acknowledges that as with other aspects of structural design,
incorrect procedures and calculations when drilling holes or welding
attachments could reduce the structural integrity of lightweight beams.
However, the hazards of double connections made without the safeguards
in this standard are great and are acknowledged by most industry
experts. Alternatives to installing seats are not to use double
connections at all, or to maintain the connection of one bolt with its
nut ``wrench tight''. Certainly, in a worst-case scenario, concerns
about ``structural integrity of beams'' can be quelled merely by using
heavier members, as noted above. OSHA concurs with SENRAC on its
conclusion that requirements in paragraph (c) are necessary to reduce
the well acknowledged hazards of performing double connections, and
that they provide considerable flexibility for compliance.
Paragraph (c) of the proposal allowed the use of a seat if the one
bolt connection requirement could not be met. A commenter (Ex. 206X; p.
62) feared that erectors would use seats to temporarily connect beams
until they could maneuver other members in place, therefore increasing
the probability of a collapse. Temporarily connecting the bolts for the
seats may invite the erector to not install the final connection bolts
until large portions of the structure are ready to be plumbed up and
bolted.
Paragraph (c)(2) in the final rule does not permit such a practice.
It requires the erector to secure a seat (designed to support the load)
to both the supporting and first members while the double connection is
being made. The function of the seat is to provide support to the
members until the double connection can be safely connected. Connecting
the first member to the supporting member with the seat is a crucial
step in making these double connections safely, since one of the
dangers is that either the supporting member or the first member will
be bumped or will pull away during the double connection process. The
connection seat is only intended to facilitate that particular double
connection.
Paragraph (c)(2) also explicitly requires that seats or equivalent
devices must be designed to support the load during the double
connection process. If these devices are to be used, they have to be
capable of supporting the weight of the members involved; and that
weight may vary significantly from job to job. The erector may not know
what the magnitude of the loads are in time to have devices engineered
and fabricated for the job. It is more efficient to incorporate this
engineering determination into the design of the members and
connections.
Some commenters, such as (Ex. 206X, p. 173), believed that it
should be solely the erector's responsibility to devise a method in
which to keep its employees safe by securing the steel frame of the
structure. They also argued that Sec. 1926.754(a) requires structural
stability to be maintained at all times. They also point to section 7
of the AISC Code of Standard Practice as support for their position.
Under the AISC Code of Standard Practice indicates that the
industry currently recognizes that it is the responsibility of the
erector to stabilize the working platform of its employees. However,
this does not mean that the best way to ensure that the double
connection is made safely is to rely solely on the erector to make
whatever arrangements it thinks are necessary. The testimony of the
SENRAC members established (Ex. 208X, p. 205) that it would be
unrealistic to expect most erectors to have in-house personnel who
could make the technical engineering assessments necessary to determine
whether a particular device would be capable of supporting the loads
during a double connection. In their view, requiring that the device be
supplied with the member will provide greater assurance that the device
is capable of supporting the loads. The erector does not have the
ability to ascertain if a column could accept additional holes or
welding, nor the ability to control the column's design.
AISC (Ex. 13-209, attachments 4&5) suggested that OSHA add the
phrase ``where constructibility allows'' because there are some
instances, which they identified, where they believe seats or
attachments will not work. Similarly, Unified Steel Consensus Group
(Ex. 13-63) suggest the following addition: ``Where structural design
and constructibility does not allow for a shop attached connection
device, it shall be noted on the erection drawing and the erector shall
adequately brace and support the structural member to prevent movement
before nuts are removed from the double connection and the double
connection is completed.''
The record shows that an exception that would permit double
connections to be made without the specified safety precautions is
neither necessary nor appropriate. The final rule permits an
``equivalent'' connection device to be supplied with the member.
Paragraph (d) Column Splices
Paragraph (d) requires that each column splice be designed to
resist a minimum eccentric gravity load of 300 pounds (136.2 kg)
located 18 inches (.46 m) from the extreme outer face of the column in
each direction at the top of the column shaft. This paragraph has been
revised to be consistent with final rule Sec. 1926.755(a)(2) (anchor
rods/bolts) and to further clarify the type and
[[Page 5228]]
location of the eccentric gravity load. This requirement, along with
the requirements in Sec. 1926.755(a)(1) and (a)(2) for anchor rods/
bolts, will help to stabilize columns that employees have to climb
during the erection process. By specifying requirements for certain key
building elements, such as anchor bolts, column splices, and double
connections, the standard will prevent structural collapses. This
section specifies a minimum force that a column splice must withstand
without failure before an employee is allowed to climb it. There were
very few objections to these provisions.
The Council of American Structural Engineers (Ex. 13-320), AISC
(Ex. 13-209), and Basic Metal Products (Ex. 13-245) had concerns about
OSHA prescribing design specifications. They believe that the standard
should not specify means, methods, or location with respect to column
splices--that such requirements may compromise the structural design or
seriously affect architectural finishes.
OSHA believes that it is as appropriate to require building
components to meet the safety needs of those constructing a building as
it is to require a completed structure to meet the safety needs of its
occupants. A well established principle of occupational safety and
health is that eliminating or reducing a hazard by modifying the design
of whatever is posing the hazard is the preferable method of
controlling a recognized hazard. OSHA anticipates that by ensuring that
column splices are designed to withstand a 300 pound eccentric gravity
load, the hazard of collapse due to the instability of the column
should be virtually eliminated. This minimizes the number of columns
that an erector will need to stabilize before employees climb them. A
SENRAC workgroup, with engineering assistance, determined that 300
pounds was an appropriate load. In addition, the 300 pound eccentric
gravity load is the same design criteria that is required for column
anchorages in Sec. 1926.755(a)(2).
The record does not indicate that this requirement presents
significant obstacles to designers with respect to their choice of
exterior finishes. Nor does it show that it would be difficult to
accommodate the requirements in the structural design.
Paragraph (e) Perimeter Columns
Paragraph (e)(1) of the final rule prohibits the erection of
perimeter columns unless the column extends a minimum of 48 inches
(1.2m) above the finished floor to permit installation of perimeter
safety cables prior to the erection of the next tier, except where
constructibility does not allow. Final rule paragraph 1926.760(a)(2)
requires that the perimeter safety cables be installed at the final
interior and exterior perimeters of the structure's finished floors of
multi-story structures as soon as the decking has been installed. When
the safety cables must be attached to the perimeter columns, the
columns must be at least 48 inches above the finished floor in order
for the perimeter cable system to comply with the requirements of
Subpart M. Paragraph Sec. 1926.760(d) requires that perimeter safety
cable systems conform to the criteria for guardrail systems in
Sec. 1926.502.
Some commenters (Exs. 13-320; 13-245; 13-209, p. 19) argued, as
with section 1926.756(d), that OSHA has no jurisdiction to put design
restrictions on the engineering community. Although they contended that
would limit their flexibility in structural design and in the materials
they use, they did not specify how their design capability would be
impaired. American Bridge Co. (Ex. 206X; p.55-56) suggested that it was
more appropriate to place an obligation on the contractor and erector
to ensure that ``the cable [is] 42 to 45 inches above the working
surface and sufficiently anchored to withstand a horizontal force of X
amount of pounds at a point 45 inches above the working surface.''
OSHA is convinced that the industry can accommodate this
requirement. As noted, no commenter submitted details on the extent of
design impairment or examples of the projected negative effect of this
requirement. It is appropriate for OSHA to require the engineering of
safety elements into the design of perimeter columns if they provide
support for a fall protection system. Paragraph 1926.760(a)(2) requires
perimeter cables to be installed on multi-story buildings as soon as
the decking is completed. OSHA agrees with SENRAC's conclusion that the
presence of holes or attachments on the columns facilitates the
erection of the cables therefore minimizing the installers' exposure to
a perimeter fall. OSHA also agrees that columns are an appropriate and
often-used support for the perimeter safety cable.
Paragraph (e)(2) requires that the perimeter columns have holes or
other devices in or attached to them at 42-45 inches above the finished
floor and the midpoint between the finished floor and the top hole to
permit the installation of perimeter cables, except where
constructibility does not allow. This allows the erector to install the
cables promptly when the columns have been erected.
A commenter (Ex. 206X; pp.67-68) believed that by specifying the
method of erecting perimeter cables, the industry is denied the
opportunity to negotiate language in its contracts. The general
contractor has no reason to include any language to protect the
fabricator because it knows the OSHA regulation requires the fabricator
to make the holes or attachments available to be utilized by the
erectors. The fabricator has no control over the system's installation,
condition, maintenance, or use and subjects the fabricator to lawsuits
regarding any accident involving the perimeter safety cable systems.
Fabricators and engineers also argued that the proposal
impermissibly regulates employers beyond the steel erection industry by
requiring fabricators to install holes or attachment points. Some
fabricators testified that this section would limit their flexibility
in engineering a structure. Grewe Jenkins Design & Construction Company
(Ex. 201X; p.17) stated that by requiring a shop to attach bolts or
holes, it would be limiting the methods and means by which an employer
may protect its employees from perimeter falls. They also argued this
requirement may necessitate regulations for the design of the different
types of attachments that fabricators and engineers may use. The
American Institute of Steel Construction (Ex. 13-209) objected to OSHA
prescribing how to manufacture its product.
A commenter representing AISC (Ex. 206X; p. 59) testified that
fabricators do not control the erection sequence and schedule of
placement of structural steel elements which is set forth on contract
documents. Neither do they dictate, he argues, how steel erectors will
utilize the holes and attachments that they are required to provide. In
his view, the fabricator assumes liability because it would be
difficult to defend litigation regarding system failure: (a) If they
cannot be assured that it will be erected and maintained properly, and
(b) if they have no prior knowledge of where and how the members with
the holes or attachments are going to be installed during the erection
sequence. AISC believed that this provision would make fabricators
liable for any failure of the perimeter cable system, including the
incorrect field installation of attachments. They assert that this
would be unfair since they have no control over how the cables are
installed or maintained. Hagerman Construction Corporation (Ex. 13-224)
commented that additional staff would be needed and the cost of
liability insurance would skyrocket. These combined factors, they
[[Page 5229]]
argue, could help to drive up the price of the steel members.
OSHA requires that holes or attachments for erecting perimeter
cables are on or in the perimeter columns before the steel can be
erected because it believes that it is appropriate to engineer safety
components into a structure just as public safety specifications are
adhered to in the drafting stage of a structure.
The proposed provision, paragraph (e)(3), stated that holes or
devices ``shall be provided by the fabricator/supplier and shall be in
or attached to perimeter columns * * *''. OSHA has revised this
provision to make clear that, in addition to requiring that the columns
have holes or devices, the erector may not erect perimeter columns,
unless the columns comply with paragraph (e)(2). In final paragraph
(e)(2), the erector is prohibited from erecting the perimeter columns
in the absence of the holes or attachments.
SENRAC and OSHA agree that getting the perimeter safety cables
erected properly and promptly will help to reduce the number of falls
to the exterior of the building. This provision not only affects steel
erectors but other trades that follow them in the construction sequence
of the building. Incorporation of the perimeter system into the design
of the structure enables all trades to be protected against perimeter
falls most quickly and effectively.
Some commenters were not convinced that providing the erectors with
attachments will help to aid in the erection of perimeter cables.
Southern Iron Works (Ex. 206X; p.107) asserted that they have often
provided steel erectors clips that the erectors did not use. Since the
proposed standard did not expressly require the erector to use the
holes or attachments supplied by the fabricator, they argued that the
fabricator may needlessly incur this expense.
While the standard does not require the erectors (or any other
trade) to use the holes or attachments, it does require the
installation of perimeter cables (see Sec. 1926.760). OSHA assumes that
the installer of the perimeter cables will use the holes or attachments
because that will be easier then the option of installing stanchions to
support the cable.
An erector representing the Steel Erectors Association of America
(SEAA) (Ex. 203X; pp.73-74) testified that it is common for holes/
attachments to be included in contract requirements through
negotiation. He stated that he had holes drilled in columns on 90% of
his jobs, and that fabricators have been providing them for 5 years for
projects in his area. A general contractor (Ex. 203X; p.168-169)
decided that it made more sense to use holes/attachments, since using
the columns does away with the need for installing stanchion posts.
SEAA stated that if holes/attachments were required by regulation,
steel fabricators would comply with little or no economic damage to the
industry because all steel erection projects would have to follow the
same rules. Erectors and fabricators are presently negotiating these
sort of safety measures into their contracts.
The steel erection industry already meets a variety of
architectural and public safety needs, and designs and manufactures
structural components so precisely as to locate holes and calculate
loads for every nut and bolt. OSHA is confident that this industry can
also arrange to have these holes/attachments in perimeter columns.
These holes and/or attachments will make the construction of the
structure safer for the employees that have to use it as a work
platform. Commenters in opposition to requiring holes and/or
attachments gave no explanation in the record as to why this
requirement would make it more difficult to design or produce columns.
The claim that holes/attachments would affect architectural
finishes was similarly unsubstantiated. Even if there were some
instances where that would be a problem, the final standard includes an
exception where constructibility does not allow them to be installed.
FABCO (Ex. 13-21) stated that putting holes in the flanges could
``cripple'' the strength of the flanges unless heavier, more expensive
members were used. They suggest that perimeter cables be supported by
an engineered, temporary clamping device of the erector's design or, at
the erector's option, by making additional holes or using shop-
installed column attachments.
OSHA acknowledges that a hole in the flanges of a column could
compromise the structural design of the structure, especially if the
column is part of a ``moment resisting'' frame. ``Crippling'' may occur
when the web is subjected to high compressive stresses from
concentrated loads and/or reactions. Failure by fracture could also
occur under some circumstances. However, the claim that the holes/
attachments may compromise the structural design assumes that the holes
would be installed only after the column was already designed, without
regard to the need to accommodate the holes. However, it is clear that
from an engineering standpoint, the effect of holes (or attachments) on
the strength of columns needs to be factored into the structural
design. The evidence that was introduced to show why that could not be
done was not convincing. While in some instances larger columns might
be necessary to accommodate holes, information on the number of those
instances was not submitted to the record. It should be noted that
holes are not required if constructability does not allow, and that the
provision allows the installation of attachments instead of holes.
AISC (Ex. 13-209) stated that attachments could get damaged or
cause stacking problems in stockyards. FABCO (Ex. 3-21) indicated that
they could get knocked off while being delivered. While these comments
indicate that more care would have to be taken, these are not
particularly difficult problems to overcome. Some steel components
already have angles and other protruding attachments.
Perimeter cable holes can be engineered into the original design of
the columns as any other hole would be. At times, perimeter columns
must be strengthened to compensate for drilling a hole in a structural
member, adding cost to the process. However, OSHA believes that those
instances will be minimal in comparison to the number of columns that
currently are able to accommodate perimeter cable holes.
E-M-E Steel Erection Company (Ex. 202X; p.31) testified that they
currently weld nuts to columns while others use washers in the field.
They think that having holes put in the columns will cost a few dollars
more but that they are worth the extra cost. In addition, the costs
must be considered in the context of the lives that can be saved by
both the fall protection afforded by the perimeter cables and by the
speed in which they may be erected, which will greatly reduce
employees' exposure to fall hazards while installing the cables.
The physical criteria that the perimeter cables must meet are found
in Sec. 1926.760(d)(3). That section references Sec. 1926.502, and
Appendix G repeats that section to assist employers and employees.
Section 1926.757 Open Web Steel Joists
Some of the most serious risks facing the ironworker are
encountered during the erection of open web steel joists, particularly
landing loads on unbridged joists and improperly placing loads on
joists. Based on an analysis of ironworker fatalities from January 1984
to December 1990 OSHA determined that of the approximately 40
fatalities caused by collapse, more than half were
[[Page 5230]]
related to the erection of steel joists (Ex. 9-14A). Although the
existing OSHA steel erection standard addresses joist hazards in a
limited manner, this final rule section significantly increases
protection from the most hazardous activities during joist erection.
The Agency believes that the combination of specification and
performance requirements in this section will provide more
comprehensive protection to workers engaged in these activities.
Paragraph (a) General.
Paragraph (a) of the final rule provides general requirements for
the erection of steel joists. To make the requirements of paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(5) of the proposed rule more understandable, OSHA
has reorganized them in the final rule. The requirements that relate to
stabilization of the joist attached at a column are contained in
paragraph (a)(1). Those joists that do not, for design reasons, attach
at the columns are addressed in a new paragraph (a)(2). Paragraphs
(a)(3) and (a)(4) address conditions that apply to joists that attach
either at or near the columns.
Paragraph (a)(1) requires that where steel joists are utilized, and
columns are not framed in at least two directions with solid web
structural steel members, a steel joist (commonly referred to as the
``OSHA joist,'' see explanation below in the discussion of paragraph
(a)(1)) must be field-bolted at the column except as provided in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section which addresses these joists installed
near the column. This paragraph is nearly identical to the existing
steel erection standard provision, Sec. 1926.751(c)(1). The final rule
paragraph (a)(1) differs from the proposed paragraph (a)(1) in that it
does not contain the phrase ``or near'' when describing the location of
the joist in relation to the column. The SJI (Ex. 13-208) suggested
deleting this language in paragraph (a)(1) and treating joists
installed near the column separately because of feasibility
considerations. The purpose of the stabilizer plate, required by
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, is to provide stabilization and
prevent rotation of the extended bottom chord of the joist required by
paragraph (a)(1). The Agency agrees with SJI that when the joist is not
located directly at the column, it is not possible to stabilize the
bottom chord using a stabilizer plate on the column, and some other
means of stabilizing the bottom chord must be provided. Therefore,
paragraph (a)(2) has been added to the final rule to address the
situation where a steel joist attaches near, but not at, the column.
SJI also suggested deleting the language, ``to provide lateral
stability to the column during erection,'' which describes the purpose
of bolting the joist. SJI argues that joists are not designed to do
this but simply to support a uniform load. Nonetheless, this language
comes from the existing standard and SENRAC believed it to be an
accurate description of an additional function of this joist, whether
designed for this purpose or not. Accordingly, the final rule retains
this language requiring lateral stability during erection.
Final rule paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) refer to
special requirements for joists connected at the column. Paragraph
(a)(1)(i) is virtually identical to paragraph (a)(4) of the proposed
rule. It requires a minimum 6-inch by 6-inch vertical stabilizer plate
to extend at least 3 inches (76 mm) below the bottom chord of the steel
joist. The plate is required to have a \13/16\ inch (21 mm) hole placed
in it to provide an attachment point for guying or plumbing cables. The
SJI (Ex. 13-208) suggested language to better describe the stabilizer
plate. They noted that for the stabilizer plate to function as
intended, the plate would need to have a minimum length and width of 6
inches and be oriented vertically so that the bottom chord of the joist
will straddle the plate. Bottom chords of joists are essentially two
angle irons placed back to back with steel webbing welded in between
into triangles. The space created between the angle irons by the
webbing is large enough so that the bottom chord, when extended to the
column, can straddle the stabilizer plate, thus preventing the OSHA
joist from rotating. OSHA agrees that these changes would improve the
requirement. Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) works in conjunction with paragraph
(a)(1)(i) and requires that the bottom chords of steel joists at
columns be stabilized to prevent rotation. This provision largely
carries forward the language of proposed paragraph (a)(5). The SJI (Ex.
13-208) commented in support of this provision stating that it ``* * *
clarifies and reiterates the need to prevent horizontal axis rotation
of joists and joist girders during erection.''
The foregoing provisions will result in a more stable primary
structure upon which to erect the remaining steel joists in each bay.
Since the sequence of guying is essential to safety, a stabilizer plate
provides a ready attachment point for more efficient guying, thus
helping to prevent collapse as the steel is set in place.
Final rule paragraph (a)(2) attempts to clarify the proposed rule
by addressing the situation where the joist required by paragraph
(a)(1) of this section does not attach at the column but, rather, near
the column. Two commenters (Ex. 13-208 and 13-153) suggested that the
standard address this situation. It was noted by a commenter (Ex. 13-
153) that this can occur at expansion joints, unequal bay spacing and
non-rectangular buildings. The Agency agrees with the commenters and
recognizes that the proposed rule paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(5) could
not apply unless the joist or joist girder were attached at the column.
Since the joist or joist girder cannot always be attached at the
columns (due to design constraints), this paragraph provides a means to
ensure that the joist nearest the column, (that serves the same purpose
as a joist at the column) is as stable as a joist that is attached at
the column.
The Agency believes that the clarification referred to above is
necessary due to the feasibility and sequencing complications that
arise when OSHA joists are not attached at the column. For example,
attaching a stabilizer plate to a column is much simpler than providing
the same plate on a narrow solid web beam or a steel joist girder. In
addition, since the sequencing of erection of the structure is
frequently not known beforehand, the erector needs to stabilize the
bottom chord of the OSHA joist on both sides of the column. This is
necessary because erection could begin at either end of the column line
as dictated by conditions at the site at the time of erection.
Accordingly, final rule paragraph (a)(2) requires that where
constructibility does not allow the steel joist to be installed at the
column, an alternate means of stabilizing joists must be installed on
both sides near the column. Such alternate means must provide stability
equivalent to OSHA joists attached at the column; be designed by a
qualified person; be shop installed; and be included in the erection
drawings. OSHA believes that, even though OSHA joists are attached to
the column the overwhelming majority of the time, workers need to
receive the same protection from collapse when the OSHA joist is
attached near the column. Thus, the alternate means of stabilization
must be considered and planned in the early stages of design and
material preparation.
An additional protection that was intended by SENRAC but not
specifically referred to in the proposal had to do with the release of
hoisting cables for OSHA joists. The Committee addressed timing of the
release of hoisting cables for all joists other than OSHA joists in
Sec. 1926.757(d). Seeing the need for clarification, SJI recommended
[[Page 5231]]
language addressing the release of hoisting cables from the OSHA joist
(Ex. 13-208). Accordingly, both final paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of
this section require that hoisting cables not be released until the
seat at each end of the steel joist is attached and the joist is
stabilized. For OSHA joists that are field-bolted at the column,
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) prohibits hoisting cables from being released
until the seat at each end of the joist is bolted and both ends of the
bottom chord of the joist are restrained by the stabilizer plate. In
addition, for OSHA joists installed near the column, paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) prohibits hoisting cables from being released until the seat
at each end of the joist is field-bolted and the joist is stabilized.
Paragraph (a)(3) (proposed paragraph (a)(2)) requires that a steel
joist (OSHA joist) at or near the column that spans 60 feet or less be
designed with sufficient lateral stiffness that the joist does not need
erection bridging to maintain its stability when an employee goes out
onto it to release the hoisting cable. Since the joist at the column is
the OSHA joist and is either the first joist in place or the joist that
boxes the bay, there is no other joist in place nearby for the erector
to attach erection bridging. Therefore, without this provision,
compliance with the final rule's bridging requirements would be
infeasible for an OSHA joist. Consequently, the OSHA joist itself must
possess sufficient lateral stiffness to allow the erection process to
progress safely. One comment (Ex. 13-208) was received in support of
the requirement. The commenter felt that the need to design and
manufacture heavier joists for placement at columns is reasonable to
insure the safe placement of these critical OSHA joists.
Paragraph (a)(4) of the final rule (proposed paragraph (a)(3))
addresses a longer steel joist at the same position. This provision
requires that steel joists located at or near the column that span more
than 60 feet must be set in tandem, i.e., two steel joists must be
attached together, usually with all bridging installed (both bolted
diagonal erection and horizontal bridging). These larger OSHA joists
are commonly used in open structures such as warehouses, gymnasiums and
arenas. This provision also allows the use of alternate means of
erection of such long span steel joists, provided that the alternative
is designed by a qualified person to ensure equivalent stability and is
included in a site-specific erection plan. This paragraph is
effectively the same as proposed paragraph (a)(3) except that ``or
near'' was added as explained above. According to SJI (Ex. 13-208),
joists tied together with standard bridging will not possess sufficient
stability to serve as a working platform in all cases. However, both
the proposed rule and the final rule require that the erector install
all bridging (not just erection bridging) when these long joists are
set in tandem as OSHA joists.
Compliance with these provisions should help to satisfy the
stability requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this section (proposed
paragraph (a)(6)). Paragraph (a)(5) prohibits the placement of steel
joists or steel joist girders on any support structure unless it has
been stabilized. This is essentially the same as proposed paragraph
(a)(6) but it has been revised to include steel joist girders along
with steel joists. This language change was recommended by SJI (Ex. 13-
208). They also commented in support of the requirement by stating that
this paragraph to stabilize joist support structures is one of the best
elements of the steel erection standard and will substantially enhance
worker safety in steel erection. OSHA agrees that the provision needs
to include steel joist girders for consistency since they are also
connected to the support structure.
Another commenter (Ex. 13-210) indicated that the term
``stabilized'' is open to interpretation and should be defined. OSHA
disagrees and feels that the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(4) of this section together with provisions in several other
sections of the standard adequately set out the stability requirements
for the structure without the need to define ``stabilized''.
Paragraph (a)(6) (proposed paragraph (a)(7)) of the final rule
addresses the hazard that arises when a single steel joist or a bundle
of joists are placed on the structure and then left unattended and
unattached. An example of this might involve lighter steel joists,
under 40 feet in length, that would not require erection bridging under
this section. A common practice in erecting these lighter joists, which
can be set in place by hand, is to have a crane set the columns, steel
joist girders, or solid web primary members and bolted joists at the
columns as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, thus boxing
the bays. The crane would then place a bundle of filler joists at an
end or, more likely, at the center of the bay for installation by hand,
and then move on to the next bay. Because cranes are among the more
costly pieces of equipment on a steel erection job, minimizing crane
time at the site is cost effective. This provision requires that, when
steel joists are landed on structures, they be secured to prevent
unintentional displacement, i.e., the bundles must remain intact prior
to installation until the time comes for them to be set. This paragraph
also prevents those ironworkers who are shaking out the filler joists
from getting too far ahead of those workers welding the joists, a
practice that leaves many joists placed but unattached. Paragraph
(b)(3) of this section, discussed below, requires that at least one end
of each steel joist be attached immediately upon placement in its final
erection position and before additional joists are placed. Another
example of a situation addressed by this paragraph is if the exact
dimensions of a piece of mechanical equipment to be installed in the
decking are not known. A common practice, when this occurs, is to leave
a joist unattached until the dimension is known. This paragraph
requires such a joist to be secured (probably to the support structure
or an attached joist) pending its final attachment. One comment was
received by SJI (Ex. 13-208). SJI supported this provision stating that
it ``* * * will greatly reduce accidental displacement caused by
striking the bundles while placing other construction materials.'' This
paragraph is substantively unchanged from the proposed rule.
Paragraph (a)(7) of the final rule (proposed paragraph (a)(11))
addresses the potential for failure that can occur when a steel joist
or joist girder is modified from its original manufactured state. As
reflected in the proposed rule, the Agency believes modifications to
joists can have disastrous consequences if performed by jobsite
personnel without taking into account the design characteristics of the
joist or joist girder. This provision prohibits modification without
the prior approval of the project structural engineer of record. The
only change to this provision from the proposed rule is the inclusion
of steel joist girders for consistency since neither joists or joist
girders should be modified without SER approval. This language change
was recommended by SJI (Ex. 13-208).
Final rule paragraph (a)(8)(i) requires that, except for steel
joists that have been pre-assembled into panels (panelized),
connections of individual steel joists to steel structures in bays of
40 feet (12.2 m) or more shall not be made unless they have been
fabricated to allow for field bolting during erection. This means that
both the joists and the supporting member must be fabricated with holes
to allow the joists to be bolted to the supporting structure; otherwise
they are prohibited from being erected. Final rule paragraph (a)(8)(ii)
requires that, unless
[[Page 5232]]
constructibility does not allow, these connections must be made by
field bolting.
These paragraphs replace paragraph (a)(8) of the proposed rule, and
have been modified to require that the holes in the joists be used for
the connection of the joists and to allow for welding of the joists in
situations where constructibility will not permit the joists to be
bolted. As reflected in the proposed rule, the Agency has found that
many long steel joists that are placed in bays of 40 feet or more have
a greater tendency to twist or rotate, which creates hazards for the
workers installing them. This finding was based on several examples of
hazardous situations that steel erectors encounter when working with
these long joists. The record shows that certain joists that are thin
and flexible can be difficult to install because of their ``sweep''
(tendency to bend). Bolting these types of joists first allows
straightening of the joist, correcting its camber and eliminating
torque. Additionally, after bolting, final welding can be more easily
accomplished. Bolting is safer whenever unattached joists could be
displaced by wind or construction activity, by the movement of
employees, by trailing welding leads, by accidental impact against the
supporting structure by a crane or other equipment, or by harmonic
motion, or vibration. Further, joists can roll and pop welds due to the
movement of a worker on the joist or the stresses caused by removing
the sweep, which could cause a collapse. Finally, there are unique
hazards associated with welding. These include impairment of the vision
and balance of an employee working at elevation while wearing a welding
hood.
Many comments were received in response to proposed paragraph
(a)(8). These comments fell into three major groups. In the first group
of comments, the commenters claimed that holes for bolting joists were
not needed because: (1) Welding joist ends [instead of bolting] is not
dangerous; (2) there are no data supporting a need for the requirement;
and (3) the holes will have to be drilled, but bolting was optional,
many of the holes would not be used by the erector. Consequently, they
claimed, millions of unused holes would be needlessly drilled. They
contended that welding is really a safety concern, in this situation
OSHA should require that the holes be used.
Addressing the first and second issue of this group, several
commenters stated that welding joist ends is not dangerous and there
are no statistics to support the need for the requirement. They
contended that the assumption that welding joist ends is more hazardous
than bolting is not supported by industry data. Specifically, some
commenters referred to a Steel Joist Institute (SJI) study of 100
accidents involving steel joists over a 14 year period which showed
that none were a result of welding joist ends. Some commenters also
referred to OSHA IMIS data reviewed by both OSHA staff and a SENRAC
workgroup (Exs. 9-14A and 9-42) showing no fatalities related to joist
end welding over the seven and eleven year periods, respectively. Two
commenters (Ex. 13-9 and 13-18) stated that, based on their experience,
they had never heard of or witnessed an accident related to welding of
joists. The Steel Joist Institute (Ex. 66), referring to the SENRAC
meetings, comment period and public hearing, stated ``[n]o data was
produced which suggests that bolting is inherently safer than the
welding of joist ends to their supporting members.''
OSHA's accident data do not cast any light on whether welding of
joist ends is a hazard. These data in many cases do not provide enough
detail as to the role of welding in the reported accidents involving
joists.
Addressing the third issue of this group, numerous commenters
asserted that the proposed rule would require millions of holes to be
drilled or punched, most of these holes would not be used since the
proposal did not require that these members be bolted. These concerns
become moot since the final rule does require that the members be
bolted unless constructibility does not allow. Eleven commenters
specifically stated that, since the requirement would be optional,
erectors would most likely choose not to use the holes. One commenter
in particular (Ex. 13-158) stated that ``[i]t is apparent that this
provision would cause joist manufacturers and steel fabricators to
punch or drill millions of unnecessary holes every year.'' Several
other commenters ( Exs. 13-21, 13-25, 13-97, 13-186 and 13-279) also
suggested that millions of holes will be drilled or punched and will
not be used. One commenter (Ex. 13-290) stated ``* * * these
connections would not be used especially since they are optional.''
Another commenter (Ex. 13-144) responded ``[t]he only significant
effect of this new requirement is increasing the cost of fabrication of
steel girders.'' and ``* * * it only requires manufacturers to provide
the holes in the girders. The proposed rule does not require the steel
erectors to actually use the holes.'' A commenter (Ex. 13-309) stated
they believe that ``* * * this rule will add cost to fabrication of
joists and that the bolted connections will not be used by steel
erectors in the field.'' Metro Fabricators, Inc. (Ex. 13-62) responded
``[d]ue to the additional cost involved in bolting each joint, our
erectors (subcontracted) have indicated that they would elect not to
use the bolted procedure.'' As indicated above, the final rule requires
that the holes be used and the connections be made by field bolting
unless constructibility does not allow.
In the second major group of comments, commenters claimed that
bolting is more dangerous than welding because: (1) Erectors will
install erection bolts and then replace them with high strength bolts.
To do that the surface will have to be prepped in accordance with AISC.
Or, if the designers require a final weld, the erector will have to
come back to weld, doubling the connection time and increasing fall
exposure. If high strength bolts are required for a final connection,
the erector must handle extra tools, bolts, nuts, washers, etc. and
prep the surface; (2) Unused holes will weaken the members. If an
erector elects not to use the holes, the designer may require that the
holes be filled since unfilled holes may be a deficiency; (3) The holes
will have to be slotted, which does not provide the rigidity of a weld;
and (4) Welding is easier than installing a bolt from the top and a nut
from the bottom.
Addressing the first issue in this group, many commenters (41)
raised a concern about the structural integrity of the bolted
connection because the holes would have to be slotted or oversized. In
particular, they argued that bolts used to meet the proposed paragraph
would be erection bolts, which would have to be replaced with high
strength bolts. This, they asserted, would require that the surface
also be prepped in accordance with AISC requirements. One commenter
(Ex. 13-357) claimed that if the designers require a final weld, the
worker would have to come back to weld the connection, also doubling
the connection time and increasing fall exposure. These re-connections
would be necessary to provide lateral stability to the top flange of
the supporting member. Another commenter (Ex. 13-342) stated:
* * * the erection connection will not be the final connection. A
final connection by welding or replacement of the erection bolts
with high strength bolts will have to be provided. The bolted
connection would require proper cleaning and preparation of the
connecting surfaces, use of plate washers, and torqueing of the
bolts.
Moreover, erectors would not install final high strength bolts during
this erection phase due to the time to prep and install the bolts to
AISC
[[Page 5233]]
specifications. A final bolted connection during this phase would be
extremely expensive since the crane would be on site during the whole
process. As indicated below, erectors want to get the joists up as
quickly as possible to reduce the crane time on the job.
The Professional Engineers Group, Inc. (Ex. 13-110) responded that
the ``[b]est case scenario is the erector uses erection bolts and then
goes back to make a final connection, either bolted or welded. This
places the erector's personnel in a position twice that can lead to an
accident rather than once.'' A steel erector (Ex. 13-118) commented
``[t]he use of erection bolts is only a temporary attachment; a worker
will still have to return to each location to ``complete'' the
connection, resulting in an increased exposure.'' Further, this
commenter stated ``* * * the net result of this proposed rule change
will be increased costs, reduced market share, and increased worker
exposure.'' A steel fabricator (Ex. 13-283) responded that their joist
suppliers had advised them that ``* * * a bolted connection will very
often not be acceptable for a final connection since more load may be
present than can be transferred without additional welding.''
Four commenters (Exs. 13-6, 13-57, 13-89 and 13-277) suggested that
if high strength bolts would be required for a final connection, the
worker would have to handle extra tools, bolts, nuts, washers, etc. and
as mentioned above, the surface would be required to be prepped prior
to installing the bolts. These added activities would create additional
hazards to the steel erector. One commenter, a General Contractor (Ex.
13-6), responded that the proposed paragraph (a)(8) would: increase the
number of falling/dropped objects creating an overhead hazard; increase
the possibility of pinching, crushing or cutting fingers, and; increase
injuries due to the significant amount of time needed for the alignment
process. These commenters claimed that the bolts will only serve as a
temporary connection and that a rigid final connection will be required
by either replacing the erection bolts with high strength bolts or
welding the joist ends.
All of these concerns are addressed by the revision to paragraph
(a)(8) in the final rule, which requires the use of bolts in the
initial connection but is silent on the final connection. The bolted
connection covered by paragraph (a)(8) serves as an initial erection
connection, making the structure stable more quickly for the worker. In
addition, the erection bolts would not need to be replaced by high
strength bolts where the final connection is made by welding. If the
employer elects to have the final rigid connection to be a bolted
connection, the surface preparation would then be necessary. However,
whether bolted or welded, the final rigid connection will be made from
a deck or otherwise more stable structure. Thus, the employees
performing the final connection will have lower exposure to collapse
and falls.
The Agency believes that the total time involved by the worker in
making a complete connection as required by this provision is actually
less than making an initial and final welded connection. As discussed
in more detail below, the erection bolt takes about 15 seconds to
install. The welder will not be exposed to the hazards of welding on or
at an unstable connection or sites because the joists will be stable at
the point they are connected to the primary structure with these bolts.
As Mr. Cushing testified, (Ex. 208X; p. 399) when performing the final
weld, ``[Y]ou would weld in production mode. You wouldn't be welding
and tying up the crane.'' Since much of the testimony against this
provision was economic in nature, OSHA recognizes that freeing the
crane up sooner would result in a cost savings.
The contention that the worker would have to do the connection
twice--once to initially install an erection bolt and again to replace
it with a permanent, high-strength bolt (or weld the joint)--is based
on two assumptions: first, that the initial bolts would be erection
bolts, and second, that the need for slotted holes to make the initial
connection may require a final rigid connection to replace the erection
connection, thus requiring workers to visit the connection twice. As
explained below, this provision does not create the need for an
additional visit to the connection since this is already necessary when
initial welded connections are used.
OSHA notes, however, that the Steel Joist Institute Technical
Digest No. 9 currently recommends that ``Immediately after each
subsequent joist is set in its proper position, one side of the joist
bearing seat on each end of the joist should be tack welded.'' The
Technical Digest further recommends that ``After all of the bridging is
installed, the final welds are made on the bearing seats of the
joists.'' Thus, the SJI recommendations already require two visits to
the joist end attachments.
Under current practices, where welding is used for the attachment
of joists, the worker welds one end of the joist, installs bridging
which helps to straighten out the joist, and then welds the other end.
Normally, both sides of one end or alternate sides of both ends are
attached to the primary member with a weld smaller than the final weld
required in Sec. 1926.757(b). This smaller weld is commonly referred to
as a ``tack weld''. This allows the worker greater flexibility in
pulling the sweep out of the joist while installing the erection
bridging. Nevertheless, even when using welding to attach joists, a
second visit to the initial attachment point must be made to make the
final weld.
Some commenters (Ex. 13-6, 13-89, 13-97 and 13-191) stated that
welding is easier and safer than bolting and that welding is currently
the recommended method of attachment by the Steel Joist Institute. The
Agency expects that this will continue to be the standard practice for
joists in bays less than 40 feet, and the final rule does not require
field bolting for these shorter joists. However, due to the inherent
instability of joists over 40 feet and other considerations discussed
above, final paragraph (a)(8) provides a safer environment to erect the
longer joists. As discussed earlier, even if the joists are attached
with erection bolts initially, the erector may make the final
attachment by welding--but the connection work will then be performed
from a more stable structure.
Addressing the second issue of this group, many commenters (see for
example Ex. 13-97 and 13-228) were unsure whether the designers will
require unused holes to be filled. This will not be a concern since in
most cases the final rule requires that the holes be used unless
constructibility does not allow. Commenters generally felt that the
holes will either have to be filled or larger members used to account
for the holes. If the holes require filling, the commenters suggest,
there would be a significant burden on the erector. It is unclear how
many erectors would choose to bolt joists if given the option.
According to the Steel Erectors Association of America (SEAA) survey of
their members (Ex. 29), most SEAA members would elect not to bolt. In
that survey, however, 11 members did state that they felt this is a
safe practice. Paragraph (a)(8) of the final rule requires that holes
be provided for field bolting, and that for the initial connection of
these joists be performed by field bolting, with a very limited
exception. The Agency agrees that it would be inappropriate to require
the holes be provided and not require that they be used.
As mentioned above, many commenters stated, if it were an option,
that erectors would elect not to use the optional holes as proposed for
connection of the joists. This led to commenters concerns as to whether
the
[[Page 5234]]
unused bolting holes would weaken the structural member and whether the
erector would need to fill them. Four commenters responded directly to
this issue (Exs. 13-97, 13-153, 13-228, and 13-261). SteelFab (Exs. 13-
97 and 13-261) stated ``[o]wners and even designers may not know
whether these open holes are a structural deficiency.'' On the other
hand, a commenter (Ex. 13-228) feels strongly that ``* * * the
architect will most certainly require erectors to plug the unfilled
holes, again resulting in increased exposure of the erectors.'' In
addition, HABCO (Ex. 13-153) suggested ``[t]here is a huge design
penalty for open holes in a girder top chord versus holes containing
bolts.'' and ``[t]his, in turn, will require the erector to either drag
an air hose to each end of each joist, or a torque wrench.'' This
commenter went on to state that the girder size would have to be
increased if there are holes in the member that might not get filled,
leading to an associated cost increase of approximately 25%.
``Therefore, if the designer is required to design holes into the
girder top chords, and if the fabricator is required to furnish holes,
the erector must be required to fill them with properly sized and
torqued bolts.'' As already discussed, these concerns of unfilled holes
are all addressed by bolting requirements in the final rule, requiring
the holes to be used.
In addressing the third issue of this group, many commenters (Exs.
13-43 through 13-48, 13-54, 13-55, 13-56, 13-71, 13-77, 13-152, 13-217,
13-256, 13-265, 13-266, 13-355) responded that the holes required by
proposed paragraph (a)(8) would need to be slotted (or oversized) and
that slotted holes would not provide the necessary rigidity that a weld
does. EMC Structural Engineers (Exs. 13-43 through 13-48) noted that to
allow for field tolerances as a result of the proposed provision ``* *
* all bolt holes will not be simple round holes but instead will be
slotted holes which will allow the sweep to remain in the joist.''
Another commenter (Ex. 13-217) stated that the requirement would
require installing bolts and then having to weld the joist ``to freeze
the connection'' as a result of using a slotted hole on the joist. In
addition this commenter stated that using ``* * * proper amount of
bridging as the joists are being set, and using an established safety
procedure, we can set the joist safely without bolting each joist as
they are set.'' Another commenter (13-335) responded that they:
* * * have spoken with several joist manufacturers and they have
indicated that in order to meet this proposed provision, they will
have to pre-punch all joists with [slotted] holes. The slotted holes
would be required for field adjustments/construction tolerances.
This would create a significant problem from our (the Structural-
Engineer-of-Record's) standpoint. With slotted holes placed in the
joists for bolting, we would have to design the beams as laterally
unsupported.
These commenters indicated that holes must be slotted to allow for
field adjustments. They contended that since the joists are long and
tend to curve somewhat, some room is needed to pull the joist into
place; exact sized holes would not, in most cases, be workable, the
holes would have to be slotted. This, in turn, would not allow the
initial connection to serve as the final rigid connection, and most
likely a final weld would be necessary. OSHA recognizes the validity of
some of these concerns. The final provision contemplates that the
initial bolted connections will, in fact, be temporary connections and
that the joists will be stabilized with a final weld or high strength
bolt connection for the rigid connection. The required initial bolting
is intended to increase employee safety during the initial placement
and connection of the joists.
The fourth issue of this group was addressed by two commenters
(Exs. 13-97 and 13-165) claiming that welding is easier than bolting.
They suggested that welding is a faster and safer anchoring application
for joists, and that it is easier to weld from the top than install a
bolt from the top and a nut from the bottom. In contrast, Phil Cordova,
SENRAC member and owner of a steel erection company, described the time
it takes to weld versus bolting the joist (Ex. 208X; p. 199). When
asked how long it takes to tack a joist initially, Mr. Cordova stated:
You have many considerations that take place there. You need to get
the endow of a joist. You need to find the proper location. You need
to get a man up there who is in a secure position to work without
vision of the ground by working under a welding hood to tack this. A
tack could take quite a significant amount of time. Meaning, by the
time they get set up in position, it could be five to ten minutes on
each tack.
Further, Mr. Cordova described the time it would take to put in an
erection bolt and tighten it by stating:
That would just be a few seconds. Quite significantly, under a
minute. We are talking, by the time you thread the bolt down through
the hole and put the nut on it, an ironworker could put each nut and
bolt on there on the magnitude of about 10 to 15 seconds--I would
think.
In the final analysis, the issue is, whether an initial joist
attachment with erection bolts provides greater stability and exposes
the employee to less risk of falls or collapse than an initial joist
attachment with tack welds. OSHA believes that it does. OSHA believes
the bolting requirements of this paragraph will reduce both fall and
collapse hazards.
The third major group of comments on this paragraph addressed
costs, fabrication burden, and feasibility issues.
Some commenters felt that the bolting provision was unnecessary
since the other requirements in Sec. 1926.757 adequately addressed the
activities and procedures that cause the accidents in joist erection.
According to the commenters, joist collapses are most often associated
with inadequate bridging and placing a construction load on unstable,
un-bridged joists. One commenter (Ex. 13-40) stated:
* * * all joists are bolted adjacent to the column in each bay
[currently required by Sec. 1926.751(c)(1) and proposed as
Sec. 1926.757(a)(1)]. This, along with the recent requirement for
joists of 40 feet and longer to have bolted bridging in place before
slackening the hoisting lines [proposed Sec. 1926.757(d)(1)], and
not permitting the application of any loads to the joist until the
bridging is installed [proposed Sec. 1926.757(e)(2)], provide a safe
erection procedure. I am not aware of any instances where, when
these procedures were followed, there has been an accident that
additional bolting of the ends of the joists would have prevented.
All of the accidents are a result of direct violations of these
requirements.
Another commenter, the USCCG (Ex. 63), suggested that:
[a]ny possible safety concerns addressed by this paragraph are
better addressed by the other joist provisions dealing with
installation and anchorage of bridging, keeping the hoisting cable
in place until one end is attached, stabilization of the structure
prior to installing joists, among other provisions * * * The causes
of joist collapse are addressed by the other provisions of [proposed
Sec. 1926.757].
The Steel Joist Institute (Ex. 66) agreed that other provisions in
proposed Sec. 1926.757 addressed joist erection hazards and stated:
[t]he holes for bolting are not required to prevent unintentional
displacement as the proposed rule contains a multitude of other
provisions that address this concern. Specifically, paragraphs
(a)(2), (a)(6), (a)(7), (b)(3) and (c)(1)[referring to paragraphs of
proposed Sec. 1926.757] * * *
The Agency agrees that the proposed requirements for landing and
placing joists, structure stabilization prior to joist erection, and
attachment requirements contained in paragraphs (b)(3) and (c)(1)
address many of the hazards identified as causing many
[[Page 5235]]
accidents in joist erection. However, the hazard addressed by paragraph
(a)(8) is uniquely associated with long, limber joists and is not
adequately addressed in these other provisions of the standard.
Several concerns were raised by commenters about the feasibility of
bolting. Specifically, the preamble of the proposed rule stated that
prior to sizing a structural member for supporting mechanical
equipment, the structural engineer of record or design engineer must
know the exact operating weight and physical footprint of the equipment
that will be imposed onto the structure. This type of information is
critical in the sizing of the foundations and the primary and secondary
structural members (63 FR 43473). Their concern was that if the size of
the equipment is not known prior to fabrication of the steel members,
joists may need to be moved to accommodate the equipment during
erection. In that situation, the bolt holes would be in the wrong place
and another means of attachment would have to be used. Seven commenters
responded to the issue of location and size of mechanical equipment.
Two commenters (Ex. 13-294 and 13-308) stated ``[t]he structural
engineer does not need the exact size, weight or location of equipment
to properly size the members. Approximate weights and dimensions are
sufficient for design.'' Another commenter (Ex. 13-184) responded that:
* * * The supporting member of [the] joist can be drawn & fabricated
without knowing the exact location of [the] bar joist since the
joist is field welded to the supporting member. Delays in
fabrication and shipping of these supporting members will become
commonplace. Coordination will become a nightmare.
In a post hearing comment (Ex. 52), the National Council of
Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA), commented that ``[l]ocation
of services and equipment are often not finalized until erection of the
steel frame is well underway, or perhaps even complete.'' Another
commenter (Ex. 13-64) responded that ``[t]he welded detail allows for
joist spacing to be revised to suit mechanical coordination up until
installation. In today's fast track projects, this flexibility is
demanded.'' The SJI, in a post hearing comment (Ex. 66) added that:
[t]he most pernicious cost-factor will be the interruption of
scheduled work in the fabricator shop to await the final positioning
of heating, air conditioning and other mechanical equipment.
[further] * * * the design, fabrication and manufacture of
structural steel and steel joists is on a just-in-time basis. To
hold everything in abeyance until the mechanical equipment is
decided upon, purchased and available will frustrate the whole
construction sequence and drive up the carrying costs of steel
construction.
In addition, commenters raised several general feasibility concerns
about the hole requirement in paragraph (a)(8). They stated that it
would be difficult to line the holes up (Ex. 13-233), the reality of
construction would not allow the procedure to be effective (Ex. 13-
278), and since that the joist manufacturer and steel fabricator are
most often separate businesses, the coordination of precise hole
locations would not be easy (Ex. 13-226). The American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC) (Ex. 13-209) addressed the coordination
concern by stating:
[t]o allow for bolting on every job, the fabricator and the joist
manufacturer must know the exact joist spacing to prepare shop
drawings of the individual members for approval and fabrication.
This presents a severe logistical problem since contractors commonly
purchase steel well in advance of the building's mechanical system *
* * [s]afe, existing practice allows the fabricator to order joists
and mill steel (long lead-time items) prior to finalization of all
other elements of the project design. The proposed requirement would
not allow for field adjustment of the joists if exact hole location
is required. In addition, if the final location of the joists is not
known during the fabrication, how will the fabricator know where to
put the holes and if the location changes, as it often does, there
is no means to move the holes? In addition, field adjustability is
not possible with bolted hole connections causing problems for
mechanical equipment of which the location may not be known prior to
fabrication.
OSHA agrees that there is a need to allow for situations where
field adjustment is needed. Paragraph (a)(8)(ii) of the final rule
allows for immediate welding of the joist and also for movement of the
joist where constructibility does not allow for bolting. In these
instances, where a joist would need to be moved to allow for the
placement of mechanical equipment or if the joist location had to
change after fabrication and prior to erection, a weld would be
permitted to secure the joist if it is necessary for the joist to be
positioned such that the holes cannot be used. In addition, as stated
in the preamble to the proposed rule, the Agency hopes this will create
better pre-job communication between the fabricator and erector.
Furthermore, OSHA notes that all solid-web member construction requires
precise hole alignment. Therefore, the Agency feels that if solid web
structural steel can be fabricated with precise hole alignment for
multi-story sky scrapers, sports stadiums and other large structures,
then the same can be done for open web steel joist structures.
Another concern was that the proposed provision would unnecessarily
increase the hazards to fabrication workers to put the holes in the
members. Vulcraft (Ex. 13-289) stated:
* * * the cost to people ordering these products will increase due
to the additional, unnecessary fabrication requirements, this will
increase the safety and health risk of the fabrication workers and
this risk is much greater than the non-risk of welding the ends of
joists in the field.''
Another commenter (Ex. 13-25) stated ``[f]abricators will drill
millions of holes for no reason; [there is] no justification for
exposing shop fabricators to additional hazards.'' Several commenters
(Exs. 13-41, 13-234, 13-290, 13-165, 13-14, 13-144, 13-22, 13-42, 13-
309, 13-226, 13-51 and 13-209) further suggested that the requirement
would place additional burdens on the fabricator, primarily a cost
burden. The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (Ex. 13-
209) stated that the requirement ``* * * imposes tremendous economic,
manufacturing, scheduling, detailing and other burdens on both the
structural steel fabricator and the steel joist manufacturer to install
bolt holes to accommodate an erection method that will be merely
optional.'' Another commenter (Ex. 13-42) stated ``* * * the passing of
this final rule would, in some cases[,] probably double the cost of
detailing beams that would support bolted connections for joists 40
feet or [over].''
Another concern of the fabrication industry involved small
fabricators and their inability to compete with the larger fabricators
to drill or punch holes in the members. One commenter (Ex. 13-22),
referring to the proposed provision, stated ``[t]his would put an
unnecessary, and unfair burden on small fabricators who do not have
computerized drilling and/or punching lines by greatly increasing the
cost of labor.'' Another commenter (Ex. 13-12) again referring to
proposed paragraph (a)(8), stated that if the rule were adopted, he
would be forced to close his business. Because he has a small shop and
all holes are drilled by hand, he said that he would not be able to
compete with larger shops that have automated equipment.
The Agency believes that paragraph (a)(8) will increase safety for
those workers installing larger joists. The record does not demonstrate
that the provision will increase exposure to hazards in the fabrication
industry. In addition, since the final rule requires that the holes be
used for erection of the
[[Page 5236]]
joists, the fabricator will not be needlessly drilling the holes.
Finally, many commenters suggested that the proposed requirement
would increase the cost of joist erection without increasing employee
safety. Without any identified increase in safety, many commenters felt
that the increase in costs to the steel joist industry and the
structural steel fabrication industry is unjustified. One commenter
(Ex. 13-252) noted ``* * * adding 10 to 15 percent for additional labor
and materials will only serve to push these jobs out of the reach of
many small businesses.'' Additionally, SJI in a post hearing comment
(Ex. 66) presented an economic analysis of the impact of this proposal
on the steel joist industry that showed a first year cost of
$68,000,000 for this provision. They also noted that structural steel
fabricators anticipate an increase in cost of $126 per ton if the
proposed regulation is implemented. That amounts to an increase cost
for fabricated structural steel of $184.8 million, above the costs to
the joist industry. Another commenter (Ex. 13-342) responded ``the cost
of steel projects will increase significantly with little, if any,
advantage in job site safety. Cost increases will result because of the
joist girder top chord or beam top flange will have to be increased in
size and holes will have to be punched in every joist seat. Erection
cost increases will also result in making the final connection.''
One commenter (Ex. 13-57) responded that their company has never
had a worker injured during the process of welding joist ends to
structural steel beams, and that the proposed change to paragraph
(a)(8) would neither improve safety nor stability, might require
increased beam sizes and might create a tripping hazard. Another
commenter (Ex. 13-89) stated that the proposed paragraph would not
provide any safety benefit and could increase accidents due to the
efforts to bolt the ends of non-rigid joists which would require a
difficult balancing act to perform. Other commenters expressed concern
that proposed paragraph (a)(8) could be detrimental to the steel joist
industry. Specifically, the added costs for engineering, coordination,
fabrication and erection will make this type of construction non-
competitive.
As indicated above, paragraph (a)(8) only applies to long and
limber joists (40 feet or more in length) to ensure that at the
critical time of initial connection, the employee is not exposed to a
hazard as a result of the joist not being adequately secured upon its
placement. The Agency believes that the costs (addressed in the
economic analysis) of this provision will be accompanied by an
significant increase in safety. In addition, as was discussed earlier,
there may be a cost savings in erection time by performing the bolted
connection. SENRAC member Alan Simmons of the Ironworkers International
Union, and an ironworker with much field experience, stated at the
hearing (Ex. 208X, p. 189), ``It takes considerably less time to bolt
than to weld a joist in my opinion.'' In addition, Mike Cushing, an
ironworker for 29 years, described in testimony (Ex. 208X; p. 377) how
bolting is easier, faster and safer than welding. ``With welding, there
is no right spot, you have to pull a tape, get drums out and determine
the exact location of the joist to weld it. With holes, you just stick
the bolt in the hole just like any other piece of iron.'' He goes on to
state that ``* * * welding is not a very long process, but laying it
[the connection point of the joists] out, it probably will take longer
than to do the actual welding.'' Also, Steve Rank (Ex. 208X; p. 204), a
SENRAC member and an ironworker with much field experience, stated that
these long joists pose a displacement hazard as well as a hazard to the
ironworkers that are stepping onto and dragging welding weight over
them. He states that alignment is a serious issue, and that such long
joists can pop the welds and lead to accidents during erection.
In summary, most of the concerns expressed about the proposed
requirements for the holes for bolting long steel joists are eliminated
by final Sec. 1926.757(a)(8) which does not just require that holes be
provided for field bolting: it also requires that initial connections
be field bolted instead of welded. In addition, many of the remaining
concerns are eliminated by the constructibility exceptions.
In the proposed rule, OSHA justified the need for the holes in the
joists for the following reasons: (1) The provision is necessary
because certain joists that are thin and flexible can be difficult to
install because of their sweep. Bolting these types of joists first
allows straightening of the joist, thus returning its camber and
eliminating torque. Additionally, after bolting, welding can be more
easily accomplished. (2) Long steel joists that are placed in bays of
40 feet or more have a greater tendency to twist or rotate, which
creates hazards for the workers installing them. (3) Bolting is safer
whenever unattached joists could be displaced by wind or construction
activity, by the movement of employees, by trailing welding leads, by
accidental impact against the supporting structure by a crane or other
equipment, or by harmonic motion or vibration. (4) The vision and
balance of an employee working at elevation can be impaired while
wearing a welding hood, which may make bolting a safer approach in this
situation. (5) Joists can roll and pop welds due to the movement of an
worker on the joist or the stresses caused by removing the sweep; if
the weld breaks, the joist fails and may cause a structural collapse.
The Agency believes that a bolted erection connection in joists in
bays of 40 feet or more will reduce the risk of an employee fall or
collapse that can result when a long, unstable steel joist breaks loose
from its attachment. Slotted holes for bolting will provide easier
plumbing-up and alignment before the final rigid attachment is
completed. Sweep can be taken out and the bridging installed without
fear that the seat will break off. When asked for his sense of the cost
savings to a steel erector, Mr. Cordova, who has used bolted
connections in steel joists, stated (Ex. 208X; p. 211):
I think it is a significant saving in that they can protect
their workers by minimizing the exposure of the worker out there on
the structure that's unstable. If you have a bolted slotted
connection, you can stabilize the structure.
Bolted connections help protect employees from falling. Barry Cole
of Miller Safety (Ex. 208X; p. 252) stated: ``Whenever we can give a
guy a better grip, a better handling, or a better way mechanically with
some certainty and some instantaneous versus long, drawn out, [sic]
then you're better off.'' Mr. Cole went on to describe bolted
connections as a type of fall protection ``[b]ecause they reduce
exposure to a loss of balance * * *'' In the Summary of the Final
Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Section V), below, OSHA
addresses the issue of cost impact to steel joist fabricators.
SENRAC determined, and OSHA concurs, that bolting of longer joists
for their initial connection will provide additional stability during
this unstable erection period.
Paragraph (a)(9) of the final rule (proposed paragraph (a)(10))
prohibits the use of steel joists and steel joist girders as anchorage
points for a fall arrest system unless written direction allowing such
use is obtained from a qualified person. Although performance criteria
and manufacturer's specifications are not currently available regarding
the adequacy of steel joists and steel joist girders as anchorages for
fall protection systems, this provision recognizes that some joists and
girders may be strong enough to meet the load
[[Page 5237]]
requirements for anchorages in Sec. 1926.760. One commenter (Ex. 13-
210) suggested that the structural engineer of record should be the one
to provide the approval. OSHA believes the SER may not have the
knowledge of steel joist erection necessary to approve tie-off to
joists. The qualified person, however, as defined is the appropriate
entity to make the determination.
Paragraph (a)(10) of the final rule (proposed paragraph (a)(9))
addresses the hazard posed by bridging joists without establishing an
adequate terminus point for the bridging. Bridging is not effective
until a terminus point is created. ``Bridging,'' an operation integral
to steel joist construction, refers to the steel elements that are
attached between the joists (from joist to joist) to provide stability.
``Erection bridging'' is defined as ``* * * the bolted diagonal
bridging that is required to be installed prior to releasing the
hoisting cables from the steel joists.'' ``Horizontal bridging,''
usually angle iron, is attached between steel joists, to the top and
bottom chords of each joist, by welding. There are several provisions
in this section that require bridging to be anchored. This means, by
definition, that the steel joist bridging must be connected to a
bridging terminus point. The term, ``bridging terminus point,'' is
defined as follows:
Bridging terminus point means a wall, beam, tandem joists (with
all bridging installed and a horizontal truss in the plane of the
top chord) or other element at an end or intermediate point(s) of a
line of bridging that provides an anchor point for the steel joist
bridging.
Final rule paragraph (a)(10) simply requires that a terminus point
be established prior to installing the bridging in order for the
bridging to be anchored. OSHA is aware that steel erection is a
progressive process that requires one piece to be erected before the
subsequent piece can be attached to it. This provision requires pre-
planning to determine the particular location of the terminus point for
the attachment of bridging. To assist in developing or determining
terminus points, OSHA is providing illustrative drawings of examples of
bridging terminus points in non-mandatory Appendix C. In addition,
paragraph (c)(5) of this section, discussed below, deals with the
situation in an erection sequence where the permanent bridging terminus
points are not yet in existence at the time the joists and bridging are
erected. This provision remains the same as the proposed rule and no
comments were received on this paragraph.
Paragraph (b) Attachment of Steel Joists and Joist Girders
There are three types of joists identified by SJI as being used in
the steel erection industry. The K-Series open web steel joists, having
joist depths from 8 inches through 30 inches, are primarily used to
provide structural support for floors and roofs of buildings. Although
light in weight, they possess a high strength to weight ratio (Ex. 9-
141). The LH-Series steel joists span up to and including 96 feet.
These joists are used for the direct support of floor or roof slabs or
decks between walls, beams, and main structural members, and their
depths range from 18 inches to 48 inches. The ``Deep Longspan,'' or
DLH-Series joists can run up to 144 feet and have depths from 52 inches
through 72 inches. The attachment of all three series of joists is
addressed in paragraph (b) of this section. The hazard addressed in
this paragraph is the adequacy of the attachment of joists that could
affect the stability of the joist and thus the safety of the employee
erecting the joist. Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) specify the minimum
attachment specifications for the lighter and the heavier joists,
respectively. At a minimum, the K-Series must be attached with either
two \1/8\" (3 mm) fillet welds 1 inch (25 mm) long, or with two \1/2\"
(13 mm) bolts. In addition, the provision provides alternative
performance language ``or the equivalent'' to allow for attachment by
any another means that provides at least equivalent connection
strength. Similarly, at a minimum, the LH-Series and DLH-Series must be
attached with either two \1/4\" (6 mm) fillet welds 2 inches (51 mm)
long, or with two \3/4\" (19 mm) bolts. Again, OSHA is providing
performance language, ``or the equivalent,'' for the reasons discussed
above. Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) were adopted from SJI
specifications. One commenter (Ex. 13-208 commented on these paragraphs
in support stating that these provisions have ``* * * been adopted from
the Steel Joist Institute Specifications and emphasize the need for
positive attachment of joists to [their] supporting elements.'' Final
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) remain unchanged from the proposed rule.
Paragraph (b)(3) of the final rule addresses the hazards associated
with the following improper erection sequence: landing joists on the
support structure; spreading them out unattached to their final
position; and then attaching them. This procedure creates the potential
for worker injury because joists handled in this manner may fall or the
structure may collapse. To eliminate these hazards, this paragraph
requires, with one exception discussed in paragraph (b)(4) below, that
each steel joist be attached, at least at one end on both sides of the
seat, immediately upon placement in its final erection position, before
any additional joists are placed. The language, ``both sides of the
seat'', is added in the final rule to clarify what OSHA means by
attachment. One comment was received on this provision (Ex. 13-208). It
supported the requirement, stating that ``[t]his is a good provision
that establishes the need to secure joists as they are placed thus
preventing inadvertent displacement.''
Paragraph (b)(4) is an exception to the paragraph (b)(3)
``attachment upon final placement'' requirement. It addresses the
situation where steel joists have been pre-assembled into panels prior
to placement on the support structure. One commenter (Ex. 13-308)
stated that in applying the proposed provision, one might confuse the
corners of the panels with the steel joists creating the panels. The
Agency agrees that the proposed language could cause confusion, and
that we need to clarify that it is the corners of the panel that must
be attached to the structure. Final rule paragraph (b)(4) has been re-
worded to require that panels that have been pre-assembled from steel
joists with bridging must be attached to the structure at each corner
before the hoisting cables are released.
Pre-assembly of panels usually involves the installation of
diagonal and horizontal bridging to form a platform at ground level,
which eliminates fall hazards associated with attaching bridging at
elevated work stations. Placing joists on the support structure in this
manner eliminates the single joist instability concerns. Furthermore,
because of the inherent stability of these pre-assembled panels, this
paragraph requires only that the four corners of the panel be attached
to the support structure before releasing the hoisting cables. The
attachment can be either bolted or welded.
An additional benefit of panelizing joists is that, following
installation on the primary support structure, in all likelihood, the
panel will immediately provide anchorage points for fall protection
systems.
Additionally, the pre-assembly allows for alternative joist
erection methods such as a hybrid form of steel erection involving
steel/wood-panelized roof structures, where wooden decking (dimensional
wood and plywood) is attached to a single steel joist and the resulting
panels are set on the support structure (Exs. 9-94, 9-95). Again, by
placing joists on the support structure in
[[Page 5238]]
this manner, the instability concerns and other hazards associated with
attaching single joists are avoided. The same commenter (Ex. 13-208)
supported this provision by stating ``[t]his is a strong provision that
extends the requirement for attachment even in instances when the
erector chooses to panelize joists for erection.''
Paragraph (c) Erection of steel joists. Paragraph (c)(1) of the
final rule requires that for joists that require bridging as provided
in Tables A and B, at least one end of each steel joist must be
attached on both sides of the seat to the support structure before the
hoisting cables can be released. This paragraph is nearly identical to
the proposed paragraph (c)(1) except that it was clarified by adding
``on both sides of the seat'' so that it is understood that two
attachments are required at the one end of the joist. Thus, an end
attachment is considered to be attachment of both sides of the joist
seat. This change is consistent with the change in paragraph (b)(3)
above. For further clarification, to address an oversight in the
proposed standard and to conform with SJI specifications, this
provision has been limited to the joists that require bridging as
identified in Table A or B. This clarification will allow smaller
lighter joists (that do not require bridging and can be landed in
bundles) to be placed on the structure and spread out by hand. Once the
joists have been placed in their final position, however, they must be
attached in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
The Agency also determined that paragraph (c) did not properly
address the erection of heavy joists over 60 feet. Therefore, final
rule paragraph (c)(2) has been added to address the special erection
needs of these long heavy joists to conform with SJI specifications.
This paragraph will require that the seat on both ends of the joist be
attached permanently and the bridging requirements of paragraph (d) met
before hoisting cables can be released. The SJI (Ex. 13-208) commented
that it is necessary to require that the joists be secured at least at
one end prior to allowing workers on the joists.
Paragraph (c)(3) of the final rule (proposed paragraph (c)(2))
addresses steel joists that do not require erection bridging as
required by Tables A and B. This paragraph has been revised to
eliminate the reference to joists that span 40 feet or less. This was
done to be consistent with paragraph (d) of this section as discussed
below.
In the last 25 years, many new and different open web steel joists
have been manufactured. In developing Tables A and B, SJI demonstrated
that there are dozens of joists that span less than 40 feet that
require erection bridging to maintain stability during erection. SJI
also demonstrated that there are joists over 40 feet that do not need
such bridging. The Agency has accepted these findings and is following
SJI recommendations with respect to which joists need erection
bridging. SJI (Ex. 13-208) commented in support of the provision
allowing only one worker on the joists that do not need bridging ``* *
* prior to the joist being secured and the bridging being installed and
anchored.''
Based on the recognition of the inherent danger of employees
working on unstable joists, paragraph (c)(4) of the final rule
(proposed paragraph (c)(3)) requires that no employee be allowed on
steel joists, where the span is equal to or greater than the span shown
in Table A or B, unless the requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section are met. This paragraph has also been modified in the final
rule as a result of the changes to paragraph (d). Since the 40 foot
minimum length has been eliminated, this paragraph now prohibits
workers from going out on any joist that is equal to or longer than the
span specified for that joist in Table A or B unless the bridging
provisions of paragraph (d) of this section are met. The SJI (Ex. 13-
208) commented in support of this requirement.
Paragraph (c)(5) of the final rule (proposed paragraph (c)(4))
addresses the situation where the erection sequence calls for joists to
be erected before the permanent bridging terminus points have been
established. This situation commonly occurs in a single story structure
that has masonry or architectural precast walls installed after the
steel is partially or fully erected. Complying with paragraph (c)(5)
will involve pre-planning and the addition of temporary bridging
terminus points to provide stability and prevent structure collapse in
this situation. Examples of bridging terminus points can be found in
Appendix C. SJI (Ex. 13-208) commented in support of this provision by
stating ``[t]his provision recognizes situations when it is simply not
possible to terminate or anchor bridging utilizing standard procedures.
In those situations it is imperative that provisions be made to provide
the necessary stability.''
Paragraph (d) Erection Bridging
Paragraph (d) of the final rule provides that, where the span of
the steel joist is equal to or greater than the span shown in Tables A
and B, a row of bolted diagonal erection bridging must be installed
near the midspan of the joist, the bolted diagonal erection bridging
must be installed and anchored before the hoisting cables can be
released, and no more than one employee is allowed on the joist until
all other bridging (diagonal and horizontal bridging) is installed and
anchored.
Final rule paragraph (d) has been revised from the proposed rule by
eliminating the requirement that all joists in bays of 40 through 60
feet (in addition to those equal to or greater to the spans in Table A
and B) have bridging. Under the final rule, the requirements of
paragraph (d)(1) apply only to the joists identified in the Tables as
needing bridging.
Under the current standard, joists less than 40 feet long do not
require bridging, but all joists 40 feet and over do. The proposed rule
was somewhat different. Like the current standard, bridging would have
been required when erecting any joist 40 feet or longer. Unlike the
current standard, however, bridging would also have been required when
erecting those joists less than 40 feet long that are identified in
Tables A or B as requiring that procedure.
Tables A and B rate the stability (when unbraced) of a wide range
of joists--including joists 40 feet and over. According to the Tables,
a number of steel joists over 40 foot are stable without bridging.
Nonetheless, the proposed rule would have required bridging for all
joists over 40 feet in length.
Tables A and B were developed for the proposed rule and were based
on the SJI tables. The SJI tables were developed in 1994 and designed
to rate the capacity of joists with respect to a uniform dead load (an
unmoving weight resting on the joist) and live loading (for example, a
person walking on a completed roof). SJI developed the tables to
determine which joists could support, without bridging, a static 300
pound load placed on the top cord at the mid-span of the joist.
SJI retained a consultant to develop and check their tables for a
single point loading in the center of the joists. The consultant first
developed a theoretical equation to evaluate the joists, and rated the
joists. The joists were then field tested for a stationary point
loading. The testing corroborated the theoretical ratings. SJI provided
this information to SENRAC and the information was used in the
development of Tables A and B in the proposal. The Tables relate the
attachment and bridging requirements to the actual performance of
particular joists.
SENRAC decided to use the portion of the tables that identified the
need for
[[Page 5239]]
bridging of joists less than 40 feet in the proposed rule. The proposal
required bridging for all joists over 40 feet, although the SJI tables
indicated that certain joists with spans from 40 to 60 feet do not
require erection bridging. SENRAC based its decision on the following:
(1) OSHA's current steel erection standard requires all joists over 40
feet to be braced, and (2) the SJI tables are not reliable because the
loads imposed during the SJI tests were static loads; the loads imposed
by an employee are dynamic.
There were a number of commenters that objected to the failure of
the proposal to use the Steel Joist Institute (SJI) Tables in their
entirety. The Steel Erectors Association of America (SEAA) (Ex. 13-203)
stated that it could not understand why only half of SJI's
stabilization tables was used. In its view, if the testing is valid the
testing should be accepted in its entirety or not used at all.
Another commenter, Mr. Eddie Williams (Ex. 203X; p. 171), testified
that 40 feet is not necessarily an appropriate threshold for the
requirement--there may be joists that are 30 feet that need a row of x-
bridging in the center while others are stable well over 40 feet
without bridging. Speaking as an erector, he believes that it is
acceptable to rely on the SJI tables above 40 feet. Mr. Cary Andrews
(Ex. 204X; p. 133) and Mr. Studebaker (Ex. 204X; p. 33) in similar
statements said that 40 feet should not be a threshold. They stated
that the requirement for bolted x-bridging should be based on the
stability of the particular joist.
SJI (Ex. 13-208) stated that it strongly objects to the imposition
of the 40 foot rule for erection bridging. It reports that extensive
SJI research has proven that many joists over 40 feet exhibit a
sufficient degree of stiffness to allow for safe erection without
erection bridging. SJI submitted the tables based on their research. In
SJI's view, the choice of a 40-foot span as the point at which erection
bridging must be used is arbitrary.
A commenter, (Ex. 201X; p. 79 and Ex. 13-334), questioned the
Agency's authority to regulate the design of structures. They believe
that this is a matter that should not be regulated. Another commenter,
Mr. Emile Troup, from the National Council of Structural Association
(Ex. 13-308), said that: (1) joists listed in Tables A and B are
susceptible to instability without external support; and (2) proposed
rule paragraphs 1926.757(c) and (d) are cumbersome. Mr. Troup believes
that the paragraphs should be simplified to make it easier for
structural engineers, joist manufacturers and erectors to understand
the requirements. Mr. Studebaker, (Ex. 204X; p. 141) challenged the
reliability of the SENRAC tables. The results reflected in the tables
are based on static load testing. He argues that this is improper since
the loads actually imposed during erection are dynamic loads, such as
when an ironworker leans to install bridging. Ironworkers move across
the joist and move back off of it and try to balance and stabilize
themselves. In his view, the 300 pounds is a safe limit but it could be
increased sightly.
In support of the proposal, Mr. Lott (Ex. 204X; p. 100) said that
the lack of bridging could cause buckling failure. As the ironworker
moves toward the center, the compressive force in the top chord is
increased. If there is a failure, the member will fail in compression.
Mr. Williams (Ex. 204X; p. 95) supported requiring bridging in joists
over 40 feet.
As discussed earlier, OSHA believes that it is as necessary and
appropriate at times to require building components to meet the safety
needs of those constructing a building as it is to require a completed
structure to meet the safety needs of its occupants. A well established
principle of occupational safety and health is that eliminating or
reducing a hazard by modifying the design of whatever is posing the
hazard is preferable to relying exclusively on controlling a hazard
through personal protective equipment.
An open web joist is light and has a high degree of strength along
one axis--its height. In other words, once in place, it can resist
loads placed along its top edge. However, the joist is extremely weak
along the secondary axis--for a truss in place, this means that it has
little capacity to resist a force pressing against the (wide) side of
the truss. In its 1994 presentation before SENRAC, SJI addressed the
research on stability that it used to develop its tables was addressed.
The research showed that many joists over 40 feet exhibit sufficient
stiffness for safe erection without erection bridging.
In response to the concern that the dead loading tests were
insufficient, the Agency's engineers evaluated the tests and
methodology used to develop the tables. The Agency's engineers estimate
that for a 200 pound worker with 50 pounds of equipment, an additional
50 pounds of live loading will provide a safety factor of 1.2. In their
opinion a test with a larger static loading is not needed and this is
an appropriate safety factor for this type of situation. Consequently,
the Agency believes that the SJI tables that were originally submitted
by SJI are reasonable. SJI's research demonstrated that the joists over
40 feet identified in the Table as not needing erection bridging during
erection are sufficiently stable. In addition, the record lacks
evidence showing that the tables are unreliable. In sum, the record
does not show a basis for cutting off the SJI Tables at 40 feet. OSHA
has therefore incorporated the SJI tables in their entirety in the
final rule and modified the proposal's provisions accordingly.
Paragraph (d)(1)(i) of the final rule requires that bolted diagonal
erection bridging be installed near the midspan of the joist. In the
proposed rule, the provision stated simply that this row of erection
bridging had to be bolted diagonal bridging, but there was no
requirement to install the bridging. This provision was clarified in
the final rule by requiring that the bolted diagonal erection bridging
be installed near the midpoint of the joist.
Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) prohibits releasing the hoisting cables until
the bolted diagonal erection bridging is installed and anchored. As
proposed, the provision did not require the bridging to be anchored.
One commenter (Ex.13-208) suggested that the wording ``and anchored''
be added because bridging does not perform its function unless it is
anchored. He pointed out that paragraph (a)(9) of this section requires
that a bridging terminus point be established before bridging is
installed (it refers to Appendix C, which provides examples of bridging
terminus points). That suggests that, in the proposal, the intent was
for the bridging to be anchored.
OSHA agrees that, to be effective, the bridging must be anchored,
and has added this anchoring requirement to clarify that in order to
comply with this paragraph and paragraph (a)(9) of this section, the
bridging must be anchored.
Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) prohibits more than one employee from being
on the joist until all the bridging is installed. This provision will
require that all bridging that is required for the joist (both bolted
diagonal and horizontal bridging) be installed before additional
employees are allowed on the joist. No comments were received on this
provision, and it is promulgated without change.
Paragraph (d)(2) addresses the bridging requirements for steel
joists over 60 feet through 100 feet. Paragraph (d)(2)(i) has been
added to the final rule. It requires that all rows of bridging for
these spans be bolted diagonal bridging. This provision was added in
response to a comment from SJI (Ex. 13-208) in which they stated that
for these longer
[[Page 5240]]
joists, bolted diagonal bridging provides necessary stability for the
joist. The Agency's addition of this requirement reflects the current
best practice in the industry.
Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of the final rule requires that two rows of
bolted diagonal erection bridging be installed at the third points of
the joists that span 60 through 100 feet in length. An explicit
requirement that the bridging be installed has been added, as explained
above with respect to paragraph (d)(1)(i).
Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of the final rule (proposed paragraph
(d)(2)(ii)) prohibits the hoisting cables from being released until
these two rows of erection bridging are installed and anchored. The
phrase ``and anchored'' was added for the reasons discussed with
respect to paragraph (d)(1)(ii) above.
Paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of the final rule (proposed paragraph
(d)(2)(iii)) requires that no more than two employees be allowed on a
span until all other bridging is installed and anchored. The phrase
``and anchored'' has been added for the reasons discussed with respect
to paragraph (d)(1)(ii) above. This paragraph provides that all the
bolted diagonal bridging that is required for the joist must be
installed and anchored (to a bridging terminus point) before more than
two employees are allowed on the joist.
Paragraph (d)(3) applies to steel joists where the span is between
100 feet through 144 feet. Paragraph (d)(3)(i) requires bolted diagonal
bridging for all rows of bridging. The Agency received no comments on
this provision and it is unchanged in the final rule. Paragraph
(d)(3)(ii) prohibits the hoisting cables to be released until all
bridging is installed and anchored. There were no specific comments on
the proposed provision. However, as explained above, the words ``and
anchored'' have been added for consistency.
Paragraph (d)(3)(iii) restricts access to no more than two
employees until all bridging is installed and anchored. There were no
specific comments on this provision. However, the words ``and
anchored'' have been added as explained above.
Paragraph (d)(4) applies to steel members spanning over 144 feet
and requires that erection of these members be in accordance with
Sec. 1926.756. The Agency received no comment on this provision and it
is unchanged in the final rule.
Paragraph (d)(5) requires the installation of bridging before the
release of hoisting cables on any steel joist specified in paragraphs
(c)(2), (d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3). There were no specific comments on
this provision. However, as explained above, the words ``and anchored''
have been added. The final rule paragraph requires that where any steel
joist in paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this
section is a bottom chord bearing joist, a row of bolted diagonal
bridging shall be provided near the support(s). This bridging shall be
installed and anchored before the hoisting cable(s) is released.
Paragraph (d)(6) specifies that when bolted diagonal erection
bridging is required by this section, the erection drawings must
indicate the bridging and the erection drawings shall be the exclusive
indicator of the proper bridging placement. This is to eliminate any
confusion that might arise where bridging placement is specified
through other means; reliance is to be placed only on the erection
drawings for this information. In addition, shop-installed bridging
clips or functional equivalents must be provided where bridging bolts
to the steel joists. Paragraph (d)(6) also requires that when a common
bolt and nut attach two pieces of bridging to a steel joist, the nut
that secures the first piece of bridging may not be removed from the
bolt for the attachment of the second piece. In addition, when bolted
diagonal erection bridging is required, bridging attachments may not
protrude above the top chord of the steel joist. No comments on
paragraph (d)(6) were received and it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (e) Landing and Placing Loads
The work practice provisions found in Sec. 1926.754(e) regarding
the hoisting, landing and placing of deck bundles, in general, have
already been discussed above. This paragraph (e) of Sec. 1926.757 also
addresses the hazards of landing and placing loads on steel joists. As
discussed earlier, the proposed term ``decking;'' has been changed to
``metal decking'' in the final rule. This definition clarifies that
paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) apply to all activities associated
with metal decking that is used as a support element for either a floor
or roof system.
Paragraph (e)(1) applies to any employer who places a load on steel
joists during steel erection. This paragraph requires that the load is
adequately distributed so that the carrying capacity of any steel joist
is not exceeded. After this general requirement is met, the employer
must meet the specific conditions set forth in the remainder of
Sec. 1926.757(e).
The Agency received no comment on this provision, and therefore,
promulgates this requirement as proposed.
Paragraph (e)(2) prohibits placement of any construction loads on
steel joists until all bridging is installed and anchored and all joist
bearing ends are attached in accordance with Sec. 1926.757(b). As
defined in the final rule, a construction load means any load other
than the weight of the employee(s), the joists and the bridging bundle.
Although bundles of decking constitute a construction load under this
definition, under certain conditions decking can be placed safely on
the steel joists before all the bridging is installed and anchored.
These conditions form the basis for the exceptions in paragraph (e)(4)
of this section.
The Agency received no comment on this provision, and therefore,
promulgates this requirement as proposed.
Paragraph (e)(3) provides requirements for safe and stable
placement of bridging bundles on steel joists. A bridging bundle is not
considered a ``construction load.'' The weight of the bridging bundle
is limited to 1,000 pounds because bridging will be placed on the
joists before they have been fully stabilized. To ensure safe
placement, this paragraph requires that the bundle of joist bridging be
placed over a minimum of 3 steel joists that are secured at one end.
Also, to ensure stability of the load, this provision requires that the
edge of the bridging bundle be positioned within 1 foot of the secured
end (some clearance is necessary for material handling purposes and to
provide employee access to the steel joist's attachment point).
The Agency received no comments on this provision, and therefore,
promulgates this requirement as proposed.
Paragraph (e)(4) sets forth special conditions which must be met
before an employer is permitted to place a bundle of decking on steel
joists that do not yet have all bridging installed. This paragraph
applies only to bundles of decking and not to other construction loads.
All six conditions must be met before the exception to the provisions
of Sec. 1926.757(e)(2) applies.
Paragraph (e)(4)(i) requires employers to determine, based on
information from a qualified person, that the structure or portion of
the structure is capable of safely supporting the load of decking. This
determination must be documented in a site-specific erection plan which
is made available at the construction site.
Paragraph (e)(4)(ii) requires that the bundle of metal decking be
placed over
[[Page 5241]]
a minimum of three joists to distribute the load.
Paragraph (e)(4)(iii) requires that the three steel joists
supporting the bundle of metal decking have both ends attached to the
support structure. The attachments must meet the requirements
prescribed in Sec. 1926.757(b).
Paragraph (e)(4)(iv) requires at least one row of bridging be
attached and anchored to the three joists specified in
Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(iii). The qualified person determines the type of
bridging, erection bridging or horizontal bridging, needed to satisfy
this requirement.
Paragraph (e)(4)(v) limits the weight of the bundle of metal
decking to 4,000 pounds (1816 kg).
Paragraph (e)(4)(vi) requires that the edge of the bundle of metal
decking be placed within a foot (0.30 m) of the bearing surface of the
joist.
In the proposed rule, this paragraph stated that, ``The edge of the
bundle of decking is placed within 1 foot (.30m) of the bearing surface
of the joist end.'' One commenter (Ex. 13-208) requested that it be
revised to reference Sec. 1926.757(e)(5) since both requirements are
the same. The Agency agrees that the requirements are identical and has
revised the provision accordingly for consistency.
Paragraph (e)(5) specifies the location for safe placement of all
construction loads, not just metal decking, by requiring that the edge
of the construction load be positioned within 1 foot of the secured end
of the steel joists in order to enhance the stability of the load (some
clearance is necessary for material handling purposes and for access to
the steel joist's attachment point to the support structure).
Section 1926.758 Systems-engineered metal buildings
During SENRAC's deliberations on the prerequisites for anchor
bolts, beams, columns and open web steel joists, the Committee
discussed many anomalies that appeared to be associated with systems-
engineered metal buildings. The Committee was advised by the Metal
Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA) that over 50 percent of
industrial buildings in steel erection are systems-engineered. This
type of building frequently has lighter, cold formed members such as
girts, eave struts and purlins (see definitions). Larger members in
this type of construction are called rigid frames, a term not used in
conventional steel erection. There are a large number of small
specialized steel erectors who exclusively perform systems-engineered
metal building erection. In light of these considerations and in an
effort to facilitate compliance with this subpart, SENRAC developed a
separate section for systems-engineered metal buildings. OSHA proposed
a separate section and continues this approach in the final rule.
This section sets forth requirements to erect systems-engineered
metal buildings safely. Systems-engineered metal buildings are defined
in the definition section of this proposal. Systems-engineered metal
buildings include structures ranging from small sheds to larger
structures such as warehouses, gymnasiums, churches, airplane hangers
and arenas.
Systems-engineered metal buildings use different types of steel
members and a different erection process than typical steel erection.
Many contractors erect systems-engineered metal buildings exclusively.
An overwhelming majority of these erectors are small employers (63 FR
43477). The erection of systems-engineered metal structures presents
certain unique hazards that are not addressed specifically by OSHA's
existing steel erection standard. Although some of the hazards are
similar to general steel erection, other hazards, such as those
associated with anchor bolts, construction loads and double
connections, are different.
Most of the requirements in this section are similar to those in
other sections of this document. Where a conflict arises between a
provision in the systems-engineered metal building section and that of
another section of subpart R, to the extent that the work being
performed is systems-engineered metal building work, the more specific
systems-engineered metal building section would apply. This section,
however, must not be interpreted to mean that (apart from sections
1926.755 and 1926.757), the other provisions of subpart R do not apply
to systems-engineered metal buildings where appropriate.
In the proposed rule, the title of this section was ``Pre-
engineered metal buildings.'' During the public hearing, a
representative of the Metal Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA)
(Ex. 207X; pp. 246-247), advised SENRAC that the title of this section
used an out-of-date term, and suggested that it be replaced with a more
current term such as ``metal-building systems.'' MBMA's position was
based on its view that ``buildings are predominately custom engineered
for each application and are no longer selected from a catalog of
standard designs.'' The Agency believes that MBMA's suggestion is
valid. However, MBMA's suggested term ``metal-building systems'' could
be too broadly interpreted and mistakenly applied to all buildings made
entirely of metal instead of only to those which are engineered and
supplied as a complete, integrated product. Therefore, OSHA believes
that ``systems-engineered metal buildings'' better reflects that intent
and has changed the title accordingly.
Paragraph (a) states that all of the requirements contained in
subpart R apply to systems-engineered metal buildings except for
Secs. 1926.755 (Column Anchorage) and 1926.757 (Open Web Steel Joists).
This paragraph has been revised from the proposed rule to clarify that
Sec. 1926.758 contains all anchor bolt and joist requirements that are
specific to systems-engineered metal buildings.
Paragraph (b) requires all structural columns be anchored by at
least four anchor bolts. One commenter expressed concern with this
requirement and observed that different anchorage designs, including
some with fewer bolts, could meet the safety intent of this paragraph
(Ex. 13-153). It is conceivable that under certain conditions, other
designs for anchorages could provide the stability needed for safe
construction. However, it would be very difficult for those responsible
for erecting the structures to know if, from and engineering
standpoint, these other approaches would provide sufficient stability.
OSHA has decided to defer to the expertise of the Committee, which
found that a four-bolt system would be more effective and simpler to
institute.
Another commenter supported the Agency's efforts to ensure column
stability while questioning the Agency's authority to compel structural
design specifications that will require engineering expertise (Ex.13-
210). As noted earlier in the discussion of Column Anchorage (Sec. 1926
755) and Double Connections (Sec. 1926.756(c)), the Agency believes it
is appropriate to prohibit the erection of structural members that lack
key safety features.
Additionally, one commenter asked if this requirement would apply
to all columns or just to those with structural significance (Ex. 13-
173). As discussed in the Column Anchorage section, the Agency has
added definitions for columns and posts. The intent of adding these
definitions was to distinguish between columns that need to have four
bolts and those that do not. Those definitions apply to this section as
well. Only columns that fit the definition are required to have four
anchor rods/bolts.
The requirement in paragraph (c) is unique to the erection of
systems-engineered metal buildings because rigid frames are found only
in this type of structure. This paragraph requires that rigid frames
have 50 percent of
[[Page 5242]]
their bolts or the number of bolts specified by the manufacturer
(whichever is greater) installed and tightened on both sides of the web
adjacent to each flange before the hoisting equipment is released. Like
final Sec. 1926.756(a), this provision requires an adequate number of
bolts to ensure stability before the hoist line is released. Rigid
frames are fully continuous frames that provide the main structural
support for a systems-engineered metal building. They provide the
support that is typically provided by columns and beams in conventional
steel erection. Due to design and load requirements, connections in
rigid frames occupy a greater area and require more than two bolts upon
initial connection. The remaining bolts are used to attach other
members to the structure and provide stability against wind loading. To
allow these connections to be bolted only with two bolts would not be
adequate in many cases to prevent a collapse hazard. No comments were
received on this paragraph and it is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d) also pertains to stability and prohibits construction
loads from being placed on any structural steel framework unless such
framework has been safely bolted, welded or otherwise adequately
secured. Without proper bolting or welding to provide stability, a
construction load could cause a collapse of the structure. No commenter
were received on paragraph (d) and it remains unchanged in the final
rule.
For clarity, the regulatory text of proposed paragraphs (e)(1) and
(e)(2) has been incorporated into a single paragraph (e) in the final
rule. However, the paragraph is promulgated with the proposed
requirements intact.
Paragraph (e) pertains to double connections in systems-engineered
metal buildings. When girts or eave struts share common connection
holes, a double connection hazard exists. As with Sec. 1926.756(c), a
seat or similar connection will prevent one member from becoming
displaced during the double connection activity. In girt and eave strut
to frame connections where girts or eave struts share common connection
holes, paragraph (e) requires that at least one bolt with its wrench-
tight nut remain in place for the connection of the first member unless
a field-attached seat or similar connection device is present to secure
the first member so that the girt or eave strut is always secured
against displacement. In addition, paragraph (e) maintains that the
seat or similar connection device must be provided by the manufacturer
of the girt or eave strut so that it is designed properly for the
intended use. Because this form of double connection is unique to
systems-engineered metal building construction and might not be
considered a double connection under a literal reading of
Sec. 1926.756(c), this provision specifically addresses girt and eave
strut to frame connections.
Changes to proposed paragraph (e)(2) were suggested by two
commenters (Ex. 13-153), one who recommended that ``the seat or similar
connection that would normally be welded to the frame, * * * should be
provided by the frame manufacturer * * *''. The other commenter (Exs.
43 and 207X) suggested that paragraph (e) be revised to reflect current
steel erection methods in which the responsibility of installing
temporary girt or eave supports is assigned to the erector. This
suggestion also included a request to delete paragraph (e)(2).
Systems-engineered metal buildings are designed as an integrated
product--each element is designed for the completed unit. In fact, MBMA
(Ex. 207X) pointed out (in the context of what the title should be for
the section) that almost all metal buildings are now ``custom
engineered.'' Consequently, the designers of the building are
particularly well situated to know where the double connections will
be, the loads on the seats during assembly, and how to design the
seats. In contrast, the erector does not normally have this type of
design expertise and is not well situated to assess the type of seat or
other connection device necessary for each particular double
connection.
Paragraph (f) provides that both ends of all steel joists or cold
formed joists shall be fully bolted and/or welded to the support
structure before releasing the hoisting cables, allowing an employee on
the joists, or allowing any construction loads on the joists. A
commenter suggested that this paragraph be deleted because joists are
addressed more thoroughly in Sec. 1926.757 (Ex. 13-153). Two building
trades representatives submitted similar comments expressing concern
that paragraph (f)(1) was inconsistent with Sec. 1926.756(a) and that
the requirement for joist ends to be fully bolted or welded is
excessive. (Exs. 13-210 and 13-222). SENRAC found that systems-
engineered metal buildings are erected differently than other steel
structures. These different construction methods were discussed in the
preamble for the proposed rule (63 FR 43477). Systems-engineered metal
buildings rely on these connections for stability and strength. These
construction methods are essential to guard against collapse of
systems-engineered metal buildings. Therefore, the Agency is deferring
to SENRAC's expertise with respect to this difference and promulgates
this paragraph unchanged.
Paragraph (g) prohibits the use of purlins and girts as anchorage
points for a fall arrest system unless written approval to do so is
obtained from a qualified person. Generally, purlins and girts are
lightweight members designed to support the final structure. They may
not have been designed to resist the force of a fall arrest system. If,
however, a qualified person determines that the purlin or girt is of
sufficient strength to support a fall arrest system, it may be used for
that purpose. The qualified person would be required to provide written
documentation of this determination. This requirement is identical to
the one for steel joists in proposed Sec. 1926.757(a)(9).
Paragraph (h) provides that purlins may only be used as a walking/
working surface when installing safety systems, after all permanent
bridging has been installed and fall protection is provided. Purlins
are ``Z'' or ``C'' shaped lightweight members, generally less than \1/
8\" thick, 2-4" wide on the top and up to 40 feet long. They are not
designed to be walked on and, because of their shape, are likely to
roll over when used as a walking/working surface if not properly
braced. One commenter (Ex. 43) suggested that the use of cold-formed
joists as walking/working surfaces should be prohibited along with
purlins in paragraph (h). OSHA has not included cold-formed joists in
this paragraph because they provide greater stability than do purlins
which are not designed to be used as walking/working surfaces without
the addition of specific safety precautions.
Paragraph (i) addresses the placement of construction loads on
systems-engineered metal buildings to prevent collapse due to improper
loading of the structure. This paragraph requires that construction
loads be placed within a zone that is not more than 8 feet (2.5 m) from
the centerline of the primary support member. Unlike conventional
decking, systems-engineered metal building decking bundles are lighter,
and the sheets in the bundle are staggered. This staggering means that
the bundles must be set so that the end of one bundle overlaps another
bundle since the lengths of the sheets vary. The zone needs to be big
enough to allow for the lapping while still having the support of the
structure. An 8 foot (2.5 m) zone allows enough room to meet these
objectives. No comments were received and the final remains as
proposed.
[[Page 5243]]
Section 1926.759 Falling object protection
This section sets forth the requirements for providing employees
with protection from falling objects. A real, everyday hazard posed to
steel erection employees is loose items that have been placed aloft
that can fall and strike employees working below.
Paragraph (a) requires that all materials, equipment, and tools
that are not in use while aloft be secured against accidental
displacement. The Agency received no comments on this section of the
standard, and the provision is unchanged in the final rule.
The intent of paragraph (b) is that, when it is necessary to have
work performed below on-going steel erection activities (other than
hoisting), effective overhead protection must be provided to those
workers to prevent injuries from falling objects. If this protection is
not provided, work by other trades is not to be permitted below steel
erection work. One way controlling contractors can reduce the hazards
associated with falling objects is by scheduling work in such a way
that employees are not exposed.
In the proposed rule, this section was titled, ``overhead
protection.'' Most of the comments OSHA received on this section
confused this provision with the requirements for protecting workers
from falling objects associated with hoisting operations, which is
addressed by Sec. 1926.753(d). OSHA has changed the title of this
paragraph to ``Protection from falling objects other than materials
being hoisted'' so employers will not confuse the two provisions.
As proposed, Sec. 1926.759(b) stated that, ``The controlling
contractor shall ensure that no other construction processes take place
below steel erection unless adequate overhead protection for the
employees below is provided.'' Two commenters (Exs. 13-318 and 201X; p.
120) stated that the controlling contractor may not always be able to
ensure that nobody is working under a steel erector. In other words,
these commenters believe that the use of the word ``ensure'' would make
the controlling contractor strictly liable--would have to guarantee--
that no one worked below the steel erection activities. The use of the
word ``ensure'' in this standard does not make the controlling
contractor liable if it institutes reasonable measures to comply with
the requirement. All defenses normally available to employers are
equally available where a requirement is phrased using the term
``ensure.''
For a different reason, however, the Agency has rephrased the
provision to read that the controlling contractor will ``bar'' other
construction processes below steel erection. This change was made to
more directly state that the employer must institute measures to keep
employees out of the area below the steel erection activities.
Section 1926.760 Fall Protection
Paragraph (a) General Requirements
Paragraph (a) sets the fall protection threshold height for steel
erection activities. Final paragraph (a)(1) requires that, with two
exceptions, each employee covered by this rule who is on a walking/
working surface with an unprotected side or edge more than 15 feet
(4.6m) above a lower level must be protected by conventional fall
protection (systems/devices that either physically prevent a worker
from falling or arrest a worker's fall). One exception allows
connectors to not use their personal fall protection to avoid hazards
while working at heights between 15 and 30 feet. The other exception
allows workers engaged in decking in a controlled decking zone to work
without conventional fall protection at heights between 15 and 30 feet.
This is essentially the same as the proposed rule and SENRAC's
recommendation. OSHA added a provision setting out the types of
protection allowed. Protection must be provided by the use of guardrail
systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, positioning
devices systems or fall restraint systems. The Agency also re-worded
the exception for connectors to clarify that they are permitted to not
use their fall protection system where, in their sole discretion, they
determine that is necessary to avoid a hazard.
Prior to enactment of this final rule, the fall protection
requirements for steel erection were in three separate provisions.
Depending on the structure and the type of fall exposure, one of the
following applied: Secs. 1926.750(b)(1)(ii), 1926.750(b)(2)(i) (both
are in subpart R), or Sec. 1926.105(a) (subpart E, Personal Protective
and Life Saving Equipment). These provisions were the subject of
considerable litigation, the product of which was the following: (1) In
single story structures, Sec. 1926.105(a) applied, which required fall
protection at and above 25 feet for both fall hazards to the interior
and exterior of the structure; (2) in multi-tiered buildings,
Sec. 1926.750 applied to fall hazards to the interior of the building.
Several courts held that, under that standard, fall protection was
required at and above 30 feet; (3) in multi-tiered buildings,
Sec. 1926.105(a) applied to fall hazards to the exterior of the
building, which required fall protection at and above 25 feet. With the
exception of Sec. 1926.754(b)(3), the final rule eliminates
distinctions between interior and exterior fall hazards and tiered
versus untiered buildings for the fall protection trigger heights.
The fall protection rules for steel erection differ from the
general fall protection rules in subpart M, which set six feet as the
trigger height for fall protection. OSHA agrees with SENRAC that steel
erection activities are different from most other construction
activities. The different trigger height reflects these differences.
OSHA also agrees with SENRAC that the former fall protection rules
relating to steel erection are insufficiently protective and need to be
strengthened.
In examining the issue of the threshold height for requiring
conventional fall protection, SENRAC considered 29 CFR 1926 subpart M,
the general fall protection standard for construction. In general, the
subpart M trigger height for fall protection is six feet. SENRAC
evaluated whether the trigger height in steel erection should be
different than that in subpart M and concluded that it needed to be
higher.
Steel erection differs from general construction in three major
respects--the narrowness of the working surface, its location above,
rather than below, the rest of the structure, and a minimum distance of
approximately 15 feet to the next lower level. We explained the steel
erection process in the proposal as follows (63 FR 43478-79):
Initially, vertical members, referred to as columns, are
anchored to the foundation. The columns are then connected with
solid web beams or steel joists and joist girders to form an open
bay. In a multi-story building, the columns are usually two stories
high. These structural members are set by connectors in conjunction
with a hoisting device (typically a crane). When the two-story
columns are set in place, the connector installs the header beams at
the first level, which forms the first bay. Each floor is typically
12.5 to 15 feet in height. After an exterior bay is formed (``boxing
the bay''), the filler beams or joists are placed in the bay. The
connector then ascends the column to the next level, where the
exterior members are connected to form a bay, and so on. The floor
or roof decking process basically consists of hoisting and landing
of deck bundles and the placement and securing of the metal decking
panels.
In short, a new, very narrow working surface is constantly being
created as skeletal steel is erected at various heights. For many steel
erectors, especially connectors, the work starts at the top level of
the structure.
[[Page 5244]]
The special circumstances of steel erection can make conventional
fall protection very difficult to deploy below 15 feet. For many steel
erectors, especially connectors, the work starts at the top level of
the structure. This means that anchor points above foot level are often
limited or unavailable. Because of the nature of the structure, the
available fall arrest distance is usually about 15 feet.
Thus, we noted in the proposal that fall equipment manufacturers
appeared before the Committee and discussed the relationship between
the fall distance when fall arrest systems are used and the trigger
height for requiring fall protection (63 FR 43479). The location of
anchor points, in conjunction with a number of other factors, will
affect the fall arrest distance--the distance a worker will fall before
the fall arrest system stops the fall. The fall arrest distance is the
sum of the distance the worker falls before the fall arrest system
begins to stop the fall, plus the additional distance that it takes for
the system to slow and then finally stop the fall completely. Other
factors that affect the fall arrest distance include the type of fall
protection system used, the type of components and how the system is
configured and anchored. The degree of mobility needed for the worker,
location of available anchor points, and the need to limit the
arresting forces on the worker's body also affect the choice of system
and its installation.
Personal fall arrest systems commonly used by workers in full body
harnesses often have one of the following: (1) Shock absorbing lanyard;
(2) self-retracting lifeline; (3) rope grab with vertical lifeline; or
(4) shock absorbing lanyard with rope grab and vertical lifeline. Fall
arrest distances can vary with different types and lengths of lanyards.
The distances can also vary in systems that permit the user to adjust
the amount of slack.
The three common types of anchorage systems include: (1)
Horizontally mobile and vertically rigid (such as a trolley connected
to a flange of a structural beam); (2) horizontally fixed and
vertically rigid (such as an eyebolt, choker or clamp connected to a
structural beam, column or truss); and (3) horizontally mobile and
vertically flexible (such as a horizontal lifeline suspended between
two structural columns or between stanchions, which are attached to a
structural beam and designed to support the lifeline). Eight feasible
combinations of personal fall arrest systems and anchorage connectors
were discussed (63 FR 43479). The total fall distance can differ
significantly depending on how the system is configured. A system using
an anchorage connector, harness and shock absorbing lanyard will have a
total fall distance between 3 and 23 feet, while the total fall
distance for a system using an anchorage connector, harness and self-
retracting lifeline will measure between 4 and 10.5 feet. (Exs. 6-10
and 9-77-Tables 6 and 7). In 1995, one fall protection manufacturer
indicated to SENRAC that the lowest point of the ironworker's body
should be at least 12.5 feet above the nearest obstacle in the
potential fall path when using a properly rigged, rigidly anchored,
personal fall arrest system of the shock absorbing lanyard type or
self-retracting lifeline type. In view of the types of equipment
available, potential locations of anchor points, and typical distance
between work surfaces and the next lower level, the Committee
determined that 15 feet was an appropriate threshold for requiring fall
protection, subject to the two exceptions mentioned above.
OSHA received comments supporting a requirement for fall protection
beginning at 15 feet (Exs. 13-354; 13-151; and 13-207C). The National
Erectors Association (Ex. 208X, p. 115) supported a 15-foot rule and
testified against the ``one size fits all'' trend (relative to having a
6-foot rule). Robert Banks of the Safety Advisory Committee of
Structural Steel (Ex. 205X, p. 294) felt that, when finalized, the
proposed rule would generate widespread use of personal fall arrest
equipment. Innovative Safety, (Ex. 207X, pp. 15-16) testified that 15
feet was realistic and that various fall arrest systems could be used
at that height. One commenter (Ex. 13-246) advocated a 10-foot rule.
However, OSHA also received comments and testimony in support of a
6-foot fall protection rule. Several commenters advocated consistency
between Subpart R and M (Exs.13-159; 13-148; 13-121; 13-260; and 13-
215). Some general contractors stated they support a 6-foot fall
protection rule for steel erectors (Exs. 207X, p. 211; 207X, pp.134-
135, p.172; 207X, pp. 182-186; 207X, p. 172; 13-366; 13-352; 13-306;
13-346; 13-340; 13-338; 13-240; 13-229; 13-214; 13-192; 13-167; and 13-
159). Five of these companies testified to the successful
implementation of their 6-foot programs for steel erection for all
steel erection operations, including connecting and decking. For
example, a representative from Kellogg Brown & Root testified (Ex.
207X, pp. 133-134) that their company has had a 6-foot policy for eight
years. When the structure cannot accommodate fall protection or fall
prevention systems, their company uses aerial lifts and/or scissors
lifts. W.S. Bellows Construction Corp. implemented a 6-foot fall
protection policy in 1994 (Ex. 207X, pp. 136-141) when subpart M took
effect. Bellows testified that their policy has increased productivity,
decreased insurance costs, and saved lives. An official from CENTEX
Construction Co., a general contractor, declared (Ex. 207X, pp.182-186)
that his company, because of positive experiences on earlier projects,
implemented a policy to hire only subcontractors using 6-foot programs.
Turner Construction Company's spokesman testified (Ex. 207X, p. 211)
that their company would prefer a 6-foot rule, but could operate with a
15-foot threshold.
Four commenters referenced the fatality statistics and were
concerned that OSHA included the SENRAC fall protection provisions in
the proposed rule. These commenters contended that technology was
available to protect steel erection workers at 6 feet (Nigel Ellis Ex.
23; Beacon Skanska Const. Co. Ex.-13-285; Clark Construction. Co. Ex.
202X, p. 9-10; and Joseph Fitzgerald Ex. 13-31). However, one of these
commenters, Mr. Nigel Ellis, acknowledged that preplanning might not
preclude all the anchorage point problems, and where employers prove
that it is infeasible to provide overhead anchorage points, the rule
should contain provisions that would permit free fall distances greater
than 6 feet. For example, if workers are in situations where the only
anchor point is at foot level, there would be difficulties when using
personal fall protection at 6 feet. In general, in order to use a
personal fall arrest system at 6 feet, the system would have to either
be anchored above the worker's head or set up to restrain the worker
from stepping past an open side or hole. For many steel erection
activities, he noted this may be difficult to achieve at 6 feet.
During the rulemaking process, SENRAC and OSHA analyzed accident
information derived from OSHA's IMIS system. There were two studies on
steel erection fatalities--a seven-year OSHA study and a subsequent
eleven-year OSHA/SENRAC study (which included the previous study's
data; Exs. 9-14A; 9-42 and 49). An earlier OSHA five-year study of
construction fatalities in general showed that 8% of the fatal falls
occurred between 6 and 10 feet and that 25% occurred between 11 and 20
feet. However, of that 25%, the Agency does not know how many
ironworker fatalities occurred between 11 and 15 feet. With this
significant gap in the data, we cannot determine whether a high
proportion of the falls between 11 and 20 feet occurred below 15 feet.
We note that much of the steel erection
[[Page 5245]]
work involving single story structures, such as warehouses, is done at
or above 15 feet.
After analyzing the entire record, the Agency has determined that
the use of conventional fall protection at 15 feet and above is
necessary and feasible in most cases. While some general contractors
and large industrial steel erectors may be providing fall protection
below 15 feet, the data are unclear with respect to how much of a need
there may be for requiring fall protection in steel erection at those
lower heights. Also, many situations in steel erection do not permit
connecting fall protection below 15 feet. In addition, steel erection
work that is done between 6 and 15 feet is often performed from
ladders, scaffolds, or personnel work platforms (63 FR 43479).
Therefore, OSHA has decided not to require conventional fall protection
in steel erection below 15 feet.
Paragraph (a)(2) covers requirements for perimeter safety cables.
It is modified from the proposal and moved from proposed
Sec. 1926.756(f)(1). It specifies that perimeter safety cables shall be
installed at the final interior and exterior perimeters of multi-story
structures as soon as the decking has been installed. These cables must
be installed regardless of other fall protection systems in use. They
must meet the criteria for guardrail systems in subpart M
(1926.502(b)).
The final requirements differ from those proposed by specifying
when the cables must be installed: ``as soon as the decking has been
installed.'' Although the proposal's preamble stated SENRAC's and
OSHA's intention that ``these cables * * * be installed as soon as the
deck has been installed * * *'' (63 FR 43471), the proposed regulatory
text carried over the broader language of the current requirement that
cables be installed ``during structural steel assembly.'' To carry out
SENRAC's intention, as well as to improve clarity, we have specified
when the cables must be installed, so that they can protect the detail
crews which follow the decking crews (Id.).
The final rule also changes the minimum thickness requirement of
the cable to \1/4\" to conform to the guardrail specifications required
in subpart M (Sec. 1926.502(b)). We had proposed the cable be at least
\1/2\," which was the previous requirement of subpart R. We agree with
the commenters that the subpart M requirements for guardrails are
appropriate for the perimeter safety cables in steel erection.
The Associated General Contractors of Wisconsin and D.C. (Exs. 13-
334 and 13-210) suggested that the name ``perimeter cable'' be changed
to ``perimeter cable guardrails'' to be consistent with Subpart M.
Because the term ``perimeter safety cable'' is so commonly used in the
steel erection industry, the Agency has decided not to adopt this
suggestion.
A few participants (Exs. 206X, p. 55; 13-63; and 13-209) stated
that the meaning of perimeter is undefined because the perimeter may
change as work progresses. However, in the vast majority of buildings
the perimeter columns define the final perimeter where the edges will
not be expanded. LeMessurier Consultants (Ex. 13-127) suggested that
the proposed words ``periphery'' and ``perimeter'' lead the reader to
believe that only the outermost edges of the structure have to be
guarded and that the final interior perimeters (such as for atriums)
are similar to final exterior perimeters in that these edges will not
be expanded. We agree, and the final text makes clear that the final
``interior'' as well as the final ``exterior'' must be protected by the
use of safety cables. However, we are not including an appendix with
diagrams, as suggested, because of the wide variety of perimeter
configurations.
One commenter (Ex. 206X, p. 55) testified that the steel erectors
had the ingenuity to erect the perimeter safety cables and should be
responsible for complying with the standard. Others commented that it
should be the controlling contractor's responsibility to comply with
the standard or to make sure, by contract, that competent people do the
work and that it is a common practice for erectors to be tasked, by
contract, with installing perimeter safety cables along with their
other work.
The majority of the general contractors testified (see for example,
Exs. 13-63, 13-116, 13-161 and 13-203) that they were opposed to making
the controlling contractor responsible for the erection of equipment
required in the steel erection standard. They feel the erectors are the
most experienced at erecting perimeter safety cables and should have
that responsibility.
The perimeter cable provision in the proposal did not specify
either the steel erector or the controlling contractor as responsible
for installing the perimeter cables. Section 1926.750(a) states, in
part, that ``the requirements of this subpart apply to employers
engaged in steel erection unless otherwise specified.'' Since the
perimeter cable provision does not specify any particular entity as
responsible for installing the cables, all employers engaged in steel
erection with respect to the project are responsible for compliance
with this provision, including the controlling contractor. The extent
of the controlling contractor's responsibility for complying with this
provision would be determined in accordance with the Agency's multi-
employer policy; that policy applies to all controlling employers,
irrespective of the type of construction.
Paragraph (a)(3) requires that connectors and employees working in
controlled decking zones be protected from fall hazards as provided in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, respectively. The final rule
retains (with some modifications) the proposed exceptions to the
general requirement that fall protection be provided at heights above
15 feet. According to paragraphs (b) and (c), employers of connectors
are partly excepted from the general rule and employers of leading edge
decking workers are excepted from some of the general fall protection
requirements if they comply with specified alternative procedures in
these paragraphs. These provisions were the subject of much division of
opinion both during SENRAC's deliberations and during the post-proposal
phase of this rulemaking procedure. We discuss these provisions
immediately below.
Paragraph (b) provides a special rule for employers of connectors.
Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) are unchanged from the proposal. Paragraph
(b)(1) requires each connector be protected from fall hazards of more
than two stories or 30 feet (9.1 m) above a lower level, whichever is
less. Protection at this height is currently required by OSHA's
existing steel erection standard for all employees engaged in steel
erection. Paragraph (b)(2) requires each connector to complete
connector training in accordance with Sec. 1926.761. Such training must
be specific to connecting and cover the recognition of hazards, and the
establishment, access, safe connecting techniques and work practices
required by Sec. 1926.756(c) and Sec. 1926.760(b).
Final paragraph (b)(3) provides that connectors must be provided,
at heights over 15 and up to 30 feet above a lower level, with a
personal fall arrest system, positioning device system or fall
restraint system and wear the equipment necessary to be tied off, or be
provided with other means of protection from fall hazards in accordance
with paragraph (a)(1) (or, for protection against perimeter falls,
(a)(2)) of this section.
This provision reflects SENRAC's findings that at times connectors
need to remain unencumbered. The revised
[[Page 5246]]
final provision also makes clear that this exception applies only where
the employer has provided the connector with a complete personal fall
protection system. This includes a personal fall arrest system as
defined in Sec. 1926.751 with secure anchorages for tying off.
Employers may, of course, protect connectors working between 15 feet
and 30 feet with another allowable fall protection system, in which
case this limited exception does not apply.
The Committee's minutes (Ex. 6-1 through 6-11) show that the
proposed ``connector exception'' was a compromise position. It was
adopted by the Committee after listening to testimony of connector
panels, fall protection equipment representatives, general contractor
representatives, and steel erector representatives, all presenting
differing views on whether connectors need different fall protection
requirements than other non-connecting ironworkers. The Committee was
informed that California's rule allowed the connector to be untied
between 15 and 30 feet and the rule appears to be operating
successfully (June 27-29, 1995-Committee Minutes). SENRAC told OSHA
that it intended to define ``connector'' narrowly because the primary
purpose of the definition was to specifically define which ironworkers
are covered by the ``connection exemption.''
We proposed this exemption to reflect SENRAC's consensus agreement.
As shown above, SENRAC recognized that the issue of fall protection for
connectors was highly controversial. The minutes of the Committee show
that some of its members agreed on the provision only when they were
assured that within 3 years from the rule's effective date, the Agency
would evaluate the available accident data and assess whether the rule
was sufficiently protective.
The proposal set out reasons why SENRAC believed that this
exception was necessary: ``The Committee believes that under certain
conditions, the connector is at greater risk if he/she is tied off. For
example, in the event of structural collapse, a tied-off connector
could be forced to ride the structure to the ground.'' (63 FR 43480).
The major concern of proponents of the exception both during
SENRAC's meetings and during the rulemaking comment period and hearing,
was that connectors needed freedom of movement and requiring them to
tie-off would hinder this. The concern, as stated previously, was that
in the event of structural collapse, a connector would be forced to
``ride the structure to the ground'' if tied off, whereas he/she could
jump free of the collapsing structure if he/she were not tied off. The
ability to move without restraint in order to get away from incoming
loads is also stated as a reason for connectors not to tie off.
The following discussion of the record combines information in the
minutes of the committee with as information and comment submitted
directly into the post-proposal record.
Fall protection was discussed during every SENRAC meeting. From the
start, some committee participants stated that connectors need to
remain unencumbered, both to do their job and to avoid dangerous
conditions they commonly face. In the July, 1994 meeting where the full
committee met with the fall protection workgroup, this point was made.
Participants noted that connectors and some other steel erection
workers are highly trained and experienced. It was stated that it would
be a ``greater hazard'' to tie off such highly experienced people. (The
term ``greater hazard'' has a precise legal meaning; it is an
affirmative defense which requires employers to demonstrate various
elements in order to be relieved of a citation. However, throughout
SENRAC's discussions and the subsequent rulemaking, the term was used
informally.) In its deliberations, SENRAC considered whether there are
any jobs that requires a person to not be protected from fall
protection because it is technically and economically infeasible. In
the August, 1994 SENRAC meeting, a group of connectors from the
Ironworkers Local #7 discussed ``their experiences and views on the
relative merits of mandatory fall protection for connectors and other
workers.'' They uniformly stated that they needed to remain
unencumbered when they were working with hoisting equipment and some
members recounted personal experiences where they were able to escape
collapses and incoming steel only because they were not tied off. By
the November 27-December 1, 1995 meeting, SENRAC agreed on a consensus
view incorporating the limited exception for connectors, as proposed. A
few participants insisted that OSHA review fall statistics within 3
years after the final rule becomes effective, to check on whether the
exception is adequately protective of connectors.
Issue #12 in the proposal asked the public to comment on whether
there should be specific criteria indicating when connectors should
tie-off. We also asked if it was feasible or posed a greater hazard for
connectors to tie-off and if it should be the employer's responsibility
to determine where and when fall protection should be required. Several
ironworkers testified during the December 1998 hearings about their
personal experiences and belief that it is important to be able to move
freely and, at times, to jump off a collapsing steel member.
Several commenters (Exs. 13-68; 13-345; 13-349; 13-331; and 13-114)
stated connectors needed freedom of movement up to 30 feet. One
commenter (Ex. 13-114) said the concern is not with falling, but being
able to get away from the steel during a collapse. A member of the
Ironworkers' Panel No. 1 testified (Ex. 205X, pp. 312-313) that even
though the connector appears to be ``running around like he's crazy,
he's not. He has a place to go, and he knows where he is going at all
times.''
A number of other commenters objected to allowing connectors to
choose whether to use fall protection, but none of these individuals
indicated that they had experience connecting (Exs. 13-31; 13-60; 13-
210; 13-222; and 13-334). The point was made, however, that, ``in the
case of structural collapse, the connector will ``ride the structure to
the ground'' whether or not he/she is tied off'' (Ex. 13-31). The
companies described above that advocated requiring fall protection at 6
feet require the connectors on their projects to be tied-off at all
times. Furthermore, some commenters supporting the connector exception
acknowledge that incoming steel can injure or kill connectors when they
are not tied-off; Peterson Beckner Industries, Inc., (Ex.13-354)
related the case of two employees who were hit by incoming loads: the
one who was tied off was hit and suffered a broken arm. The one who was
not tied off was knocked off of a beam at the exterior of a building
and was killed.
The record also contains two studies on steel erection fatalities--
a seven-year study and a subsequent eleven-year study (which included
the previous study's data) (Exs. 9-14A; 9-42 and 49). The eleven-year
study categorized fatalities in a number of ways, including by
``activity'' and by ``cause.'' Of the various causes listed, collapse
was the third highest at 15.8% of the fatalities (the highest category
was falls from slipping at 24%; second was ``unknown'' at 17%). By
activity, connecting was second highest at 17% (the most dangerous
activity was decking, at 23%).
The concern about collapses is the most cited reason for allowing
connectors to not use fall protection equipment. SENRAC recommended and
OSHA proposed new provisions that
[[Page 5247]]
address the causes of collapses such as inadequately cured concrete
column foundations and inadequate or improperly repaired anchor bolts.
The final rule addresses these by requiring concrete to be properly
cured, a sufficient number of anchor bolts to support the columns and
that anchor bolts are properly repaired (Sec. 1926.752(a);
Sec. 1926.755(a); and Sec. 1926.755(b)). This should reduce the risk of
collapse to connectors.
With respect to uncontrolled incoming steel exposing connectors to
struck-by hazards, the final rule contains criteria for hoisting and
rigging of steel members to minimize the likelihood of a suspended load
shifting, falling and striking employees. Paragraph (a) of 1926.753
requires a competent person to perform a pre-shift visual inspection of
the crane, and for qualified riggers to inspect all rigging prior to
each shift. Section 1926.753(b) addresses working under the load. This
paragraph requires employers to minimize employee exposures to the
extent possible; however, it may be necessary for certain employees,
such as connectors and those hooking and unhooking loads, to briefly
work directly below a suspended load. To minimize this hazard,
qualified riggers are required to rig the load to prevent displacement
and to use a self-closing safety latch (or equivalent). These
precautions are designed to minimize the chance of components
disengaging from the hook and causing the load to fall, which should
also reduce the risk to connectors.
After reviewing the comments and testimony submitted to the
rulemaking record after the proposal was published, OSHA has determined
that the post-proposal rulemaking record is similar to the comment and
testimony submitted to the Committee during its meetings and in various
workgroup meetings. In addition, the consensus agreement of the
Committee, which included representatives of all interests affected by
this rule, reflects an agreement that employee safety would be promoted
by the adoption of the proposed standard, including the connector
exception. Comment and testimony submitted by connectors and various
representatives of ironworker employees overwhelmingly supported the
proposed provision allowing connectors to not tie-off when working
below 30 feet. For all these reasons, the Agency has decided to defer
to the determinations of the Committee and allow connectors to not be
tied-off in order to avoid hazards. The definition of ``connector''
reflects SENRAC's intention to define that term narrowly. And as
requested by some members of SENRAC, OSHA will examine the compliance
experience of this provision within 3 years to determine if connectors
are adequately protected from falls applying these provisions.
In sum, since the Committee considered the full range of evidence
on this issue in its deliberations, the Agency is deferring to its
expertise and assessment of that evidence. The Committee's expertise,
in combination with the information relied upon by the Committee, has
provided OSHA with much of the supporting evidence for this standard.
While other approaches for protecting connectors against falls may be
possible, based on the Agency's concurrence with the negotiated
proposal, the information in the record, including material used and
generated by SENRAC during the negotiating process, OSHA has relied on
the Committee's expertise and decided in this instance in favor of the
approach recommended by SENRAC.
Paragraph (c) Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ).
The final standard's provisions for controlled decking zones (CDZ)
are mostly unchanged from the proposal. The CDZ is an alternative to
fall protection for leading edge decking workers between 15 and 30 feet
above a lower level. If an employer establishes a CDZ that conforms to
paragraph (c), employees authorized to be in that zone who are trained
pursuant to Sec. 1926.761, do not have to be provided with or use a
fall protection system. OSHA proposed the provision based on SENRAC's
consensus view that this alternative approach to fall protection would
substantially reduce the number of accidents involving falls during
decking.
Paragraph (c)(1) requires that each employee doing leading edge
work in a CDZ must be protected from fall hazards of more than two
stories or 30 feet, whichever is less. CDZs are inappropriate for
decking operations at and above these heights. For example, single
story, high bay warehouse structures and pre-engineered metal buildings
often require decking operations more than 30 feet above lower levels.
The exception would not apply in these situations.
An important aspect of a CDZ is controlled access. OSHA fatality
date (Ex. 9-14 and 9-49), indicate that some employees who suffered
fatal falls from areas that were being decked were not engaged in
leading edge work. Paragraph (c)(2) limits access to the CDZ
exclusively to those employees who are actually engaged in and trained
in the hazards involved in leading edge work.
Final paragraph (c)(3) addresses the physical limits of a CDZ, and
requires that the boundaries be designated and clearly marked. The CDZ
shall not be more than 90 feet (27.4 m) wide and 90 feet (27.4 m) deep
from any leading edge, and control lines, or the equivalent (for
example, the perimeter wall), shall be used to restrict access to the
area.
The proposal asked for public comment on whether a definition of
``control lines'' was necessary, or whether non-mandatory appendix D,
which describes acceptable criteria for control lines, provided an
adequate description. It also asked whether appendix D should be
incorporated into the fall protection provisions.
Several commenters (Exs. 13-113, 13-170G, 13-344, 13-173, 13-210
and 13-215) requested that Subpart R's control line criteria conform to
the criteria found in subpart M--Sec. 1926.502(g)(3). In the final
rule, OSHA has made the provision more consistent with subpart M where
possible. A new paragraph was added to subpart R's appendix D regarding
flagging or marking of the control line with highly visible material.
The only remaining difference in the control line requirements is the
allowable distance from the leading edge. A control line for a
controlled decking zone is to be erected not more than 90 feet (27.4 m)
from the leading edge, while the maximum distance permitted in Subpart
M is 25 feet. The longer maximum distance in Subpart R is needed
because of the size of the bays that are decked.
A commenter (Ex. 13-86), a contractor who performs traditional and
pre-engineered steel erection, asked OSHA to conform the requirements
for ``control lines'' in subpart R with the requirements for ``warning
lines'' in subpart M since, in its view, the two systems serve
basically the same purpose. OSHA disagrees with the commenter. We
believe the systems perform different functions and therefore need
different criteria to address those differences.
The controlled decking zone section requires that the boundaries of
the zone be designated and clearly marked and that the access be
limited exclusively to those employees engaged in leading edge work.
One means of fulfilling this obligation is to erect control lines.
While other methods might also be used, control lines are commonly used
to restrict access to the unprotected area by creating a highly visible
boundary. Their high visibility readily defines the area in which
employees will work
[[Page 5248]]
without conventional fall protection, and visually warns employees that
access is limited to authorized personnel. Warning line systems,
however, are erected close to the edge of a roof (as close as 6 feet).
They delineate the area where mechanical equipment may be used on
roofs, and warn employees when they are approaching a fall hazard. The
criteria for warning lines contemplated that there would be unintended
contact with the line (such as an employee backing into it), and that
such contact will attract the employee's attention, enabling the
employee to stop in time to avoid falling off the roof. As referenced
in the preamble to subpart M (59 FR 40712), the basis for the warning
line system originated from the 1980 rule for Guarding of Low-Pitched-
Roof-Perimeters During the Performance of Built-Up Roofing Work (45 FR
75618-631). The 1980 preamble specifically stated that warning lines
function by providing a direct physical contact with the employees.
This direct physical contact with the line dictates that the criteria
for warning lines be substantially stronger and more rigid then a
system whose primary function is to limit access by a visual warning.
Paragraph (c)(4) states that each employee working in a CDZ must
complete the CDZ training, as specified in this subpart. Employees are
required to be trained to recognize the hazards associated with working
in a controlled decking zone, and trained in the establishment, access,
safe installation techniques and work practices required by certain
sections of this subpart, such as Sec. 1926.754(e)--Decking and
Sec. 1926.760(c)--Controlled Decking Zone.
Paragraph (c)(5) requires that during initial placement, deck
panels shall be placed to ensure full support by structural members.
This provision addresses the specific hazard that results when full
support is absent when placing metal decking. For example, in steel
joist construction, metal deck sheets are typically 20 feet or longer
and may span more than 4 joists (typically spaced 5 feet apart). A
hazard is created if the deck is placed so that only three joists are
supporting the sheet and the deck ends are unsupported. A worker not
using fall protection and stepping onto the unsupported end of a deck
sheet so placed is exposed to a potentially fatal fall hazard.
Paragraph (c)(6) states that unsecured decking in a CDZ shall not
exceed 3000 square feet (914.4 m\2\). This section is intended to limit
the area of unsecured decking in which employees work. Because metal
decking sheets are typically not uniformly sized and can create
alignment problems, it is common practice to install a series of
unsecured sheets on the structural member prior to fastening. The
Committee believed that 3000 s.f. would be necessary for the metal
decking to be placed and then properly aligned prior to tack welding.
The final rule, in Sec. 1926.760(c)(6), prohibits more than 3000
feet of unsecured decking in the CDZ. This provision is unchanged from
the proposal. OSHA explained this provision in the preamble to the
proposal as follows: ``The proposal would limit the area of unsecured
deck to 3000 square feet (914.4 m\2\) to restrict the exposure to
employees engaged in the placement of these deck sheets. Given the
dimensions of typical bay (a typical bay is approximately 9000 s.f.),
3000 square feet was determined to be an appropriate limit that would
allow for the decking to be placed and alignment to be performed prior
to tack welding. This limit would thus greatly reduce the hazards
associated with large areas of decking being left unattached and
unattended.'' (63 FR 43481). The Steel Decking Institute's
representative, Robert Paul, recommended that the provision be changed
to require immediate securing of the decking in a CDZ. ``The SDI cannot
endorse the concept of a CDZ with deck being unfastened and petitions
that it be changed. Our position is and [has] always been that decking
can be fastened immediately and should not be walked on until after it
is fastened.'' (Ex. 203X; p. 98). Phil Cordova, a SENRAC member,
acknowledged that immediate securing was probably feasible in some
cases: ``* * * I think that you're probably correct on some decks
probably need to be attached immediately.'' (Ex. 203X; p. 104). By
contrast, SDI acknowledged in testimony that there were instances where
you could not immediately attach the decking: In response to Mr.
Cordova's question: ``How would you align these decks if they're
attached and they vary in size?'', Mr. Paul stated: ``Most decks, those
with a nestable side lap, certainly have an adjustability that they can
be laid to a varying level of coverage. Even decks that have a button
punchable side lap within the standard button punchable type side up,
there is some leeway to it. Some decks cannot. Some decks do need to be
incremented that have no adjustability in the button punchable side
lap. And really the only way to put those down is to increment them.''
(Ex. 203X; p. 105). Mr. Cordova elaborated on the kind of decking which
cannot be immediately secured. It is ``type B'' decking, a corrugated
type of decking used generally as a ``roof deck, not as a floor deck''
that ``we generally see in warehouse applications''. (Ex. 203X; p. 142-
143). Mr. Cordova agreed that this type of decking is used in multi-
story structures as well (Id).
Since this issue was so closely considered by the Committee during
its deliberations, the Agency has decided to defer to its judgment and
promulgate the provision essentially unchanged. Although the final rule
does not require it, OSHA encourages employers to use alternative kinds
of decking which are easier to attach initially, wherever such decking
is appropriate and available.
Paragraph (c)(7) states that safety deck attachments shall be
performed in the CDZ from the leading edge back to the control line and
shall have at least two attachments per panel. This provision was
intended to address the hazard in leading edge work that arises when an
employee turns his/her back to the leading edge while attaching deck
sheets. This provision will help prevent employees from inadvertently
stepping off the leading edge. Safety deck attachments are usually
accomplished with tack welds but can also be achieved with a mechanical
attachment, such as self-drilling screws, or pneumatic fasteners.
Paragraph (c)(8) prohibits final deck attachments and the
installation of shear connectors from being done in the CDZ. Activities
such as these are not leading edge work, and employees performing this
type of work can be readily protected from falls by the use of
conventional fall protection.
Phil Cordova, testifying for the Decking Panel of SENRAC, stated:
``this controlled decking zone that [SENRAC has] created will save
lives. It will make the job a lot safer. This is our recommendation * *
*'' (Ex. 208X; p. 143). Fred Codding, another member of SENRAC,
testified that the CDZ provision ``was one of the most important
decisions made during the course of SENRAC'' (Ex. 208X; p. 211). Mr.
Codding noted that the decision to recommend the CDZ ``influenced other
segments of the proposed standard, which deal with decking such as
loads, covering holes and other things. They were all part of a real *
* * compromise * * *'' (Id).
Some of the comments to the record questioned the sufficiency of
the CDZ alternative to prevent falls in light of the statistical
information in the record showing that a high percentage of steel
erection fatalities result from decking accidents. SENRAC believed that
many
[[Page 5249]]
of the accidents attributed as falls during decking will be prevented
by the restricted access of the CDZ, and by requirements for decking
construction in paragraph Sec. 1926.754. SENRAC's position was stated
by Mr. Codding at the rulemaking hearing:
[M]any of these accidents were merely not people just walking
off or falling off the leading edge of decking, but * * * (were due
to) the lack of knowledge on how to install floor or roof decking; *
* * people were walking through the area that had no business in the
area (and) were falling and slipping through the sheets; that they
had no idea the sheets were loose and could become displaced; that
there was improper bearing on the sheets on the structural beam
supporting them; that bundles of the decking were landed on
unsecured members.
(Id at 67).
As pointed out by the testimony of Mr. Robert Samela, president of
a metal deck erecting company operating as deck erectors since 1972,
``this reduction in fatalities ignores the positive effects of
additional training * * *'' (Ex. 208X; p. 138-139).
The question of whether to require conventional fall protection for
decking operations was vigorously debated during the SENRAC
deliberations. SENRAC reached its position after various contractors,
equipment manufacturers and decking workers appeared before the
Committee and discussed both the feasibility of conventional fall
protection and whether to rely instead on CDZs to protect workers from
falls.
When OSHA proposed the standard, we asked the public for
information about the feasibility and hazard potential of providing
fall protection to deckers (63 FR 43485). Comments were submitted which
indicated that some general contractors had successfully employed fall
protection systems for decking workers (Ex. 207X; pp. 172-173, 207X;
pp. 235-239, 202X; pp. 153-154, 207X; pp. 292-293 and 13-73). However,
the evidence and objections to the provision submitted after the
proposal were similar to the evidence and objections considered by the
Committee during its deliberations. Virtually all the employees who
testified or submitted opinions into the record on their experience on
the decking issue supported the Committee's recommended provisions for
the CDZ alternative to fall protection.
On this record, the Agency defers to the Committee and leaves the
provision unchanged in the final rule. Other approaches for protecting
decking employees against falls may be possible. However, based on the
Agency's concurrence with the negotiated proposal and its reliance on
the Committee's expertise, we have decided to promulgate SENRAC's CDZ
alternative as proposed.
The CDZ alternative has built-in restrictions and will allow only a
small number of workers to work without fall protection. Although the
accident data presented to the record shows that decking accidents rank
first in fatalities in steel erection, further analysis shows that some
of the ``decking'' fatalities involved workers doing other jobs (for
example, roofers falling onto unsecured decking; see also Ex. 9-14 and
9-49). The CDZ alternative applies only to workers performing leading
edge work and initially attaching the decking. These are the only
workers who are allowed to enter a CDZ. We agree with Mr. Bill
Shuzman's statement (Ex. 208X; p. 130) that: ``The controlled decking
zone deals with a very small percentage of the number of people who are
considered deckers. These are the people who do leading edge deck
work.'' Further, the CDZ alternative provisions to fall protection
apply only while leading edge work is being performed. ``Leading edge''
in this standard has the same meaning as in subpart M, OSHA's general
construction fall protection standard. That standard, Sec. 1926.500
(b), states that ``leading edge means the edge of a * * * walking/
working surface (such as the deck) which changes location as additional
* * * decking [is] placed * * *''. For decking in steel erection, the
core ``leading edge'' tasks are lifting decking panels from the bundles
placed on the secured decking next to the leading edge, and placing and
aligning the panels prior to tack welding. As soon as the decking for
the leading edge is finished (placed for fastening), that area no
longer qualifies for use of a CDZ, and any employees in the area must
be otherwise protected from falls.
The provisions making up this exception clearly limit the
exception's application. We emphasize that the CDZ is not a general
exception to fall protection requirements for all employees who install
decking, or who work in the area while decking is being installed.
Paragraph Sec. 1926.760(c) states that a CDZ alternative to fall
protection is allowed only for decking employees when metal decking is
being initially installed and while that decking material forms the
leading edge of a work area.
A core requirement of the CDZ alternative is Sec. 1926.761(c)(3),
which specifies that only employees trained in accordance with the
standard's CDZ training provisions are allowed in the CDZ. That
provision requires that each employee be provided training in ``the
nature of the hazards associated with work within a controlled decking
zone; and the establishment, access, proper installation techniques and
work practices required by Sec. 1926.760(c) and Sec. 1926.754(e). This
special CDZ training supplements the required fall hazard training in
Sec. 1926.761(a). OSHA believes that the implementation of these new
training provisions will improve the safety of all employees who work
in areas where decking is being installed. The record contains evidence
that some employers are already providing this training. At the hearing
Mr. Michael White of the Training Department of the International
Association of Bridge, Structural Ornamental and Reinforcing
Ironworkers stated that his organization, ``in response to the new
training provisions'' has already started to develop specialized
training curriculum for CDZ workers and other activities required to be
trained under SENRAC's recommended standard. According to the statement
read by Mr. White, these training programs ``will be taught at
approximately 160 training centers as an integral part of the
apprenticeship training and journeyman training conducted at these
centers. In addition, this new training curricula will also be used at
the annual Ironworkers Instructors Training Program, * * * held * * *
for a period of two weeks to train persons who are certified
instructors in local and state ironworker training programs through the
United States * * * '' (Ex. 208X; pp. 62-63). Mr. Codding (Ex. 208X; p.
65), an employer representative, also testified that he introduced
SENRAC's training recommendations on CDZ work and other areas at the
annual instructor training referenced by Mr. White. ``There were some
500 participants that I reviewed those (the decking requirements and
several of the connecting requirements) with.'' Mr. Codding continued:
``I really want to point out that we as employer contractor
representatives have also taken steps to coordinate this training
curriculum, which is being developed.''
Paragraph (d) Criteria for Fall Protection Equipment
A new paragraph (d) was added to the final rule to clearly state
that the protective systems mentioned in paragraph (a)(1) must conform
to the criteria found in subpart M. Several commenters felt that
proposed paragraph (a)(2) was too confusing. Some confusion resulted
from the proposed rule's requirement that restraint systems meet the
requirements
[[Page 5250]]
of Sec. 1926.502. The confusion stems from the fact that Sec. 1926.502
does not mention restraint systems.
Final paragraph (d)(1) requires guardrail systems, safety net
systems, personal fall arrest systems, positioning device systems and
their components to conform to the criteria in Sec. 1926.502. Section
1926.502 does contain requirements for components of personal fall
arrest systems, many of which are also used in restraint systems.
Final paragraph (d)(2) clarifies that the components used in a
restraint system in steel erection work must meet the requirements in
Sec. 1926.502 for those components. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) indicated
that the terms ``fall restraint system'' and ``positioning device
system'' were interchangeable. Two fall protection consultants, Mr. Dan
Paine and Mr. Nigel Ellis, testified that the terms should be
distinguished. Mr. Paine describes a restraint system as a means to
restrain someone from falling by not allowing them to get to the
leading edge (Ex. 207X, pp. 12-13). Mr. Ellis says (Ex. 202X, pp. 128-
129) that OSHA should decide whether fall restraint is a means of
restricting a person's motion towards an edge or is the same as a work
positioning device. He further stated that these systems are poorly
understood by the construction industry, manufacturers and by various
OSHA offices due to the similarity of their components. Other
commenters (Exhibits 13-3, 13-192 and 13-221) expressed concern over
allowing workers to fall while wearing a body belt, apparently in
reference to the fact that body belts are permitted to be used in
positioning devices and restraint systems. They urged consistency
between subparts R and M.
The Agency has recognized that restraint systems and positioning
devices refer to different types of protective devices. Under subpart
M, a positioning device (1) allows an employee to be supported on an
elevated, vertical work surface, such as formwork or rebar assemblies;
(2) permits the worker to work with both hands free while leaning
backwards, and (3) limits a fall to up to two feet. Restraint systems
are not mentioned in subpart M. However, the Agency has defined
restraint systems in letters of interpretation as systems that prevent
workers from being exposed to any fall. Restraint systems may be used
on either a horizontal or vertical work surface.
In brief, a positioning device enables an employee to work in a
position that allows the employee to fall, but only up to two feet. A
fall restraint system prevents the employee from reaching an open side
or edge, thus preventing the employee from falling.
Because the Agency has correctly distinguished these devices in the
past, the final rule has been changed to be consistent with these
distinctions. Both systems must use components that comply with
Sec. 1926.502. We are reprinting the criteria from Sec. 1926.502 in
Appendix G to assist employers and employees.
Final rule paragraph (d)(3) requires that perimeter safety cables
must comply with the relevant criteria for guardrail systems in
Sec. 1926.502. E-M-E, Inc. (Ex. 202X; p. 65) testified that other
trades often use the cables to climb or tie off to. Perimeter safety
cables must not be used as an anchorage point for personal fall arrest
systems unless they were engineered to serve that purpose.
The proposed rule included perimeter safety cables as one of the
specified methods of fall protection and specified that the cables
consist of \1/2\-inch wire rope or equivalent. Final paragraph (d)(1)
requires that if perimeter safety cables are used, they must consist of
\1/4\ inch wire rope or its equivalent. OSHA retained the requirement
for the cables to be made of wire due to the higher probability that
these cables may be struck by loads or exposed to the heat of welding
on steel structures.
Many commenters asked to change the \1/2\ inch diameter requirement
for perimeter cables to \1/4\ inch. Arguments were made that some
companies have already purchased \1/4\ inch cable and a switch to \1/2\
inch would be costly. We presume that those companies have invested in
\1/4\ inch cable to comply with Subpart M, which requires \1/4\ inch
cables for fall protection systems, for their non-steel erection work.
Vulcraft (Ex. 13-4) and Fred Weber, Inc. (Ex. 13-218) had concerns that
if the \1/4\ inch cable requirement were switched, those that have
invested in \3/8\ inch would have to switch to \1/4\ inch.
The final rule in paragraph Sec. 1926.760(d)(3) explicitly states
that perimeter safety cables shall meet the criteria for guardrail
systems in Sec. 1926.502(b) (subpart M). This was not clear in the
proposed regulatory text as pointed out by some rulemaking
participants. Mr. Bob Emmerich, AGC of Wisconsin, testified (Ex. 201X,
p. 78, pp. 88-90, pp. 107-108) that his organization agreed with the
proposal, but felt the requirement should be consistent with subpart M.
He stated that confusion could be avoided if the criteria for perimeter
safety cables in subpart R mirrored that in subpart M's guardrail
provision. Others also advocated consistency with subpart M (Exs.13-
173; 13-210 and 13-215).
Under Subpart M, Sec. 1926.502 (b)(9), top and midrail cables must
be at least \1/4\ inch (``to prevent cuts and lacerations''), but they
may be thicker. So, employers operating under Subpart M now, with large
stocks of \1/4\ inch cable, will not have to purchase \1/2\ inch cable
if they begin working on steel erection jobs.
A safety consultant (Ex. 13-151) suggested that instead of
specifying a minimum diameter, we specify the strength, grade, lay and
cores of the cable, as well as the spacing between the supports. We
point out that, apart from the \1/4\ inch diameter requirement, subpart
M specifies strength and deflection performance requirements in lieu of
specifications.
Paragraph (e) addresses the need to ensure that fall protection
equipment is maintained even after steel erectors have completed their
work. Usually, perimeter safety cables are initially installed and
maintained by the steel erector, but the cables remain on site after
steel erection work is completed. With this provision, the fall
protection equipment will only be left in place if the controlling
contractor (or its authorized representative) has taken responsibility
for ensuring that it will be properly maintained. Without this
provision, the fall protection could fall into disrepair and become
ineffective. This requirement is fairly similar to the AISC Code of
Standard Practice (Ex. 9-36, p. 15) which states:
When safety protection provided by the erector is left remaining
in an area to be used by other trades after steel erection activity
is completed, the owner shall be responsible for accepting and
maintaining this protection, assuring that it is adequate for the
protection of all other affected trades, assuring that it complies
with all applicable safety regulations when being used by other
trades, indemnifying the erector from any damages incurred as a
result of the safety protection's use by other trades, removing the
safety equipment when no longer required and returning it to the
erector in the same condition as it was received.
Commenters in support of the provision stated that steel erectors
were concerned that if they left their fall protection in place after
finishing their work, nobody would maintain the fall protection, and
they would be held liable. OSHA agrees with the commenters that this
could give employers of other trades a false sense of security, and
could cause employees to be injured.
Other commenters asserted that controlling contractors should not
be required to provide fall protection to the employees of other
employers. First, this provision does not require the
[[Page 5251]]
controlling contractor to accept responsibility for the fall protection
equipment. The controlling contractor has the option of refusing to
accept responsibility. If it refuses to accept responsibility, then the
fall protection equipment must be removed. Second, the controlling
contractor already has obligations with respect to the safety of
employees of other employers under the Agency's multi-employer policy.
A controlling contractor may refuse to accept responsibility for the
equipment and require the other trades to erect and maintain their own
fall protection equipment. Such a decision would be consistent with
both that policy and this provision. As a practical matter, it was
SENRAC's view that the controlling contractor is in the best position
to make the decision about whether to accept responsibility for the
equipment, since it has authority over the site and can best coordinate
the other trades and deal with the ramifications of this type of
decision. The record does not show that view to be unreasonable.
Section 1926.761 Training
The OSHA steel erection standard has many new requirements
involving more widespread use of personal fall protection equipment and
special procedures for making multiple lifts, for decking activities in
controlled decking zones and for connecting. SENRAC and OSHA recognized
the need for a separate training section to address these and other
requirements. The requirements in Sec. 1926.761 supplement OSHA's
general training and education requirements for construction contained
in Sec. 1926.21.
Since the employer can choose the provider, method and frequency of
training that are appropriate for the employees being trained, the
employer has flexibility in developing and implementing a training
program. The program must meet the requirements of this section, and
each employee must be provided the training prior to exposure to the
hazard. The employer can choose the provider, method and frequency of
training that are appropriate for the employees being trained. The
provider may be an outside, professional training organization or other
qualified entity, or the employer may develop and conduct the training
in-house.
A commenter (Ex. 13-246) pointed out that the training provisions
do not require that the employer verify that the employees understand
what they have been taught. Another commenter (Ex. 13-216) recommended
that OSHA's goal should be to mandate that ironworkers are trained and
certified as competent by their employer.
The requirement to provide training is met only when the training
is effective in providing the knowledge stipulated in these provisions.
An effective training program necessarily involves some means of
determining whether the instruction is understood by the employee. This
can be done in a variety of ways, such as formal oral or written tests,
observation, or through discussion. The previous commenter added that
retraining is not addressed but needs to be included with a requirement
for annual refresher training with verification (Ex. 13-246). Another
commenter (Ex. 13-354) asserted that there is no mention of prior
training received from previous employers. He argued that if an
ironworker has been trained by his previous employers to possess a
certain skill or skills (for example, a connector), it seems costly and
unnecessary to require the ironworker to be re-trained prior to going
to work for another employer.
While retraining/refresher training is not specifically addressed,
the employer is responsible for making sure that it has programs
necessary to comply with the training requirements in
Sec. 1926.21(b)(2): ``The employer shall instruct each employee in the
recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations
applicable to his work environment to control or eliminate any hazards
or other exposure to illness or injury.'' Steel erection involves
progressive sequences of erection, so that the work environment on any
one day may involve entirely different or unique new hazards than the
day before and that new employees may enter the erection process when
it is already underway. In order to apply Sec. 1926.21 during steel
erection activities, an employer would have to assess the type of
training needed on a continuing basis as the environment and changes in
personnel occur. It is the employer's responsibility to determine if an
employee needs retraining in order to strengthen skills required to
safely perform the assigned job duties, and whenever the work
environment changes to include newly recognized or encountered hazards.
This is a key element in the employer's accident prevention program.
Where an employer hires a worker, such as a connector, who is
already trained and skilled, OSHA anticipates that the employee's high
level of knowledge will be readily apparent and easily ascertained by
informal discussion and observation.
A commenter (Ex. 13-216) suggested that the complexity of the steel
erection standard will require extensive training to ensure that
ironworkers are aware of the new way of performing their work. The
Safety Advisory Committee of the Structural, Ornamental, Rigging and
Reinforcing Steel Industry (SAC) (Ex. 208X; p. 68) commented that they
support the training requirements as proposed.
OSHA agrees that additional training will be required to ensure
that the employees are aware of and understand the regulations
applicable to their work environment. However, the Agency believes that
the new requirements in this rule are needed to make steel erection
safer, and the additional training requirements will play a major role
in achieving that increased safety.
Paragraph (a) requires that all training required by this section
be provided by a qualified person. As discussed earlier, a ``qualified
person,'' is defined in Sec. 1926.751 as one who, by possession of a
recognized degree, certificate, or professional standing, or who by
extensive knowledge, training, and experience, has successfully
demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the
subject matter, the work, or the project.
Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) require employers to provide a
training program for all employees exposed to fall hazards. The program
must include training and instruction in recognition and identification
of fall hazards in the work area [(b)(1)]; the use and operation of
guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems, fall restraint
systems, safety net systems, controlled decking zones and other
protection to be used [(b)(2)] ; the correct procedures for erecting,
maintaining, disassembling, and inspecting the fall protection systems
to be used [(b)(3)]; the procedures to be followed to prevent falls to
lower levels and through or into holes and openings in walking/working
surfaces and walls [(b)(4)]; and the fall protection requirements of
Sec. 1926.760 [(b)(5)].
In the proposal, paragraph (b)(2) stated that training had to be
given with respect to perimeter safety cables as well as guardrails.
The reference to perimeter safety cables in the training section has
been deleted in the final rule because, under the final rule, perimeter
safety cables are considered guardrails (under Sec. 1926.760 (b)(3),
they must meet the requirements for guardrails in Sec. 1926.502). There
were no comments received regarding these provisions, and no other
changes were made in the final rule.
Paragraph (c) requires specialized training for employees engaged
in multiple lift rigging procedures, connecting activities and work in
controlled decking zones, due to the
[[Page 5252]]
hazardous nature of these activities. There were no comments received
regarding the provisions in Sec. 1926.761(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3), and
they are promulgated without change.
Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) require additional training for
employees performing multiple lift rigging in accordance with the
provisions in Sec. 1926.753(e). The special training includes, at a
minimum, the nature of the hazards associated with multiple lifts; and
the proper procedures and equipment to perform multiple lifts.
Paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) require employers to ensure
that each connector has been provided training in the hazards
associated with connecting, and in the establishment, access, proper
connecting techniques and work practices required by Sec. 1926.760(b)
(fall protection) and Sec. 1926.756(c) (double connections).
Paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii) require employers to provide
additional training for controlled decking zone employees. The training
must cover the hazards associated with work within a controlled decking
zone, and the establishment, access, proper installation techniques and
work practices required by Sec. 1926.760(b) (fall protection) and
Sec. 1926.754(e) (decking operations).
Appendices to Subpart R
The following appendices neither create additional obligations nor
eliminate obligations otherwise contained in the standard. They are
intended to provide useful, explanatory material and information to
employers and employees who wish to use it as an aid to understanding
and complying with the standard.
Appendix A to Subpart R--Guidelines for Establishing the Components
of a Site-Specific Erection Plan (Non-Mandatory). As explained in the
discussion for the section governing site-specific erection plans
(Sec. 1926.752), this appendix was developed by SENRAC as a non-
mandatory set of guidelines to assist employers in complying with the
requirements of final paragraph Sec. 1926.752(e). If an employer
follows these guidelines to prepare a site-specific erection plan, it
will be deemed as complying with the requirements of paragraph
Sec. 1926.752(e). No comments were received on this Appendix and it
remains unchanged from the proposed rule except for adding ``anchor
rod'' in (c)(3)(iii) to be consistent with the changes made to
Sec. 1926.755 of the final rule.
Appendix B to Subpart R--Acceptable Test Methods for Testing Slip-
Resistance of Walking/Working Surfaces (Non-Mandatory). Appendix B is
provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist employers in
complying with the requirements of final rule paragraph
Sec. 1926.754(c)(3). The two nationally recognized test methods
referred to in appendix B, ASTM F1677-96 (Standard Test Method for
Using a Portable Inclineable Articulated Strut Slip Tester) and ASTM
F1679-96 (Standard Test Method for Using a Variable Incidence
Tribometer), provides the protocol for testing coatings for skeletal
structural steel surfaces to obtain the documentation or certification
required by Sec. 1926.754(c)(3). No comments were received on this
Appendix and it remains unchanged from the proposed rule except for
correcting the cite to ASTM F1677-96 which was incorrectly identified
as ASTM F1678-96 in the proposed rule.
Appendix C to Subpart R--Illustrations of Bridging Terminus Points
(Non-Mandatory). This appendix is a non-mandatory guide to assist
employers in understanding the requirements of section
Secs. 1926.757(a)(10) and 1926.757(c)(5). The illustrations show
several (but not all) common bridging terminus points. This Appendix
remains unchanged from the proposed rule except that a reference was
added to Sec. 1926.757(a)(10) which was overlooked in the proposed rule
and correcting an inaccurate reference to Sec. 1926.757(c)(3) in the
proposed rule. This appendix is provided to employers as a non-
mandatory guide to assist in complying with the requirements of
sections 1926.757(a)(10) and 1926.757(c)(5).
The Agency received two written comments addressing this appendix.
One commenter (Ex. 13-308) stated that: (1) The anchors indicated in
many of the figures should be labeled as ``appropriate anchors'' rather
than ``lag with shield or embedded anchor;'' (2) lag shield anchors are
not always appropriate; and (3) the notation ``looped around top
chord'' should be changed to ``wrapped around top chord.'' The other
commenter (Ex. 13-151) identified a number of deficiencies in the
illustrations.
The Agency's engineers reviewed the comments on the illustrations
and believe the illustrations are accurate illustrations of some common
bridging terminus points. The titles of the illustrations are terms
that are commonly understood in the industry. These illustrations were
not meant to cover all construction site situations.
Therefore, the agency has not changed the illustrations or the
titles. The proposed text in Appendix C is adopted as a nonmandatory
reference.
Appendix D to Subpart R--Illustration of the Use of Control Lines
to Demarcate Controlled Decking Zones (CDZs) (Non-Mandatory). Appendix
D is provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist employers in
complying with the requirements of final rule paragraph
Sec. 1926.760(c)(3). If the employer follows these guidelines to
establish a control line to demarcate a CDZ, OSHA will accept the
control line as meeting the requirements of paragraph
Sec. 1926.760(c)(3). This appendix neither creates additional
obligations nor eliminates obligations otherwise contained in the
standard. It is intended to provide useful explanatory material and
information to employers and employees who wish to use it as an aid to
understanding and complying with the standard. No comments were
received on this appendix and it remains unchanged from the proposed
rule.
Appendix E to Subpart R--Training: (Non-Mandatory). Appendix E is
provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist employers in
complying with the requirements of final paragraph Sec. 1926.761. Even
before the existence of OSHA, the Ironworkers International Union
provided apprenticeship training in steel erection to its members. This
training has been approved by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of
Apprenticeship Training for over forty years. As soon as this program
is updated to reflect the requirements of this new subpart R, training
under this program will be deemed as complying with the training
requirements of Sec. 1926.761. As stated in Article XI of the current
approved National Apprenticeship and Training Standards for
Ironworkers:
The [Ironworkers Joint Apprenticeship] Committee shall seek the
cooperation of all employers to instruct the apprentices in safe and
healthful work practices and shall insure that the apprentices are
trained in facilities and other environments that are in compliance
with either the occupational safety and health standards promulgated
by the Secretary of Labor under [the OSH Act] or state [plan]
standards* * * (Ex. 9-139; p. 8).
Training approved by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of
Apprenticeship Training is not the only training that OSHA will accept
under this standard. Employers may choose to provide their own
training, provided that it fulfills the requirements of Sec. 1926.761.
[[Page 5253]]
As proposed, Appendix E stated: ``The training requirements of
Sec. 1926.761 will be deemed to have been met if employees have
completed a training course on steel erection, including instruction in
the provisions of this standard, that has been approved by the U.S.
Department of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship.''
One commenter (Ex. 13-222) indicated that there are many other
avenues for training that are not approved by the U.S. Department of
Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship Training, such as trade associations,
training organizations, consultants and in-house training programs; yet
the appendix does not include any sources other than those approved by
the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship Training.
Another commenter (Ex. 13-210) expressed a similar concern, stating
that the Appendix implies that the only training that is acceptable is
training done through an apprenticeship program approved by the U.S.
Department of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship Training. The commenter
recommended that trade associations, training organizations,
consultants and in-house training programs be included in Appendix E as
acceptable/recognized training entities; if not, then Appendix E should
be omitted. Another commenter (Ex. 201X; p. 82) recommended that OSHA
either state in Appendix E that ``employers may choose to provide their
own training, provided that it fulfills the requirements of
Sec. 1926.761,'' or omit appendix E.
OSHA has decided to retain appendix E as proposed. We emphasize
that appendix E does not require that training be approved by the U.S.
Department of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship Training. Training
provided by others is sufficient if it meets the requirements of
Sec. 1926.761. The Appendix simply identifies certain training--
training approved by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of
Apprenticeship Training--that OSHA deems acceptable to meet the
requirements of Sec. 1926.761. It is appropriate for OSHA to
acknowledge a training program that is administered through another
office within the Department of Labor.
Training approved by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of
Apprenticeship Training may be used as a guide for developing and
assessing other training programs. The proposed text in Appendix E is
adopted as proposed.
Appendix F to Subpart R--Perimeter Columns (Non-Mandatory). Since
perimeter safety cables are the method prescribed by Sec. 1926.756(e)
for guarding of perimeters, final rule appendix F provides guidance for
installing them. As proposed, the first part of appendix F stated that,
``in multi-story structures, the project structural engineer of record
(SER) may facilitate the ease of erecting perimeter safety cables,
where structural design allows, by placing column splices sufficiently
high so as to accommodate perimeter safety cables located at 42-45
inches above the finished floor. The SER may also consider allowing
holes to be placed in the column web, when the column is oriented with
the web perpendicular to the structural perimeter, at 42-45 inches
above the finished floor and at the midpoint between the finished floor
and the top cable * * *''.
The National Council of Structural Engineers (Ex. 13-308) suggested
that the reference to the SER be removed and replaced by a reference to
a ``competent person.'' Commenters, including a staff member from
Minnesota DOT-Office of Bridges and Structures (Ex. 13-359), stated
that the erector is the most competent party when it comes to erecting
perimeter cables. In their view it has been a responsibility written
into their contracts in the past and the responsibility should remain
with them. It was also argued in testimony (201X; p. 49) that if SERs
were to follow the guidelines in appendix F, they would be taking on
the responsibility of ensuring that the components of a perimeter cable
system comply with the requirements of subpart R, which would raise
liability issues.
Apart from these concerns, the Agency has determined that this
first part of the appendix could be confusing. The appendix may give
the impression that having columns extend a minimum of 48 inches above
the finished floor to permit installation of perimeter safety cables
prior to the erection of the next tier is suggested but not required.
That is not the case--it is required by Sec. 1926.756(e)(1). The
standard also requires perimeter columns to be supplied with holes or
other devices in or attached to perimeter columns at 42-45 inches above
the finished floor and the midpoint between the finished floor and the
top cable to permit installation of perimeter safety cables (except
where constructibility does not allow). Therefore, this first part of
the appendix has been omitted in the final rule.
The rest of the proposed appendix does not refer to the SER. It is
being retained because it contains design suggestions that would
facilitate compliance with the requirements of Sec. 1926.756(e). The
appendix recommends that column splices be placed at every other or
fourth levels, as design allows.
Appendix G to Subpart R--Fall Protection Systems Criteria and
Practices from Sec. 1926.502 (Non-Mandatory). Appendix G is provided to
assist employers in complying with the requirements of
Sec. 1926.760(d). Appendix G restates paragraphs (b) through (e) of
Sec. 1926.502, which provide the criteria for guardrail systems, safety
net systems, personal fall arrest systems and positioning device
systems. These criteria are referenced by Sec. 1926.760(d), and are
included here for the convenience of employers and employees.
Appendix H to Subpart R--Double Connections (Non-Mandatory).
Appendix H illustrates two methods (clipped end connection and
staggered connection) that an employer may use to comply with the
requirement in Sec. 1926.756(c)(1) by maintaining at least a one bolt
connection with its wrench tight nut while making a double connection.
These two methods are not the only ways to comply with the standard.
These illustrations were added in response to a commenter's
suggestion that OSHA add an illustration to show an example of a
clipped end connection (Ex. 13-207). Clipped end and staggered
connections are sound, engineered methods for maintaining a one bolt
connection throughout the double connection process. OSHA is adding an
illustration of a staggered connection as well, which is also an
effective means of maintaining the one bolt connection.
V. Summary of the Final Economic and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
Introduction
This final standard is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order (EO) 12866 and a major rule under the Congressional
Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act. Accordingly, OSHA has developed a final economic analysis
(FEA)(Ex. 83) of the costs, benefits, and regulatory and non-regulatory
alternatives of the rule, as required by the EO. The FEA revises OSHA's
preliminary economic analysis (Ex. 11) and is based upon a thorough
review of the rulemaking record. This section of OSHA's notice of final
rulemaking summarizes the Agency's economic analysis of the final steel
erection standard.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended in 1996,
requires OSHA to determine whether the Agency's regulatory actions will
have a
[[Page 5254]]
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Making
such a determination for this final standard required OSHA to perform a
screening analysis to identify any such impacts. OSHA's screening
analysis indicated that the rule might, under two worst-case scenarios,
have significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, OSHA has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
summarized below, to accompany the final steel erection rule.
OSHA's final economic analysis and final regulatory flexibility
analysis include a description of the industries potentially affected
by the standard; a summary of the major changes between OSHA's existing
steel erection standard (subpart R of Part 1926) and the final rule; an
evaluation of the risks addressed; an assessment of the benefits
attributable to the final standard; a determination of the
technological feasibility of the new requirements; an estimate of the
costs employers will incur to comply with the standard; a determination
of the economic feasibility of compliance with the standard; and an
analysis of the potential worst-case economic and other impacts
associated with this rule, including those on small businesses. Below
are summaries of each of the major sections of OSHA's final economic
analysis.
Affected Industries
This final steel erection standard affects industries and
establishments within the construction industry. Table 1 presents the
industry groups in construction that will be directly affected by the
final standard. Construction employers who are subject to the rule
because they have employees engaged in steel erection activities are
concentrated within SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection, an industry
with 4,675 establishments and 55,965 employees in 1998, as reported by
Dun & Bradstreet [D&B, 1998]. Within this industry, 3,898
establishments, or 83 percent of the total number of establishments,
employed nineteen or fewer employees in 1998, while 3,238
establishments (69 percent) employed nine or fewer employees. SIC 1791,
however, also includes employers and workers who perform construction
activities other than steel erection, notably pre-cast concrete
erection. Further, contractors primarily engaged in other activities
sometimes have employees engaged in steel erection. Thus, any
comprehensive profile of the steel erection industry must, in addition
to examining affected industry groups, focus on the type of work and
the trade of the workers engaged in this form of construction.
Table 1.--Industry Groups in Construction Potentially Affected by the Final Steel Erection Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishments with 1-9 Establishments with 1-19 Establishments with 1-99 Establishments with 100 + All Establishments b
employees employees employees employees ---------------------------
SIC Industry group Iron ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total
workers a Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Number of industry
establishments employment establishments employment establishments employment establishments employment establishments employment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Building Construction--General 19,310 273,905 765,249 291,906 989,256 302,859 1,362,573 925 169,293 305,474 1,531,866
Contractors and Operative
Builders......................
152 General Building Contractors-- 2,310 216,235 581,751 226,038 702,822 230,404 843,782 222 38,239 231,632 882,021
Residential Buildings.........
153 General Building Contractors-- 50 17,995 48,256 19,123 62,040 19,879 86,737 52 9,422 20,049 96,159
Operative Builders............
154 General Building Contractors-- 16,950 39,675 135,242 46,745 224,394 52,576 432,054 651 121,632 53,793 553,686
Nonresidential Buildings......
1541 Industial Buildings and .......... 8,198 23,208 8,755 30,164 9,140 44,564 54 9,543 9,290 54,107
Warehouses....................
1542 Nonresidential Buildings, other .......... 31,477 112,034 37,990 194,230 43,436 387,490 597 112,089 44,503 499,579
than in SIC 1541..............
16 Heavy Construction other than 4,600 34,243 114,530 40,506 194,060 47,406 454,086 1,130 246,814 51,039 700,900
Building Construction.........
161 Highway and Street 540 13,055 43,972 15,320 72,574 17,173,932 173,347 478 100,804 18,735 274,151
Construction, except Elevated
Highways......................
162 Heavy Construction, except 4,060 21,188 70,558 25,186 121,486 29,474 280,739 652 146,010 32,304 426,749
Highway and Street
Construction..................
1622 Bridge, Tunnel, and Elevated .......... 582 2,295 817 5,263 1,191 19,627 76 14,597 1.464 34,224
Highway Construction..........
1623 Water, Sewer, Pipeline, and .......... 6,730 26,237 8,961 54,908 11,488 148,642 304 53,651 13,575 202,293
Communications and Power Line
Construction..................
1629 Heavy Construction, Not .......... 13,876 42,026 15,408 61,315 16,795 112,470 272 77,762 17,265 190,232
Elsewhere Classified..........
17 Construction--Special Trade 32,930 553,399 1,619,537 602,349 2,240,163 636,193 3,407,594 2,560 458,521 641,897 3,866,115
Contractors...................
171 Plumbing, Heating and Air- 640 115,500 345,897 126,268 483,637 133,483 735,986 563 100,757 134,655 836,743
Conditioning..................
174 Masonry, Stonework, Tile 580 45,405 133,886 50,217 194,623 54,367 339,551 372 60,803 54,991 400,354
Setting, and Plastering.......
175 Carpentry and Floor Work....... 1,100 48,720 126,525 51,184 157,737 52,595 204,788 114 19,147 52,896 223,935
176 Roofing, Siding, and Sheet 3,900 39,893 118,921 43,650 166,437 46,331 258,269 124 17,592 46,681 275,861
Metal Work....................
177 Concrete Work.................. 250 23,575 78,296 26,764 118,177 28,801 185,887 118 18,536 29,094 204,423
179 Miscellaneous Special Trade 26,440 109,187 317,915 118,213 431,565 124,083 628,259 397 81,002 125,195 709,261
Contractors...................
1791 Structural Steel Erection...... .......... 3,238 11,259 3,898 19,712 4,544 42,215 73 13,750 4,675 55,965
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Totals......... 56,840 861,547 2,499,316 934,761 3,423,479 986,458 5,224,253 4,615 874,628 998,410 6,098,881
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 1998.
b For some industry groups, Dun &i Bradstreet identified a small percentage of establishments and sales that could not be classified by establishment size. OSHA included these data in the
industry totals in this table.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses software, Dun &i Bradstreet Information Services, 1998.
The workers directly benefitting from the final standard are
identified in occupational surveys as structural metal workers; in the
industry, they are known as iron workers. According to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment Statistics Survey [BLS,
1998], there were 56,840 structural metal workers in construction in
1998, the majority of whom are found in SIC 179, Miscellaneous Special
Trade Contractors (26,440 structural metal workers), and SIC 154,
Contractors--Nonresidential Buildings (16,950 structural metal workers)
(Table 1). For this final economic analysis, OSHA used the BLS
employment total for structural metal workers to estimate the number of
iron workers potentially affected by the final rule in its benefits
assessment and cost analysis.
[[Page 5255]]
Final Changes to OSHA's Steel Erection Standard
This final steel erection standard modifies and strengthens the
steel erection standard it replaces in a number of areas. For example,
the final standard includes a scope section that identifies the types
of construction projects and activities subject to the rule. Structures
excluded from coverage under the scope of the standard are steel
electrical transmission towers, steel communication and broadcast
towers, steel water towers, steel light towers, steel tanks, and
reinforced and pre-cast concrete structures. The final rule also
includes a new section addressing site layout, site-specific erection
plans, and construction sequence. Other revisions to the existing
standard include:
Explicit requirements for hoisting and rigging and the
protection of workers and the public from the hazards of overhead
loads;
Additional and strengthened requirements for the
structural steel assembly of beams, columns, joists, decking, and
systems-engineered metal buildings, including provisions for the
protection of employees from tripping hazards and slippery surfaces on
walking/working surfaces;
Modified and clarified requirements for fall protection
for connectors, decking assemblers, and other iron workers during the
erection of structural steel; and
New requirements for training in fall hazards, multiple
lift rigging, connecting, and controlled decking zones.
For the final economic analysis, OSHA identified those requirements
of the final rule that would create substantial impacts or generate
substantial benefits for members of the regulated community, including
workers. For many provisions of the rule, current industry practice in
many establishments is adequate to meet these requirements. OSHA
estimates that current industry practice meets the final regulatory
requirements for 50 percent to 98 percent of affected projects with
regard to providing fall arrest systems (i.e., 50 percent--98 percent
of affected workers currently are supplied with this equipment, with
the percentage increasing with the height of the building), and that
current industry practice in the use of personnel nets is such that 20
percent of affected projects meet the final regulatory requirements; 75
percent of workers receive safety training that would meet the final
regulatory requirements; nearly 100 percent of all construction uses 2-
rod (bolt) column anchorage (but only 10 percent use 4-rod anchorage);
and 50 percent to 98 percent of projects, depending on building height,
already meet the final regulatory requirements for guardrail systems.
OSHA anticipates that the final standard's requirements pertaining to
overhead loads, trips and slips, falls, falling objects, collapses, and
worker training will both generate substantial benefits for affected
employers and impose costs on them.
Evaluation of Risk and Potential Benefits
For this final economic analysis, OSHA developed a profile of the
risks facing iron workers who are performing steel erection operations.
OSHA's risk profile for steel erection is based on data from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics' National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries,
data from the Bureau's Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses,
and an analysis by a SENRAC workgroup of OSHA fatality/catastrophe
inspection data obtained from the Agency's Integrated Management
Information System.
OSHA anticipates that the final standard will significantly reduce
the number of accidents and fatalities currently reported in the steel
erection industry, particularly those accidents caused by falls from
elevated levels and by objects such as dislodged structural members and
building materials striking workers. OSHA believes that the more
protective requirements for fall protection, structural stability, and
training in the final standard will help to save lives and prevent
injuries in the iron worker workforce. For accidents involving events
or exposures potentially addressed by the final standard, OSHA
estimates that approximately 35 fatalities and 2,279 lost-workday
injuries currently occur annually among structural metal workers (see
Table 2, below); this is the current industry risk baseline used in
this analysis. OSHA projects that full compliance with the final
standard would prevent 30 of these fatalities and 1,142 of these lost-
workday injuries. Eight of these fatalities and 303 serious injuries
could be prevented if employers were currently in compliance with
OSHA's existing steel erection standard. The final standard will thus
prevent an additional 22 fatalities and 838 injuries that would not be
prevented even by full compliance with the existing standard. Further,
OSHA believes that issuance of this new final steel erection standard
will enhance compliance even with provisions that were included in the
existing standard because the final revision allows for more
flexibility in compliance, is easier to understand, and is effectively
targeted toward steel erection hazards.
Table 2.--Summary of Estimated Number of Deaths Averted and Injuries Avoided by Full Compliance With the Final
Steel Erection Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number Number of
Number of Additional of fatalities fatalities and
Number of fatalities and number of and lost- lost-workday
fatalities and lost-workday fatalities and workday injuries
lost-workday injuries lost-workday injuries judged not to
injuries preventable by injuries preventable by be preventable
currently compliance preventable by compliance by either
occurring with the compliance with the standard based
among iron existing with the final existing and on analysis of
workers (a) standard standard final accident and
standards fatality data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities...................... 35 8 22 30 5
Lost-Workday Injuries........... 2,279 303 838 1,142 1,137
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in the rows may not sum to totals due to rounding.
(a) Includes fatalities and injuries judged to be potentially preventable by the final standard.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
[[Page 5256]]
In addition to saving lives and improving overall safety in the
steel erection industry, OSHA believes that the final standard, once
fully implemented by erection contractors, will yield substantial cost
savings to parties within and connected with the industry and
ultimately to society as a whole. These monetized benefits take the
form of reductions in employer, employee, and insurer accident-related
costs in several areas: the value of lost output associated with
temporary total disabilities and permanent partial disabilities;
reductions in accident-related medical costs; reductions in
administrative expenses incurred by workers' compensation insurance
providers (including employers who self-insure); and indirect costs
related to productivity losses to other workers, work stoppages, and
the conduct of accident investigations and reports. Applying data from
the construction and insurance industries on the direct costs of
accidents and data from the literature on the indirect costs of
accidents and other tort- and administrative-related costs to OSHA's
estimate of avoided injuries (see Chapter III in the final economic
analysis), the Agency has monetized the value of the cost savings
employers and society will accrue by avoiding these injuries. The
monetized benefits therefore underestimate the true benefits that will
be realized by the standard. They also do not, in accordance with
Agency policy, attempt to place a monetary value on the lives the final
rule will save. These benefits estimates are thus gross underestimates
of the true benefits that will be realized by the standard. OSHA
estimates that annual cost savings of $10.4 million would result from
full compliance with the current rule and an additional $29.1 million
would be saved as a result of full compliance with the final rule
(Table 3).
Table 3.--Summary of Annual Incremental Monetized Benefits of
Preventable Lost-Workday Injuries Attributable to the Final Steel
Erection Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Lost Output Associated with Temporary Disabilities... $4,397,104
Lost Output Associated with Permanent Disabilities... 14,586,035
Medical Costs........................................ 4,009,699
Insurance Costs (Administrative)..................... 2,437,064
Indirect Costs....................................... 3,686,840
Costs Associated with Liability Claims Avoided....... N/Q
------------------
Total Cost Savings............................... 29,116,743
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/Q--Not Quantified
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
In addition to these monetized benefits, cost savings to employers
attributable to a decline in the number of third-party liability suits
can be expected. Although quantification of these tort-related legal
defense costs and dollar awards is difficult because of the lack of
data, OSHA believes that these employer costs are substantial and would
be reduced significantly through compliance with the final standard.
Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs
Consistent with the legal framework established by the OSH Act and
court decisions, OSHA has assessed the technological feasibility of the
final steel erection standard. The final rule clarifies and strengthens
the Agency's existing standard, provides more stringent and specific
requirements in some areas, and includes requirements for some steel
erection hazards newly addressed by the Agency. Many of the final
revisions are consistent with current construction means and methods
used by leading firms within the steel erection industry. The success
of these firms in this competitive industry demonstrates that the
requirements of the final standard can be met with existing equipment
and production methods. Moreover, the final standard is based on a
consensus draft recommended to the Agency by a negotiated rulemaking
committee consisting of divergent industry interests--including small
employers--who would be affected by any changes to subpart R. Among
these changes, addressing ironworker activity on walking and working
surfaces is an innovative approach to safety that requires that
coatings of structural members meet a standard for slip-resistance.
Evidence from SENRAC meetings and elsewhere in the record point to the
feasibility of this standard (see the discussion on this provision in
Section IV, Summary and Explanation of the Rule). In this and other
areas in the steel erection draft, the committee reached consensus on
the language, thereby implicitly acknowledging the feasibility of the
final revisions to the standard. Therefore, OSHA has determined that
the final steel erection standard is technologically feasible.
OSHA developed estimates of the costs of compliance for
construction employers subject to the final standard; OSHA's analysis
is based on the preliminary economic analysis and additional data
gathering and analysis. OSHA estimated annualized compliance costs for
two compliance scenarios: (1) Costs to achieve compliance with OSHA's
existing steel erection standard, and (2) costs to achieve compliance
with the final standard. OSHA's cost estimates take into account the
extent of current industry compliance, i.e., the extent to which
employers are already in compliance with the requirements of OSHA's
existing standard and with the requirements of the final steel erection
standard. Accounting for these costs, i.e., subtracting them from the
costs attributed to the final standard, is important because only those
costs employers would actually incur to come into compliance with the
final standard are properly attributed to that standard.
Table 4 presents OSHA's annualized compliance cost estimates, by
provision or safety control, for establishments in the industries
subject to the final standard.
Table 4.--Annualized Compliance Costs of the Final Steel Erection Standard by Industry Group and Control a
[1998 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controls
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC Industry group and size Slip- Concrete Total
Fall arrest Personnel Guardrails Anchor rods Joist resistant curing Training Recordkeeping
systems nets (bolts) erection surfaces tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
152 General Building Contractors-Residential Buildings:
Establishments with 1-9 Employees................. 330,947 (119,016) 67,329 252,129 445,054 679,763 94,408 23,177 32,540 1,806,330
Establishments with 1-99 Employees................ 188,427 (67,763) 38,334 143,551 253,395 387,028 53,752 13,196 18,527 1,028,447
[[Page 5257]]
Establishments with 100+ Employees................ 395,642 (142,282) 80,491 301,417 532,056 812,647 112,863 27,708 38,901 2,159,442
All Establishments................................ 584,069 (210,045) 118,825 444,968 785,450 1,199,675 166,615 40,904 57,428 3,187,889
154 General Building Contractors-Nonresidential
Buildings:
Establishments with 1-9 Employees................. 850,282 (305,781) 23,575 647,780 1,143,451 1,746,476 242,556 59,547 83,603 4,491,489
Establishments with 1-99 Employees................ 2,870,887 (1,032,437) 79,598 2,187,159 3,860,739 5,896,787 818,964 201,055 282,276 15,165,028
Establishments with 100+ Employees................ 1,414,816 (508,800) 39,227 1,077,865 1,902,629 2,906,024 403,598 99,083 139,110 7,473,551
All Establishments................................ 4,285,702 (1,541,237) 118,825 3,265,024 5,763,368 8,802,811 1,222,562 300,137 421,386 22,638,579
161 Highway and Street Construction, except Elevated
Highways:
Establishments with 1-9 Employees................. 38,461 (13,831) 7,825 29,301 51,722 78,999 10,972 2,694 3,782 209,922
Establishments with 1-99 Employees................ 98,173 (35,305) 19,973 74,792 132,022 201,647 28,005 6,875 9,653 535,835
Establishments with 100+ Employees................ 38,363 (13,796) 7,805 29,226 51,590 78,797 10,944 2,687 3,772 209,386
All Establishments................................ 136,536 (49,101) 27,777 104,018 183,612 280,444 38,949 9,562 13,425 745,221
162 Heavy Construction, except Highway and Street
Construction:
Establishments with 1-9 Employees................. 163,753 (58,889) 33,314 124,754 220,213 336,348 46,713 11,468 16,101 893,775
Establishments with 1-99 Employees................ 615,174 (221,231 125,153 468,665 827,280 1,263,565 175,488 53,082 60,486 3,357,663
Establishments with 100+ Employees................ 411,371 (147,939) 83,691 313,400 553,208 844,955 117,350 28,809 40,448 2,245,293
All Establishments................................ 1,026,546 (369,169) 208,844 782,065 1,380,488 2,108,520 282,838 71,891 100,934 5,602,956
171 Plumbing, Heating and Air-Conditioning:
Establishments with 1-9 Employees................. 50,397 (18,124) 10,253 38,394 67,773 103,515 14,376 3,529 4,955 275,069
Establishments with 1-99 Employees................ 134,411 (48,337) 27,345 102,400 180,755 276,081 38,343 9,413 13,216 733,627
Establishments with 100+ Employees................ 27,409 (9,857) 5,576 20,881 36,859 56,297 7,819 1,919 2,695 149,598
All Establishments................................ 161,820 (58,194) 32,921 123,281 217,614 332,378 46,162 11,333 15,911 883,225
174 Masonry, Stonework, Tile Setting, and Plastering:
Establishments with 1-9 Employees................. 43,691 (15,712) 8,889 33,286 58,756 89,742 12,464 3,060 4,296 238,470
Establishments with 1-99 Employees................ 124,913 (44,922) 25,413 95,164 167,982 256,571 35,633 8,748 12,282 681,784
Establishments with 100+ Employees................ 21,736 (7,817) 4,422 16,560 29,231 44,646 6,201 1,522 2,137 118,638
All Establishments................................ 146,649 (52,738) 29,835 111,724 197,213 301,217 41,834 10,270 14,419 800,422
175 Carpentry and Floor Work:
Establishments with 1-9 Employees................. 133,064 (47,853) 27,071 101,374 178,943 273,313 37,959 9,319 13,083 726,272
Establishments with 1-99 Employees................ 245,389 (88,247) 49,923 186,947 329,997 504,028 70,001 17,185 24,128 1,339,349
Establishments with 100+ Employees................ 32,739 (11,774) 6,661 24,942 44,027 67,246 9,339 2,293 3,219 178,693
All Establishments................................ 278,128 (100,021) 56,583 211,889 374,024 571,274 79,340 19,478 27,347 1,518,042
176 Roofing, Siding and Sheet Metal Work:
Establishments with 1-9 Employees................. 355,646 (127,899) 72,354 270,946 478,269 730,496 101,453 24,907 34,968 1,941,141
Establishments with 1-99 Employees................ 899,629 (323,527) 183,024 685,375 1,209,812 1,847,834 256,633 63,003 88,455 4,910,237
Establishments with 100+ Employees................ 86,461 (31,094) 17,590 65,870 116,273 177,591 24,664 6,055 8,501 471,913
All Establishments................................ 986,091 (354,621) 200,614 751,244 1,326,085 2,025,426 281,297 69,058 96,956 5,382,150
1791 Structural Steel Erection:
Establishments with 1-9 Employees................. 1,193,984 (429,384) 242,908 909,626 1,605,657 2,452,437 340,602 83,617 117,397 6,516,844
Establishments with 1-99 Employees................ 5,312,751 (1,910,587) 1,080,844 4,047,472 7,144,533 10,912,364 1,515,543 372,064 522,369 28,997,353
Establishments with 100+ Employees................ 1,372,439 (493,560) 279,214 1,045,580 1,845,642 2,818,983 391,509 96,115 134,943 7,490,864
All Establishments................................ 6,685,190 (2,404,147) 1,360,057 5,093,052 8,990,175 13,731,347 1,907,052 468,179 657,312 36,488,217
All Significantly Affected Industry Groups:
Establishments with 1-9 Employees................. 3,160,225 (1,136,489) 493,517 2,407,589 4,249,838 6,491,087 901,502 221,318 310,725 17,099,312
Establishments with 1-99 Employees................ 10,489,755 (3,772,356) 1,629,606 7,991,526 14,106,514 21,545,904 2,992,362 734,621 1,031,391 56,749,324
Establishments with 100+ Employees................ 3,800,976 (1,366,918) 524,676 2,895,740 5,111,514 7,807,187 1,084,286 266,191 373,726 20,497,378
All Establishments................................ 14,290,731 (5,139,274) 2,154,281 10,887,266 19,218,028 29,353,091 4,076,648 1,000,812 1,405,117 77,246,701
Other Affected Industry Groups b..................... 80,910 (29,097) 769,533 61,641 108,807 166,189 23,081 5,666 7,955 1,194,685
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 14,371,641 (5,168,371) 2,923,815 10,948,907 19,326,835 29,519,280 4,099,729 1,006,478 1,413,072 78,441,386
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in the table may not sum to totals due to rounding.
a Total compliance costs were distributed among industry groups according to the percentage of iron workers employed in that group (see Table 1). Within SIC groups, costs were distributed by
share of revenue for firms in the size class.
b Other industries potentially affected by the final steel erection standard employ a small percentage of iron workers. These industry groups are: SIC 153, General Building Contractors--
Operative Builders; and SIC 177, Concrete Work. Because firms in these industries are seldom involved directly in structural steel erection, OSHA has grouped them separately.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
OSHA projects that full compliance with the final standard will,
after deducting costs incurred to achieve compliance with the existing
standard, result in net (or incremental) annualized costs of $78.4
million for affected establishments. Among incremental annualized
costs, expenditures for slip-resistant coatings of skeletal structural
steel are expected to total $29.5 million, or 38 percent of total
costs; expenditures for the safe design and erection of steel joists
required by the final standard account for $19.3 million, or 25 percent
of total costs; fall arrest systems account for $14.4 million, or 18
percent of total costs; and expenditures for anchor bolts necessary for
structural stability account for $11.0 million, or 14 percent of total
costs. Other control costs associated with compliance with the final
steel erection standard are those for guardrails ($2.9 million);
recordkeeping associated with administrative controls (1.4 million);
and training ($1.0 million). In addition, OSHA anticipates that the
expanded use of fall arrest systems in bridge erection will eventually
lead to a dramatic reduction in the use of personnel safety nets on
those projects, resulting in estimated cost savings of $5.2 million.
Potential Economic Impacts
OSHA analyzed the potential impacts of these compliance costs on
prices, profits, construction output and other economic indices in the
steel erection industry. In particular, OSHA examined potential
economic impacts on establishments in SIC 1791, Structural Steel
Erection, where the majority of the 57,000 structural metal workers are
employed. This analysis shows that the final standard is economically
feasible for these firms.
OSHA examined the potential economic impacts of the final standard
by making two assumptions used by
[[Page 5258]]
economists to bound the range of possible impacts: the worst-case
assumption of no-cost pass-through, i.e., that employers will be unable
to pass any of the costs of compliance forward to their customers, and
the worst-case assumption of full-cost pass-through, i.e., that
employers will be able to pass all of the costs of compliance forward
to their customers. As summarized in Table 5, below, OSHA estimates
that, if affected firms in SIC 1791 were forced to absorb these
compliance costs entirely from profits (a highly unlikely scenario),
profits would be reduced by an average of 6.5 percent. If, at the other
extreme, affected firms were able to pass all of these compliance costs
forward to general contractors and project owners, OSHA projects that
the price (revenue) increase required to pay for these costs would be
less than 1 percent (0.40 percent). A price increase of 0.40 percent
would have little, if any, effect on the choice between steel erection
and other forms of building.
In addition to examining the economic effects of the final standard
on firms in SIC 1791, OSHA estimated the impacts of the final standard
on two other construction industry divisions involving steel erection:
(1) The entire construction sector; and (2) construction activity where
structural steel constitutes the physical core of the project, termed
``steel-frame construction'' by OSHA.
For the dollar value of business for the entire construction
sector, OSHA totaled 1996 sales data for SICs 15, 16, and 17 provided
in a Dun & Bradstreet national business database [D&B, 1996a]. OSHA
derived pre-tax income (Column 2 in Table 5) for the construction
sector by, first, calculating industry profit using Dun & Bradstreet
data on post-tax return on sales (post-tax profits) and, second,
applying a formula that converts post-tax income to pre-tax income
based on tax rates in the U.S. corporate tax code. OSHA found that, for
the construction sector as a whole, price impacts under full cost pass-
through would be 0.01 percent, and profit impacts assuming no cost
pass-through would be 0.2 percent. Thus in the context of the
construction sector as a whole, the final standard would have little
impact.
Table 5.--Potential Economic Impacts of the Final Steel Erection Standard on Selected Sectors within the
Construction Industry
[Under Worst-Case Conditions, 1996 Revenue and Profit Data]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar value Compliance Compliance
of business Pre-tax income costs as a costs as a
(a) (b)($millions) percent of percent of
($millions) revenue (c) profit (c)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection............. 9,285.7 562.4 0.39 6.49
Construction Sector as a Whole.................. 768,155.9 43,839 0.01 0.18
Steel-Frame Construction (d).................... 119,979.2 6,847.2 0.07 1.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Based on data from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses, 1996.
(b) Based on data from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses, 1996; Dun & Bradstreet, Industry Norms
and Key Business Ratios, 1996; and OSHA profit calculations.
(c) Revenue and profit impacts were calculated by dividing annual compliance costs for each of the four
construction sectors shown in the table by, respectively, the dollar value of business and pre-tax income.
Compliance costs assigned to these sectors are based on total costs of $78.4 million and were applied as
follows: construction sector as a whole--$78.4 million; steel-frame construction--$78.4 million; and SIC 1791,
Structural Steel Erection--$36.5 million.
(d) Steel-Frame Construction is defined by OSHA as the body of construction projects where steel framing
constitutes the physical core of the structure. The dollar value of business and pre-tax income for Steel-
Frame Construction were computed by applying the percentage of the value of the steel market share (15.6
percent), excluding that for tanks and towers, of all construction starts to the dollar value of business and
pre-tax income for the entire construction sector. Data on the steel market share for 1995 are based on
memoranda to OSHA from Construction Resources Analysis, College of Business Administration, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville [Exs. 9-143 and 9-144].
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
OSHA calculated the value of steel-frame construction using data
provided by the Construction Resources Analysis office of the
University of Tennessee, College of Business Administration on the
value of the steel market share of the entire construction industry. In
this calculation, OSHA applied the percentage of the value of the steel
market share (15.6 percent), excluding that for tanks and towers, of
all construction starts to the dollar value of business and pre-tax
income for the entire construction sector, thereby eliminating all non-
steel construction (as defined in the final standard) from the earnings
total. Price increases for steel frame construction as a whole are of
particular interest because they represent the price increases to the
ultimate customers of steel erection services, the purchasers of
buildings, bridges, etc. Under the worst-case price increase scenarios,
the price of such projects would increase by 0.1 percent. It is
exceedingly unlikely that a customer would fail to go ahead with a
project as a result of a price increase of this magnitude.
OSHA believes that, prior to the generation of the cost savings
projected to accrue from implementation of the standard, most steel
erectors will handle the increase in direct costs by increasing their
prices somewhat and absorbing the remainder from profits. Within steel
erection markets, the particular blend of impacts experienced by a
given firm will depend on the degree of competition with concrete
erection and other alternative types of construction in the firm's
local market area. Although these minimal economic impacts would be
felt by most affected employers after implementation of the standard,
OSHA anticipates--based on testimony by members of SENRAC and other
industry representatives whose current fall protection programs and
other safety measures mirror those required by the final standard [Exs.
6-3, 6-8, and 6-10]--that offsetting cost savings will at least
partially reverse any negative economic impacts.
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended in 1996 (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), requires regulatory agencies to determine whether
regulatory actions will have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Pursuant to the RFA, OSHA has assessed the
potential small-business impact of the final steel erection standard
under two worst-case scenarios. On the basis of a regulatory
flexibility screening assessment and the
[[Page 5259]]
underlying data, summarized below, OSHA has determined that the final
standard will have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Thus, OSHA has conducted a full Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, as required. OSHA's Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis follows the screening analysis presented in this section.
The Small Business Administration defines small entities, or
``concerns,'' in terms of the number of employees or the annual
receipts of establishments in affected sectors. For employers in SIC
17, small concerns are defined by SBA as those with $7.0 million or
less in annual receipts. OSHA has estimated that in SIC 1791,
Structural Steel Erection, based on 1998 data from Dun & Bradstreet
(D&B) and using D&B's estimate of the dollar value of business to
represent annual receipts, the class of establishments with 99 or fewer
employees comes closest to the class of firms qualifying as small
concerns under the SBA definition. Not all firms in this class would
have annual receipts of less than $7.0 million; however, OSHA has
conservatively chosen to overestimate the number of small firms rather
than try to extrapolate the number of small firms from the limited data
available. Establishments with 99 or fewer employees represent 98.4
percent of the 4,675 establishments and employ 75.4 percent of the
55,965 workers in SIC 1791, according to Dun & Bradstreet's national
market profile [D&B, 1998].
In this regulatory flexibility screening analysis, OSHA assessed
the impacts of compliance costs within the industry group with the
largest concentration of affected employers and employees, SIC 1791,
Structural Steel Erection. According to data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, of the approximately 57,000 iron workers in construction,
roughly 26,000 are employed in SIC 179, Miscellaneous Special Trade
Contractors. OSHA believes that the great majority of these workers are
found in SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection, because the other
industries in SIC 179 (glass and glazing, excavation work, wrecking and
demolition, installation and erection of building equipment (such as
installing elevators, revolving doors and industrial machinery and
specialty trade contractors not elsewhere classified) are unlikely to
employ significant numbers of iron workers. This contention is
supported by the fact that available data on iron worker deaths (see
Table III-2 in the final economic analysis) show that SIC 1791
accounted for roughly 90 percent of iron worker deaths in SIC 179 in
1994-98. Total employment for all trades in SIC 1791 is 55,965 workers,
according to Dun & Bradstreet [D&B, 1998]. BLS and D&B data indicate
that iron workers constitute roughly 47 percent of the labor force in
SIC 1791, the largest concentration of iron workers in any four-digit
group where iron workers are employed. In addition, only firms in SIC
1791 earn the majority of their revenues from steel erection.
(According to the definitions used in the SIC system, this means that
firms that do steel erection but are classified in other sectors earn
only a minority of their total revenues from their steel erection
business.)
Compared with all other industry groups in the construction
industry, firms in SIC 1791 have the greatest number of iron workers
per firm and the highest percentage of iron workers relative to total
employment. Since the costs of compliance are approximately
proportional to the number of iron workers in a given firm,
establishments in SIC 1791 will experience the greatest economic
impact.
In this analysis of impacts, OSHA estimated the costs of compliance
for SIC 1791 by applying the percentage of iron workers in that
industry group, presented in Table 1, to the total costs estimated for
all affected industry groups in construction. According to the 1998 BLS
employment survey [BLS, 1998], SIC 179, Miscellaneous Special Trade
Contractors, employs approximately 47 percent of the 56,840 iron
workers in the entire construction sector. Assuming that most, if not
all of the iron workers in SIC 179 are employed in SIC 1791, OSHA
estimates that 47 percent of the iron workers in construction are
employed in SIC 1791. OSHA estimates that, in general, compliance costs
under the final standard are proportional to employment. Thus,
compliance costs in SIC 1791 can be approximated by applying to total
costs the percentage of iron workers (47 percent) in SIC 1791.
Therefore, OSHA estimates that if net annual costs for all of
construction will be $78.4 million, then net annual costs in SIC 1791
will be 47 percent (46.5 percent before rounding) of total costs, or
$36.5 million.
To assess the possible economic impacts of the final standard on
small firms in SIC 1791, OSHA distributed compliance costs within size
classes according to an estimate of the percent of revenue (gross
sales) earned by establishments within those size classes. Applying Dun
& Bradstreet revenue figures, OSHA has determined that costs represent
less than one percent (0.40 percent after rounding) of revenues for
firms with 99 or fewer employees, so that under the extreme case of
full-cost pass-through to consumers, prices would rise by no more than
one percent (see Table 6, below). Similarly, for the very smallest
firms, those with fewer than ten employees, price impacts are projected
to be low: 0.40 percent after rounding.
Table 6.--Potential Economic Impacts Of The Final Steel Erection Standard On Small Firms In the Steel Erection Industry Under Worst-Case Conditions
[1996 Revenue and Profit Data]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Dollar Compliance compliance
compliance Compliance value of Revenue per Pre-tax Pre-tax income costs as a costs as a
costs (a) cost per business b establishment income c per percent of percent of
($millions) establishment ($millions) b ($millions) establishment revenue profit
---------------------------------------------------------------a---------------------------------------------------------c------------------------------
SIC 1791,Structural Steel Erection....... 36.5 8,175.7 9,285.7 2,080,606.0 562.4 126,024.2 0.39 6.49
SIC 1791, 1-99 Employees................. 25.0 5,758.8 6,369.2 1,465,541.8 395.8 91,074.8 0.39 6.32
SIC 1791, 1-9 Employees.................. 8.9 2,866.7 2,260.8 729,530.4 95.8 30,898.0 0.39 9.28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Based on Table 4 and data on number of establishments from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses, 1996. Compliance costs for size groups
were derived by applying the percentage of revenue in the size groups to total costs for all of SIC 1791.
b Based on data from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile Businesses, 1996.
c Based on data from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses, 1996; Dun & Bradstreet, Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios, 1995-96; and OSHA
profit calculations.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
[[Page 5260]]
Under the alternate scenario of full-cost profit absorption (an
extremely unlikely scenario) among steel erection contractors with 99
or fewer employees, profit impacts would be 6.3 percent; for firms with
one to nine employees, profit impacts would be 9.3 percent. Thus, costs
as a percentage of profits and revenues for SIC 1791 are lower when a
small entity is defined to include all firms within the SBA size
standards (less than $7 million in revenue) than for small entities
employing fewer than 10 workers. The difference in these projected
profit impacts for the two smaller size categories of firms reflects a
difference in the 1995-96 profit rates for the two groups [D&B, 1996b]
applied by OSHA in this impacts analysis: (1) an average 3.6 percent
rate of net-profit-after-tax-to-net-sales for establishments with fewer
than ten employees (roughly defined as those with assets of less than
$250,000) and (2) an average 4.9 percent post-tax profit/sales ratio
for establishments with one to ninety-nine employees (roughly defined
as those with assets of $250,000 to $1 million) (see Chapter VI in the
final economic analysis for further explanation).
OSHA believes that most small erectors will, along with the rest of
the industry, receive economic benefits from compliance with the final
rule that will serve to significantly offset any direct cost impacts.
As noted above, employer representatives on the committee and at the
public hearing commented on numerous occasions that the safety program
implicit within the final standard is compatible with maintaining a
profitable business operation, and that such a program would, in fact,
improve profitability and competitiveness [Exs. 6-3; 6-8; 6-10; 202X,
pp. 99, 119; 206X, pp. 274-275]. Therefore, OSHA anticipates that most
small entities will experience minimal economic impacts as a result of
implementation of the final standard. However, since compliance costs
under the worst-case scenario exceed 5 percent of profits in some of
the industries affected, OSHA's internal guidelines with respect to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act require the Agency to conduct a full Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended in 1996, requires that a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis contain the following elements:
(1) A succinct statement of the need for and objectives of the
rule;
(2) A summary of the significant issues raised by public comments
in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a summary
of the Agency's assessment of such issues, and a statement of any
changes made to the rule as a result of such comments;
(3) A description and an estimate of the number of small businesses
to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate
is available; and
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirements and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record.
In addition, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis must contain a
description of the steps the Agency has taken to minimize any
significant economic impacts on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statues, including a statement of the
factual, policy and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted
in the final rule, and the reasons for rejecting each of the other
significant alternatives [SBA, 2000].
Reasons for the Final Rule
According to OSHA's analysis of accident data for an eleven-year
period (1984-1994), 319 fatalities involved hazardous conditions that
are addressed by OSHA's current and revised steel erection standard
(for details, see Chapter III, Risk Assessment and Benefits, and
Appendix B of the preliminary economic analysis). Based on a review of
BLS injury census data for the period 1994-98, OSHA estimates that an
average of 35 fatalities and 2,279 lost-workday injuries annually
involve circumstances that would be addressed by provisions in the
final OSHA steel erection standard. For an industry with an estimated
work-force of only 56,840 workers, these fatality and injury levels
clearly demonstrate that the risk confronting these workers is
significant. Therefore, OSHA has developed final regulatory text that
is designed to address this risk.
Objectives of the Final Rule
The objective of this final standard is to reduce the risk of
occupational exposure to a variety of hazards on steel erection
construction worksites, such as those involving falls, slips, trips,
being struck by or crushed by objects or loads, and structural
collapses. These occupational hazards will be reduced by this final
rule through the use of engineering controls, work practice controls,
inspections of worksite conditions, training, communication, and
recordkeeping. Implementation of these measures has been shown to
minimize or eliminate occupational exposure to these hazards during the
erection of steel structures and thus to reduce the risk of injury or
death among workers.
Significant Issues Raised in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
Among the issues raised in the notice of proposed rulemaking and in
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the most significant
concerned the impact of the proposed standard on small fabricators of
structural steel members, including shops that fabricate open web steel
joists and that complete the final detailing and coating of other
structural steel members. These firms would be affected by provisions
in the final rule that require joists, columns, and girders to arrive
at the site meeting certain design specifications. For example, joists
erected in bays of 40 feet or greater must be designed for bolting in
the final connection of joists to the permanent structure. Therefore,
all joist fabricators who produce joists that meet this criterion must
drill or punch holes in appropriate locations on the joists to allow
for bolting at the site.
In the pre-proposal period and during the hearing, the Steel Joist
Institute argued that some small firms may lack the equipment to
prepare joists as required by the standard, and that as a result such
firms could be severely impacted (see, for example, Ex. 204X, pp. 60-
63). However, buildings requiring joists of over 40 feet in length
represent only a portion of the total market. In the Preliminary
Economic Analysis, OSHA suggested that, to the extent that there are
small firms lacking suitable equipment, such firms could still produce
fabricated steel for a variety of steel erection projects and for
portions of other projects. As a result, in that analysis, OSHA did not
anticipate a significant impact, if any, on those firms that lack the
proper equipment to prepare joists of greater than 40 feet for bolting.
In the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, OSHA solicited
comment on two issues: (1) Whether there are small firms lacking
suitable equipment to prepare joists in the manner prescribed by the
rule; and (2) the percentage of the steel framing market that requires
the use of joists of greater than 40 feet in length. In response, the
Steel Joist Institute (SJI) presented cost data to demonstrate that the
proposed requirement for bolt holes would severely impact the joist
manufacturing industry. SJI stated that production costs for the
industry as a whole could rise by as much as 11 percent after the
[[Page 5261]]
rule is promulgated and joist fabricators are required to drill and
punch holes in the joists (Ex. 204X, p. 62). The American Institute of
Steel Construction echoed these concerns about the economic impacts of
the proposed joist requirements (Ex. 13-209).
As a result of these concerns, OSHA examined the impact of the
final standard on the fabricated structural metal industry (SIC 3441),
which produces iron and steel for structural purposes such as the
construction of bridges and buildings, even though these employers are
not affected employers under the OSH Act. This sector would need to
bore holes in joists greater than 40 feet in length so they can be
bolted rather than welded (Sec. 1926.757). In addition, this sector
would need to supply seats or equivalent connection devices for double
connections (Sec. 1926.756); supply holes or other devices attached to
perimeter columns to permit installation of perimeter safety cables
(Sec. 1926.756); provide a vertical stabilizer plate on each column for
steel joists (Sec. 1926.757); and ensure, through approved test
methods, that paint coatings on top surfaces of structural steel
members achieve a minimum average slip resistance (Sec. 1926.754).
OSHA's impact analysis assumes that this sector would bear all of
the costs associated with these provisions of the final standard
concerning open web joists, slip resistance of skeletal structural
steel, column connections for perimeter safety cables and double
connections. In fact, however, because of contractual arrangements
among fabricators, steel erectors and building owners, most of the
costs borne by the fabricators affected by this provision would be
transmitted through steel erectors to building owners and would appear
in the bid price of the project or would be incurred as onsite costs.
For purposes of this analysis, OSHA has defined small firms in the
fabricated structural metal industry using the SBA definition of small
firms: firms with fewer than 500 employees. Department of Commerce data
show that there were 2,891 small firms in this sector in 1997. (Small
firms represented 99.7 percent of all firms). Department of Commerce
data also show that these small firms had total revenues of over $13.3
billion, over 80 percent of all industry revenues. Dun and Bradstreet
data show that in fiscal year 1995, the median profits for firms in
this sector were a healthy 3.5 percent of sales. Small firms were
assumed to bear costs in proportion to their revenues. OSHA has not
estimated costs to small fabricators for the design, engineering,
testing, and manufacture of the special devices and coatings that will
be supplied to steel erectors to enable them to achieve compliance with
the final standard. However, OSHA anticipates that even if all of the
costs of these provisions of the standard are borne by the fabricated
structural metal industry, these costs will represent only a small
percentage (0.37 percent) of revenues and 10.5 percent of profits for
small firms in this sector (if all compliance costs were absorbed from
profits, a highly unlikely scenario). Thus, OSHA finds that the costs
of the standard will not cause a significant impact on small firms in
this sector.
On the other hand, other speakers at the hearing who have field
experience on this issue testified that the bolted joist provision
could lead to cost savings by reducing the exposure time of workers who
would otherwise be welding the connection (Ex. 208X, pp. 211, 252).
After weighing this offsetting evidence, the Agency has concluded that
in the fabricated structural metal industry, any additional production
costs--and associated increases in prices for materials used by steel
erectors--are likely to be offset, at least to some extent, by cost
savings and benefits (fatalities and injuries avoided) in the
industry--structural steel erection--directly affected by the rule.
Therefore, OSHA believes that the provision is justified. In this
preamble to the final rule, OSHA makes similar arguments for the other
provisions in the standard, discussed above, that impact parties that
are indirectly affected by the standard. In sum, OSHA finds that these
provisions of the final rule are essential for the comprehensive safety
program envisioned by this final steel erection standard.
In another example of a provision in the final rule where smaller
entities connected to the steel erection industry would be affected by
design criteria, Sec. 1926.754 of the final standard specifies that
coatings of structural steel members must achieve a minimum average
slip resistance--with documentation or certification that the standard
has been reached, based on an appropriate test method--before workers
are permitted to walk the top surface of the steel member. Thus, all
fabricators who coat steel members before shipping to the site would
need to certify that the steel members meet the slip resistance
standard. It is also possible that there may be impacts on small paints
and coatings manufacturers. OSHA anticipates that the most likely
scenario is that costs of friction resistant coatings will be passed
forward to fabricators, and, in turn, to steel erection firms.
OSHA has examined the technological and economic implications of
these and other issues raised in the rulemaking that affect smaller
entities and has addressed any concerns about inequitable regulatory
impacts on those entities in this preamble to the final standard and in
the final economic analysis. In sum, based on comment in the record,
OSHA finds that, although some smaller firms may experience impacts as
a result of the design specifications in the final rule, these cost
impacts can generally be passed forward to intermediate and final
customers in the market--that is, the steel erectors, general
contractors, owners and tenants of the building project--in such a way
as to minimize impacts on the market share of smaller fabrication
shops. Furthermore, OSHA believes that technological developments and
market innovations will help to smooth the transition to the new market
environment created by the final rule. For additional discussion of
these technological and economic issues and their small-firm
implications, see IV. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule in this
preamble and Chapter IV, Technological Feasibility, in the final
economic analysis.
Description of the Number of Small Entities
For this rulemaking, OSHA has identified the population at risk of
injury in the construction workforce and the industry groups where
steel erection is conducted, but cannot with certainty estimate the
number of small entities to which the final rule will apply because
some firms even in SIC 1791 often perform work unrelated to steel
erection and some firms in other SICs occasionally do steel erection
work. There were no comments in the record that directly addressed this
question. In SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection, where the majority of
iron workers are employed, there are roughly 4,544 establishments
defined as small by the SBA, i.e., these entities earn less than $7
million in annual revenue. If all establishments in SIC 1791 were
affected by the final standard, then small entities would comprise 97
percent of all affected entities, using the SBA size standard. There
are 3,898 very small establishments, i.e., those employing fewer than
20 employees in SIC 1791; these very small establishments comprise 83
percent of all establishments in the industry.
[[Page 5262]]
Description of the Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Final Rule
The final rule would require, in the following provisions, that
employers establish and maintain records for the use of engineering
controls, work practices, inspections, and training:
Site layout, site-specific erection plan, and construction
sequence;
Hoisting and rigging;
Structural steel assembly;
Open-web steel joists; and
training.
Most steel erection employers would be affected by the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements in these sections. In estimating the
cost of establishing and maintaining the records for each of these
control areas, OSHA used the wage rate of the applicable professional
personnel. To give two examples: (1) For the cost of certifying that
lift rigging meets manufacturer's specifications, OSHA applied the wage
rate for an ironworker supervisor; and (2) for the costs of documenting
alternative methods for joist erection, OSHA applied the wage rates of
a project manager and a structural engineer. All recordkeeping
requirements included in the final rule could be performed by existing
staff in any of the covered industries. A detailed description of the
recordkeeping requirements appears in Chapter II, Industry Profile, and
in Chapter V, Costs of Compliance, of this final economic analysis.
Relevant Federal Rules
In this final rule, OSHA is revising the current safety standard
for steel erection that has been in place with little change for nearly
30 years. OSHA believes that this thorough and comprehensive revision
to existing subpart R will provide greater protection and eliminate
ambiguity and confusion, thereby improving safety in this important
segment of the construction industry. There are no other federal
workplace rules or guidelines that overlap with the OSHA steel erection
standard.
Significant Alternatives Considered
Through its deliberations, the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
considered alternatives to many of the provisions of the final
standard. Several of these, and the Committee's choices with respect to
them, are discussed below. For example, the final standard features,
wherever possible, performance language that permits maximum
flexibility for achieving safety outcomes. In the area of site-specific
plans, the final rule provides an opportunity to those employers who
select alternative means and methods for complying with certain
sections of the standard, and to incorporate these alternatives into a
site-specific erection plan. OSHA considered small contractors when it
elected not to propose a universal requirement for a site-specific
erection plan for all steel erection sites. Instead, the final standard
provides guidelines for establishing a site-specific erection plan in a
non-mandatory appendix to assist employers who choose to develop such a
plan, as recommended by SENRAC.
Other areas of the final standard that involve the consideration of
alternatives and are responsive to small contractors include rules for
the safe use of cranes and other lifting equipment and the proper
assembly of metal buildings other than those constructed of heavy
structural steel. In light of the number of small steel erectors
potentially affected by the hoisting and rigging section of the final
standard, OSHA has attempted to minimize the burden of the pre-shift
visual crane inspections by having the inspection checklist apply only
to the most essential safety elements, as recommended by SENRAC.
Additionally, since there are a large number of small builders who
erect pre-engineered metal structures exclusively, OSHA determined that
a separate section in the final standard dedicated to this type of
steel erection would ease compliance for small erectors.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act emphasizes the importance of
performance-based standards for small businesses. For example, in
Sec. 1926.760, Fall Protection, employers are required to protect
certain employees exposed to fall distances of 15 feet or greater.
Paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1926.760 lists the types of general safety
systems--i.e., guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall
arrest systems, positioning device systems or fall restraint systems--
that must be used by employers to provide fall protection to their
employees. However, the standard does not mandate particular
engineering solutions by structure type, site location, crew size, or
other criteria. Employers are free to select any one system or
combination of systems that is most compatible with company practice
and employee protection so long as the performance measure--fall
protection at 15 feet--is achieved.
As another example of OSHA's concern for the potential impacts on
small businesses, the final standard minimizes recordkeeping burden
where training, notifications, and other forms of communication are
required, as recommended by SENRAC. Regarding training provisions,
general instruction in fall hazards is mandated for all employees
exposed to that risk, but the scope of additional special training is
limited to three particularly hazardous activities: multiple lift
rigging, connecting, and decking. Employers are to ensure that the
training is provided but do not have to document or certify the
program. Other requirements where communication will be necessary,
including those involving field curing of concrete footings and
modification of anchor bolts, were written in such a way as to limit
the notifications to cover only the most essential information.
Supplementary explanatory materials, presented in appendices to the
standard, are intended to assist employers in complying with the rule
and otherwise providing a safer workplace.
Another approach recommended by the Regulatory Flexibility Act is
compliance date phase-ins for small businesses. Throughout their
deliberations, the negotiated rulemaking advisory committee recognized
the importance of effective outreach to the steel erection community
prior to and following promulgation of the standard. In fact, as stated
by a committee member prior to the issuance of the proposed standard,
many employers in the industry are aware of, and have already begun to
align their safety programs with, the standard (Ex. 9-156). With the
exception of the requirement addressing slip resistance of skeletal
structural steel (the date for mandatory compliance with this provision
is five years after the effective date of the standard), the standard
as a whole becomes effective within 180 days. OSHA believes that any
compliance extensions for affected employers, including small
employers, would only marginally ease the economic burden, given the
progress in occupational safety already underway throughout industry
and the non-capital-intensive nature of the rule, and would delay
unnecessarily the protection of workers who would otherwise benefit
from compliance with the rule.
In sum, throughout the process of negotiated rulemaking and during
the period leading to this notice of final rulemaking for OSHA's steel
erection standard, alternatives that would benefit small employers were
considered and addressed on a routine basis. After considering a number
of alternatives and adopting those that were consistent with the
mandate imposed by the OSH Act, OSHA has developed a final rule that
would minimize the burden on small employers, while maintaining the
level of worker protection mandated by the OSH Act.
[[Page 5263]]
Non-Regulatory Alternatives
The primary objective of this final standard on structural steel
erection is to minimize the number of construction worker injuries and
fatalities. To develop this standard, OSHA employed negotiated
rulemaking using an advisory committee composed of representatives from
the construction industry (both labor and management and both small and
larger firms), the insurance industry, the engineering field, and
Federal and State government regulatory and research agencies. OSHA
itself was also a member of the committee.
OSHA also examined throughout this rulemaking a number of non-
regulatory approaches to enhancing workplace safety, including the
operation of the classical free market, the tort liability insurance
system and the workers' compensation insurance system. OSHA has
concluded that these social and economic alternatives to a Federal
workplace standard fail to adequately protect workers from the hazards
associated with structural steel erection in the construction industry.
The private market offers economic signals that could have the
potential to direct workers toward desirable combinations of risk and
reward. However, market imperfections and social and economic
institutions--such as limitations to mobility, accumulated benefits,
and social welfare programs--prevent workplaces from achieving the most
optimal safety outcomes, creating inefficient, inadequately compensated
risks for workers. Tort liability laws and workers' compensation
provide some protection, but fall far short of fully compensating
injured employees for the loss of wages, the medical costs, and the
legal and other costs resulting from workplace accidents. Furthermore,
these approaches are inherently reactive, rather than proactive, and
largely fail to introduce progressive safety programs at all levels of
industry. Therefore, OSHA finds that this final revision to the steel
erection standard provides the necessary remedy.
Sources
CONSAD Research Corporation. [CONSAD, 1996] ``Formula for Calculating
Pre-Tax Profits from Post-Tax Profits.'' Electronic mail transmittal to
OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis. November 7, 1996.
Dun & Bradstreet. [D&B, 1998] National Profile of Businesses
statistical software. Dun & Bradstreet Information Services, Falls
Church, Va. 1998.
Dun & Bradstreet. [D&B, 1996a] National Profile of Businesses data
software. Dun & Bradstreet Information Services, Falls Church, Va.
1996.
Dun & Bradstreet. [D&B, 1996b] Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios.
Dun & Bradstreet Information Services, Murray Hill, N.J. 1996.
Executive Office of the President. [EO 12866] Executive Order on
Regulatory Planning and Review. Executive Order 12866. September 30,
1993.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. [BLS, 1998]
Occupational Employment Statistics Survey. Office of Employment
Projections. 1998.
U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. [OSHA, 1998] Preliminary Economic and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of OSHA's Proposed Revision to the
Steel Erection Standard (29 CFR Part 1926.750-.761). OSHA, Directorate
of Policy, Office of Regulatory Analysis. Washington, D.C., August
1998. Docket S-775, Ex. 11.
U.S. Small Business Administration. [SBA, 2000] Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. Internet site: http://www.sba.gov/regfair/news/index.html September 2000.
VI. Environmental Assessment
The final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures
(29 CFR part 11). The provisions of the standard focus on the reduction
and avoidance of accidents occurring during structural steel erection.
Consequently, no major negative impact is foreseen on air, water or
soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other aspects of
the environment.
VII. Federalism
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10,
1999), sets forth fundamental Federalism principles, Federalism
policymaking criteria, and provisions for consultation by Federal
agencies with State or local governments when policies are being
formulated which potentially affect them. The Order generally requires
that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State
policy options; consult with States prior to taking actions that would
restrict State policy options; and take such action only when there is
clear constitutional authority and the presence of a problem of
national scope. Executive Order 13132 also provides that agencies shall
not promulgate regulations which have significant Federalism
implications and impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or
local governments, unless the agency consults with State and local
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation
and provides a summary Federalism impact statement in the preamble of
the final rule. Finally, the Order provides for preemption of State law
only if there is a clear Congressional intent for the agency to do so,
and provides that any such preemption is to be limited to be limited to
the extent possible.
Executive Order 13132 required agencies to have in place by January
31, 2000 an intergovernmental consultation process for proposed
regulations with Federalism implications; the Steel Erection standard
was published for public comment prior to that date, on August 13,
1998, and accordingly was not subject to the new consultation
procedure.
Among the Federalism policy criteria addressed by Executive Order
13132 is the principle that national action limiting the policymaking
discretion of the States shall be taken only when ``national activity
is appropriate in light of the presence of a problem of national
significance.'' Since many steel erection-related injuries and
fatalities are reported every year in every State and since the hazards
of steel erection work are present in workplaces in every State of the
Union, steel erection hazards are clearly a national problem. The final
standard on steel erection is written so that employees in every State
will be protected by the standard. To the extent that there are any
State or regional peculiarities, States with occupational safety and
health plans approved under section 18 of the OSH Act can develop their
own comparable State standards to deal with any special problems.
In short, there is a clear national problem related to occupational
safety and health for employees exposed to MSD hazards in the
workplace. Any steel erection standard developed by States that have
elected to participate under section 18 of the OSH Act would not be
preempted by this final rule if the State standard is determined by
Federal OSHA to be ``at least as effective'' as the Federal standard.
Another policy criterion expressed in the Executive Order is that
``regulatory preemption of State law shall be restricted to the minimum
level necessary to achieve the objectives of the statute pursuant to
which the
[[Page 5264]]
regulations are promulgated.'' The preemptive effects of the final
steel erection standard upon the States are determined by the OSH Act
itself: as an occupational safety and health standard issued under
section 6(b) of the Act, the standard preempts any State or local law
which regulates the issue of workplace steel erection protection. Gade
v. Nat'l Solid Waste Management Ass'n, 505 U.S.C. 88 (1992). However,
neither the OSH Act nor this standard completely displace State
responsibilities which relate to steel erection injuries and fatalities
in the workplace; pursuant to section 4(b)(4) of the OSH Act, State
laws and programs which address the rights of employers or employees
with respect to injuries or illnesses arising out of employment,
including State worker compensation programs, are not subject to
preemption under the OSH Act. Moreover, under section 18(b) of the Act,
any State which wishes to assume responsibility for adopting and
enforcing safety or health standards on issues addressed by OSHA
standards may do so by submitting and obtaining Federal OSHA approval
of a State plan under 18(b) of the Act; among other things, the State
plan must include standards which are ``at least as effective as''
those of Federal OSHA. Accordingly, OSHA finds that the final steel
erection standard is consistent with the policies set forth in
Executive Order 13132 relating to preemption of State laws.
Section 6(b) of the Executive Order provides that agencies shall
not issue regulations which impose ``substantial direct compliance
costs'' on State or local governments without consulting with State and
local officials early in the process of developing the proposed
regulation, and without including in the preamble to the final rule a
Federalism impact statement. The OSH Act specifically exempts
workplaces maintained by States or their political subdivisions from
coverage under Federal safety and health standards issued by OSHA, and
accordingly nothing in the steel erection standard requires any
compliance expenditure by State or local governments. However, 18(c)(6)
of the Act requires any State which administers an OSHA-approved State
plan to apply the same State occupational safety or health standards
applied to private-sector employers to workplaces maintained by State
and local government. Slightly under one-half the States and
Territories have chosen to implement State plans and enforce ``at least
as effective'' State health and safety standards to public sector
workplaces. Thus, State and local employers in States which have
elected to administer approved State plans will likely incur roughly
comparable compliance costs, and will likely attain comparable benefits
in the form of reduced injuries and compensation costs, as employers
directly subject to the Federal steel erection standard. These costs of
complying with State safety regulations are not ``direct'' costs which
trigger the application of 6(b) of the Executive Order. Moreover,
compliance costs to protect public workers under an approved State plan
do not constitute an unfunded Federal mandate under the Unfunded
Mandates Relief Act, which does not apply to Federal programs where
State participation is voluntary, see 2 U.S.C. 658(5) and 1502.
In summary, the final steel erection standard imposes no
substantial direct impact on State or local governments; it indirectly
affects State or local employers only in States which have chosen to
administer Federally-approved State plans. The final standard contains
no special preemption provisions, and preempts State steel erection
requirements only to the extent provided by Congress in the OSH Act for
any section 6 standard. So therefore the rule does not have Federalism
implications as defined in the Executive Order.
The Assistant Secretary certifies that OSHA has complied with
applicable requirements of E.O. 13132 in preparing the final steel
erection standard. State comments were invited on the proposed rule,
and were fully considered in the development of this final rule.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as
well as Executive Order 12875, this rule does not include any Federal
mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, and
tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of
more than $100 million in any year.
IX. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, agencies are required to
seek OMB approval for all collections of information. As a part of the
approval process, agencies are required to solicit comment from
affected parties with regard to the collection of information,
including the financial and time burdens estimated by the agencies for
the collection of information.
This final rule contains collections of information as defined in
OMB's regulations at 60 FR 44978 (August 29, 1995) in
Sec. 1926.752(a)(1), Sec. 1926.752(a)(2), Sec. 1926.753(c)(5),
Sec. 1926.753(e)(2), Sec. 1926.754(c)(3), Sec. 1926.757(a)(4),
Sec. 1926.757(a)(7), Sec. 1926.757(a)(9) Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i),
Sec. 1926.758(g), and Sec. 1926.761. OSHA's rationale for the need to
collect information is set forth in the discussion of each of these
provisions in Section IV of this preamble.
OSHA solicited comment from the public on all aspects of these
collections of information, but the Agency received no comments. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520), OSHA requested Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of
the collections of information described above. OMB has granted
approval of the information requirements under OMB Control Number 1218-
0237. The approval expires on October 31, 2001.
X. State Plan Standards
The 25 States and territories with their own OSHA approved
occupational safety and health plans must adopt a comparable standard
within six months of the publication date of this final standard. These
25 states and territories are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut
(for state and local government employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York
(for state and local government employees only), North Carolina,
Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming. Until such time as a
state standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA will provide interim
enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in these states.
XI. List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926
Structural steel erection, Construction industry, Construction
safety, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Occupational
safety and health.
XII. Authority
This document was prepared under the direction of Charles N.
Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); section
107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C.
333), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 6-96 (62 FR 111), and 29 CFR
[[Page 5265]]
part 1911, the Agency amends part 1926 of Title 29 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 2001.
Charles N. Jeffress,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
PART 1926--[AMENDED]
Subpart M--Fall Protection
1. The authority citation for subpart M of Part 1926 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 4, 6, 8,
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Orders Nos. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62
FR 111); and 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable, and 29 CFR Part
1911.
2. Paragraphs (a)(2) (v) and (vi) of Sec. 1926.500 are redesignated
as paragraphs (a)(2) (vi) and (vii), respectively. In addition,
paragraphs (a)(2) (iii) and (v) and (a)(3)(iv) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1926.500 Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this
subpart.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Fall protection requirements for employees performing steel
erection work (except for towers and tanks) are provided in subpart R
of this part.
* * * * *
(v) Requirements relating to fall protection for employees engaged
in the erection of tanks and communication and broadcast towers are
provided in Sec. 1926.105.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
* * * * *
(iv) Section 1926.502 does not apply to the erection of tanks and
communication and broadcast towers. (Note: Section 1926.104 sets the
criteria for body belts, lanyards and lifelines used for fall
protection during tank and communication and broadcast tower erection.
Paragraphs (b),(c) and (f) of Sec. 1926.107 provide definitions for the
pertinent terms.)
* * * * *
Subpart R--[Amended]
3. The authority citation for subpart R of part 1926 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 4, 6, and 8,
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), and 29
CFR part 1911.
4. Subpart R of part 1926 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart R--Steel Erection
Sec.
1926.750 Scope.
1926.751 Definitions.
1926.752 Site layout, site-specific erection plan and construction
sequence.
1926.753 Hoisting and rigging.
1926.754 Structural steel assembly.
1926.755 Column anchorage.
1926.756 Beams and columns.
1926.757 Open web steel joists.
1926.758 Systems-engineered metal buildings.
1926.759 Falling object protection.
1926.760 Fall protection.
1926.761 Training.
Appendix A to Subpart R--Guidelines for establishing the components
of a site-specific erection plan: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for
Complying with Sec. 1926.752(e)
Appendix B to Subpart R--Acceptable test methods for testing slip-
resistance of walking/working surfaces: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for
Complying with Sec. 1926.754(c)(3)
Appendix C to Subpart R--Illustrations of bridging terminus points:
Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying with Sec. 1926.757(a)(10) and
Sec. 1926.757(c)(5)
Appendix D to Subpart R--Illustration of the use of control lines to
demarcate controlled decking zones (CDZs): Non-Mandatory Guidelines
for Complying with Sec. 1926.760(c)(3)
Appendix E to Subpart R--Training: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for
Complying with Sec. 1926.761
Appendix F to Subpart R-- Perimeter columns: Non-Mandatory
Guidelines for Complying with Sec. 1926.756(e) to Protect the
Unprotected Side or Edge of a Walking/Working Surface
Appendix G to Subpart R--Fall protection systems criteria and
practices from Sec. 1926.502: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying
with Complying with Sec. 1926.760(d)
Appendix H to Subpart R--Double connections: Illustration of a
clipped end connection and a staggered connection: Non-Mandatory
Guidelines for Complying with Complying with Sec. 1926.756(c)(1)
Subpart R--Steel Erection
Sec. 1926.750 Scope.
(a) This subpart sets forth requirements to protect employees from
the hazards associated with steel erection activities involved in the
construction, alteration, and/or repair of single and multi-story
buildings, bridges, and other structures where steel erection occurs.
The requirements of this subpart apply to employers engaged in steel
erection unless otherwise specified. This subpart does not cover
electrical transmission towers, communication and broadcast towers, or
tanks.
Note to paragraph (a): Examples of structures where steel
erection may occur include but are not limited to the following:
Single and multi-story buildings; systems-engineered metal
buildings; lift slab/tilt-up structures; energy exploration
structures; energy production, transfer and storage structures and
facilities; auditoriums; malls; amphitheaters; stadiums; power
plants; mills; chemical process structures; bridges; trestles;
overpasses; underpasses; viaducts; aqueducts; aerospace facilities
and structures; radar and communication structures; light towers;
signage; billboards; scoreboards; conveyor systems; conveyor
supports and related framing; stairways; stair towers; fire escapes;
draft curtains; fire containment structures; monorails; aerialways;
catwalks; curtain walls; window walls; store fronts; elevator
fronts; entrances; skylights; metal roofs; industrial structures;
hi-bay structures; rail, marine and other transportation structures;
sound barriers; water process and water containment structures; air
and cable supported structures; space frames; geodesic domes;
canopies; racks and rack support structures and frames; platforms;
walkways; balconies; atriums; penthouses; car dumpers; stackers/
reclaimers; cranes and craneways; bins; hoppers; ovens; furnaces;
stacks; amusement park structures and rides; and artistic and
monumental structures.
(b)(1) Steel erection activities include hoisting, laying out,
placing, connecting, welding, burning, guying, bracing, bolting,
plumbing and rigging structural steel, steel joists and metal
buildings; installing metal decking, curtain walls, window walls,
siding systems, miscellaneous metals, ornamental iron and similar
materials; and moving point-to-point while performing these activities.
(2) The following activities are covered by this subpart when they
occur during and are a part of steel erection activities: rigging,
hoisting, laying out, placing, connecting, guying, bracing,
dismantling, burning, welding, bolting, grinding, sealing, caulking,
and all related activities for construction, alteration and/or repair
of materials and assemblies such as structural steel; ferrous metals
and alloys; non-ferrous metals and alloys; glass; plastics and
synthetic composite materials; structural metal framing and related
bracing and assemblies; anchoring devices; structural cabling; cable
stays; permanent and temporary bents and towers; falsework for
temporary supports of permanent steel members; stone and other non-
precast concrete architectural materials mounted on steel frames;
safety systems for steel erection; steel and metal joists; metal
decking and raceway systems and accessories; metal
[[Page 5266]]
roofing and accessories; metal siding; bridge flooring; cold formed
steel framing; elevator beams; grillage; shelf racks; multi-purpose
supports; crane rails and accessories; miscellaneous, architectural and
ornamental metals and metal work; ladders; railings; handrails; fences
and gates; gratings; trench covers; floor plates; castings; sheet metal
fabrications; metal panels and panel wall systems; louvers; column
covers; enclosures and pockets; stairs; perforated metals; ornamental
iron work, expansion control including bridge expansion joint
assemblies; slide bearings; hydraulic structures; fascias; soffit
panels; penthouse enclosures; skylights; joint fillers; gaskets;
sealants and seals; doors; windows; hardware; detention/security
equipment and doors, windows and hardware; conveying systems; building
specialties; building equipment; machinery and plant equipment,
furnishings and special construction.
(c) The duties of controlling contractors under this subpart
include, but are not limited to, the duties specified in Secs. 1926.752
(a) and (c), 1926.755(b)(2), 1926.759(b), and 1926.760(e).
Sec. 1926.751 Definitions.
Anchored bridging means that the steel joist bridging is connected
to a bridging terminus point.
Bolted diagonal bridging means diagonal bridging that is bolted to
a steel joist or joists.
Bridging clip means a device that is attached to the steel joist to
allow the bolting of the bridging to the steel joist.
Bridging terminus point means a wall, a beam, tandem joists (with
all bridging installed and a horizontal truss in the plane of the top
chord) or other element at an end or intermediate point(s) of a line of
bridging that provides an anchor point for the steel joist bridging.
Choker means a wire rope or synthetic fiber rigging assembly that
is used to attach a load to a hoisting device.
Cold forming means the process of using press brakes, rolls, or
other methods to shape steel into desired cross sections at room
temperature.
Column means a load-carrying vertical member that is part of the
primary skeletal framing system. Columns do not include posts.
Competent person (also defined in Sec. 1926.32) means one who is
capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the
surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or
dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt
corrective measures to eliminate them.
Connector means an employee who, working with hoisting equipment,
is placing and connecting structural members and/or components.
Constructibility means the ability to erect structural steel
members in accordance with subpart R without having to alter the over-
all structural design.
Construction load (for joist erection) means any load other than
the weight of the employee(s), the joists and the bridging bundle.
Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ) means an area in which certain work
(for example, initial installation and placement of metal decking) may
take place without the use of guardrail systems, personal fall arrest
systems, fall restraint systems, or safety net systems and where access
to the zone is controlled.
Controlled load lowering means lowering a load by means of a
mechanical hoist drum device that allows a hoisted load to be lowered
with maximum control using the gear train or hydraulic components of
the hoist mechanism. Controlled load lowering requires the use of the
hoist drive motor, rather than the load hoist brake, to lower the load.
Controlling contractor means a prime contractor, general
contractor, construction manager or any other legal entity which has
the overall responsibility for the construction of the project--its
planning, quality and completion.
Critical lift means a lift that (1) exceeds 75 percent of the rated
capacity of the crane or derrick, or (2) requires the use of more than
one crane or derrick.
Decking hole means a gap or void more than 2 inches (5.1 cm) in its
least dimension and less than 12 inches (30.5 cm) in its greatest
dimension in a floor, roof or other walking/working surface. Pre-
engineered holes in cellular decking (for wires, cables, etc.) are not
included in this definition.
Derrick floor means an elevated floor of a building or structure
that has been designated to receive hoisted pieces of steel prior to
final placement.
Double connection means an attachment method where the connection
point is intended for two pieces of steel which share common bolts on
either side of a central piece.
Double connection seat means a structural attachment that, during
the installation of a double connection, supports the first member
while the second member is connected.
Erection bridging means the bolted diagonal bridging that is
required to be installed prior to releasing the hoisting cables from
the steel joists.
Fall restraint system means a fall protection system that prevents
the user from falling any distance. The system is comprised of either a
body belt or body harness, along with an anchorage, connectors and
other necessary equipment. The other components typically include a
lanyard, and may also include a lifeline and other devices.
Final interior perimeter means the perimeter of a large permanent
open space within a building such as an atrium or courtyard. This does
not include openings for stairways, elevator shafts, etc.
Girt (in systems-engineered metal buildings) means a ``Z'' or ``C''
shaped member formed from sheet steel spanning between primary framing
and supporting wall material.
Headache ball means a weighted hook that is used to attach loads to
the hoist load line of the crane.
Hoisting equipment means commercially manufactured lifting
equipment designed to lift and position a load of known weight to a
location at some known elevation and horizontal distance from the
equipment's center of rotation. ``Hoisting equipment'' includes but is
not limited to cranes, derricks, tower cranes, barge-mounted derricks
or cranes, gin poles and gantry hoist systems. A ``come-a-long'' (a
mechanical device, usually consisting of a chain or cable attached at
each end, that is used to facilitate movement of materials through
leverage) is not considered ``hoisting equipment.''
Leading edge means the unprotected side and edge of a floor, roof,
or formwork for a floor or other walking/working surface (such as deck)
which changes location as additional floor, roof, decking or formwork
sections are placed, formed or constructed.
Metal decking means a commercially manufactured, structural grade,
cold rolled metal panel formed into a series of parallel ribs; for this
subpart, this includes metal floor and roof decks, standing seam metal
roofs, other metal roof systems and other products such as bar
gratings, checker plate, expanded metal panels, and similar products.
After installation and proper fastening, these decking materials serve
a combination of functions including, but not limited to: a structural
element designed in combination with the structure to resist,
distribute and transfer loads, stiffen the structure and provide a
diaphragm action; a walking/working surface; a form for concrete slabs;
a support for roofing systems; and a finished floor or roof.
[[Page 5267]]
Multiple lift rigging means a rigging assembly manufactured by wire
rope rigging suppliers that facilitates the attachment of up to five
independent loads to the hoist rigging of a crane.
Opening means a gap or void 12 inches (30.5 cm) or more in its
least dimension in a floor, roof or other walking/working surface. For
the purposes of this subpart, skylights and smoke domes that do not
meet the strength requirements of Sec. 1926.754(e)(3) shall be regarded
as openings.
Permanent floor means a structurally completed floor at any level
or elevation (including slab on grade).
Personal fall arrest system means a system used to arrest an
employee in a fall from a working level. A personal fall arrest system
consists of an anchorage, connectors, a body harness and may include a
lanyard, deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combination of
these. The use of a body belt for fall arrest is prohibited.
Positioning device system means a body belt or body harness rigged
to allow an employee to be supported on an elevated, vertical surface,
such as a wall or column and work with both hands free while leaning.
Post means a structural member with a longitudinal axis that is
essentially vertical, that: (1) weighs 300 pounds or less and is
axially loaded (a load presses down on the top end), or (2) is not
axially loaded, but is laterally restrained by the above member. Posts
typically support stair landings, wall framing, mezzanines and other
substructures.
Project structural engineer of record means the registered,
licensed professional responsible for the design of structural steel
framing and whose seal appears on the structural contract documents.
Purlin (in systems-engineered metal buildings) means a ``Z'' or
``C'' shaped member formed from sheet steel spanning between primary
framing and supporting roof material.
Qualified person (also defined in Sec. 1926.32) means one who, by
possession of a recognized degree, certificate, or professional
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training, and experience, has
successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems
relating to the subject matter, the work, or the project.
Safety deck attachment means an initial attachment that is used to
secure an initially placed sheet of decking to keep proper alignment
and bearing with structural support members.
Shear connector means headed steel studs, steel bars, steel lugs,
and similar devices which are attached to a structural member for the
purpose of achieving composite action with concrete.
Steel erection means the construction, alteration or repair of
steel buildings, bridges and other structures, including the
installation of metal decking and all planking used during the process
of erection.
Steel joist means an open web, secondary load-carrying member of
144 feet (43.9 m) or less, designed by the manufacturer, used for the
support of floors and roofs. This does not include structural steel
trusses or cold-formed joists.
Steel joist girder means an open web, primary load-carrying member,
designed by the manufacturer, used for the support of floors and roofs.
This does not include structural steel trusses.
Steel truss means an open web member designed of structural steel
components by the project structural engineer of record. For the
purposes of this subpart, a steel truss is considered equivalent to a
solid web structural member.
Structural steel means a steel member, or a member made of a
substitute material (such as, but not limited to, fiberglass, aluminum
or composite members). These members include, but are not limited to,
steel joists, joist girders, purlins, columns, beams, trusses, splices,
seats, metal decking, girts, and all bridging, and cold formed metal
framing which is integrated with the structural steel framing of a
building.
Systems-engineered metal building means a metal, field-assembled
building system consisting of framing, roof and wall coverings.
Typically, many of these components are cold-formed shapes. These
individual parts are fabricated in one or more manufacturing facilities
and shipped to the job site for assembly into the final structure. The
engineering design of the system is normally the responsibility of the
systems-engineered metal building manufacturer.
Tank means a container for holding gases, liquids or solids.
Unprotected sides and edges means any side or edge (except at
entrances to points of access) of a walking/working surface, for
example a, floor, roof, ramp or runway, where there is no wall or
guardrail system at least 39 inches (1.0 m) high.
Sec. 1926.752 Site layout, site-specific erection plan and
construction sequence.
(a) Approval to begin steel erection. Before authorizing the
commencement of steel erection, the controlling contractor shall ensure
that the steel erector is provided with the following written
notifications:
(1) The concrete in the footings, piers and walls and the mortar in
the masonry piers and walls has attained, on the basis of an
appropriate ASTM standard test method of field-cured samples, either 75
percent of the intended minimum compressive design strength or
sufficient strength to support the loads imposed during steel erection.
(2) Any repairs, replacements and modifications to the anchor bolts
were conducted in accordance with Sec. 1926.755(b).
(b) Commencement of steel erection. A steel erection contractor
shall not erect steel unless it has received written notification that
the concrete in the footings, piers and walls or the mortar in the
masonry piers and walls has attained, on the basis of an appropriate
ASTM standard test method of field-cured samples, either 75 percent of
the intended minimum compressive design strength or sufficient strength
to support the loads imposed during steel erection.
(c) Site layout. The controlling contractor shall ensure that the
following is provided and maintained:
(1) Adequate access roads into and through the site for the safe
delivery and movement of derricks, cranes, trucks, other necessary
equipment, and the material to be erected and means and methods for
pedestrian and vehicular control. Exception: this requirement does not
apply to roads outside of the construction site.
(2) A firm, properly graded, drained area, readily accessible to
the work with adequate space for the safe storage of materials and the
safe operation of the erector's equipment.
(d) Pre-planning of overhead hoisting operations. All hoisting
operations in steel erection shall be pre-planned to ensure that the
requirements of Sec. 1926.753(d) are met.
(e) Site-specific erection plan. Where employers elect, due to
conditions specific to the site, to develop alternate means and methods
that provide employee protection in accordance with
Sec. 1926.753(c)(5), Sec. 1926.757(a)(4) or Sec. 1926.757(e)(4), a
site-specific erection plan shall be developed by a qualified person
and be available at the work site. Guidelines for establishing a site-
specific erection plan are contained in Appendix A to this subpart.
Sec. 1926.753 Hoisting and rigging.
(a) All the provisions of Sec. 1926.550 apply to hoisting and
rigging with the exception of Sec. 1926.550(g)(2).
(b) In addition, paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section apply
regarding the
[[Page 5268]]
hazards associated with hoisting and rigging.
(c) General. (1) Pre-shift visual inspection of cranes.
(i) Cranes being used in steel erection activities shall be
visually inspected prior to each shift by a competent person; the
inspection shall include observation for deficiencies during operation.
At a minimum this inspection shall include the following:
(A) All control mechanisms for maladjustments;
(B) Control and drive mechanism for excessive wear of components
and contamination by lubricants, water or other foreign matter;
(C) Safety devices, including but not limited to boom angle
indicators, boom stops, boom kick out devices, anti-two block devices,
and load moment indicators where required;
(D) Air, hydraulic, and other pressurized lines for deterioration
or leakage, particularly those which flex in normal operation;
(E) Hooks and latches for deformation, chemical damage, cracks, or
wear;
(F) Wire rope reeving for compliance with hoisting equipment
manufacturer's specifications;
(G) Electrical apparatus for malfunctioning, signs of excessive
deterioration, dirt, or moisture accumulation;
(H) Hydraulic system for proper fluid level;
(I) Tires for proper inflation and condition;
(J) Ground conditions around the hoisting equipment for proper
support, including ground settling under and around outriggers, ground
water accumulation, or similar conditions;
(K) The hoisting equipment for level position; and
(L) The hoisting equipment for level position after each move and
setup.
(ii) If any deficiency is identified, an immediate determination
shall be made by the competent person as to whether the deficiency
constitutes a hazard.
(iii) If the deficiency is determined to constitute a hazard, the
hoisting equipment shall be removed from service until the deficiency
has been corrected.
(iv) The operator shall be responsible for those operations under
the operator's direct control. Whenever there is any doubt as to
safety, the operator shall have the authority to stop and refuse to
handle loads until safety has been assured.
(2) A qualified rigger (a rigger who is also a qualified person)
shall inspect the rigging prior to each shift in accordance with
Sec. 1926.251.
(3) The headache ball, hook or load shall not be used to transport
personnel except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(4) Cranes or derricks may be used to hoist employees on a
personnel platform when work under this subpart is being conducted,
provided that all provisions of Sec. 1926.550 (except for
Sec. 1926.550(g)(2)) are met.
(5) Safety latches on hooks shall not be deactivated or made
inoperable except:
(i) When a qualified rigger has determined that the hoisting and
placing of purlins and single joists can be performed more safely by
doing so; or
(ii) When equivalent protection is provided in a site-specific
erection plan.
(d) Working under loads.
(1) Routes for suspended loads shall be pre-planned to ensure that
no employee is required to work directly below a suspended load except
for:
(i) Employees engaged in the initial connection of the steel; or
(ii) Employees necessary for the hooking or unhooking of the load.
(2) When working under suspended loads, the following criteria
shall be met:
(i) Materials being hoisted shall be rigged to prevent
unintentional displacement;
(ii) Hooks with self-closing safety latches or their equivalent
shall be used to prevent components from slipping out of the hook; and
(iii) All loads shall be rigged by a qualified rigger
(e) Multiple lift rigging procedure.
(1) A multiple lift shall only be performed if the following
criteria are met:
(i) A multiple lift rigging assembly is used;
(ii) A maximum of five members are hoisted per lift;
(iii) Only beams and similar structural members are lifted; and
(iv) All employees engaged in the multiple lift have been trained
in these procedures in accordance with Sec. 1926.761(c)(1).
(v) No crane is permitted to be used for a multiple lift where such
use is contrary to the manufacturer's specifications and limitations.
(2) Components of the multiple lift rigging assembly shall be
specifically designed and assembled with a maximum capacity for total
assembly and for each individual attachment point. This capacity,
certified by the manufacturer or a qualified rigger, shall be based on
the manufacturer's specifications with a 5 to 1 safety factor for all
components.
(3) The total load shall not exceed:
(i) The rated capacity of the hoisting equipment specified in the
hoisting equipment load charts;
(ii) The rigging capacity specified in the rigging rating chart.
(4) The multiple lift rigging assembly shall be rigged with
members:
(i) Attached at their center of gravity and maintained reasonably
level;
(ii) Rigged from top down; and
(iii) Rigged at least 7 feet (2.1 m) apart.
(5) The members on the multiple lift rigging assembly shall be set
from the bottom up.
(6) Controlled load lowering shall be used whenever the load is
over the connectors.
Sec. 1926.754 Structural steel assembly.
(a) Structural stability shall be maintained at all times during
the erection process.
(b) The following additional requirements shall apply for multi-
story structures:
(1) The permanent floors shall be installed as the erection of
structural members progresses, and there shall be not more than eight
stories between the erection floor and the upper-most permanent floor,
except where the structural integrity is maintained as a result of the
design.
(2) At no time shall there be more than four floors or 48 feet
(14.6 m), whichever is less, of unfinished bolting or welding above the
foundation or uppermost permanently secured floor, except where the
structural integrity is maintained as a result of the design.
(3) A fully planked or decked floor or nets shall be maintained
within two stories or 30 feet (9.1 m), whichever is less, directly
under any erection work being performed.
(c) Walking/working surfaces.
(1) Shear connectors and other similar devices.
(i) Tripping hazards. Shear connectors (such as headed steel studs,
steel bars or steel lugs), reinforcing bars, deformed anchors or
threaded studs shall not be attached to the top flanges of beams,
joists or beam attachments so that they project vertically from or
horizontally across the top flange of the member until after the metal
decking, or other walking/working surface, has been installed.
(ii) Installation of shear connectors on composite floors, roofs
and bridge decks. When shear connectors are used in construction of
composite floors, roofs and bridge decks, employees shall lay out and
install the shear connectors after the metal decking has been
installed, using the metal decking as a working platform. Shear
connectors
[[Page 5269]]
shall not be installed from within a controlled decking zone (CDZ), as
specified in Sec. 1926.760(c)(8).
(2) Slip resistance of metal decking. [Reserved]
(3) Slip resistance of skeletal structural steel. Workers shall not
be permitted to walk the top surface of any structural steel member
installed after July 18, 2006 that has been coated with paint or
similar material unless documentation or certification that the coating
has achieved a minimum average slip resistance of .50 when measured
with an English XL tribometer or equivalent tester on a wetted surface
at a testing laboratory is provided. Such documentation or
certification shall be based on the appropriate ASTM standard test
method conducted by a laboratory capable of performing the test. The
results shall be available at the site and to the steel erector.
(Appendix B to this subpart references appropriate ASTM standard test
methods that may be used to comply with this paragraph (c)(3)).
(d) Plumbing-up.
(1) When deemed necessary by a competent person, plumbing-up
equipment shall be installed in conjunction with the steel erection
process to ensure the stability of the structure.
(2) When used, plumbing-up equipment shall be in place and properly
installed before the structure is loaded with construction material
such as loads of joists, bundles of decking or bundles of bridging.
(3) Plumbing-up equipment shall be removed only with the approval
of a competent person.
(e) Metal decking.--(1) Hoisting, landing and placing of metal
decking bundles.
(i) Bundle packaging and strapping shall not be used for hoisting
unless specifically designed for that purpose.
(ii) If loose items such as dunnage, flashing, or other materials
are placed on the top of metal decking bundles to be hoisted, such
items shall be secured to the bundles.
(iii) Bundles of metal decking on joists shall be landed in
accordance with Sec. 1926.757(e)(4).
(iv) Metal decking bundles shall be landed on framing members so
that enough support is provided to allow the bundles to be unbanded
without dislodging the bundles from the supports.
(v) At the end of the shift or when environmental or jobsite
conditions require, metal decking shall be secured against
displacement.
(2) Roof and floor holes and openings. Metal decking at roof and
floor holes and openings shall be installed as follows:
(i) Framed metal deck openings shall have structural members turned
down to allow continuous deck installation except where not allowed by
structural design constraints or constructibility.
(ii) Roof and floor holes and openings shall be decked over. Where
large size, configuration or other structural design does not allow
openings to be decked over (such as elevator shafts, stair wells, etc.)
employees shall be protected in accordance with Sec. 1926.760(a)(1).
(iii) Metal decking holes and openings shall not be cut until
immediately prior to being permanently filled with the equipment or
structure needed or intended to fulfill its specific use and which
meets the strength requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this section, or
shall be immediately covered.
(3) Covering roof and floor openings.
(i) Covers for roof and floor openings shall be capable of
supporting, without failure, twice the weight of the employees,
equipment and materials that may be imposed on the cover at any one
time.
(ii) All covers shall be secured when installed to prevent
accidental displacement by the wind, equipment or employees.
(iii) All covers shall be painted with high-visibility paint or
shall be marked with the word ``HOLE'' or ``COVER'' to provide warning
of the hazard.
(iv) Smoke dome or skylight fixtures that have been installed, are
not considered covers for the purpose of this section unless they meet
the strength requirements of paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section.
(4) Decking gaps around columns. Wire mesh, exterior plywood, or
equivalent, shall be installed around columns where planks or metal
decking do not fit tightly. The materials used must be of sufficient
strength to provide fall protection for personnel and prevent objects
from falling through.
(5) Installation of metal decking. (i) Except as provided in
Sec. 1926.760(c), metal decking shall be laid tightly and immediately
secured upon placement to prevent accidental movement or displacement.
(ii) During initial placement, metal decking panels shall be placed
to ensure full support by structural members.
(6) Derrick floors. (i) A derrick floor shall be fully decked and/
or planked and the steel member connections completed to support the
intended floor loading.
(ii) Temporary loads placed on a derrick floor shall be distributed
over the underlying support members so as to prevent local overloading
of the deck material.
Sec. 1926.755 Column anchorage.
(a) General requirements for erection stability. (1) All columns
shall be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor rods (anchor bolts).
(2) Each column anchor rod (anchor bolt) assembly, including the
column-to-base plate weld and the column foundation, shall be designed
to resist a minimum eccentric gravity load of 300 pounds (136.2 kg)
located 18 inches (.46m) from the extreme outer face of the column in
each direction at the top of the column shaft.
(3) Columns shall be set on level finished floors, pre-grouted
leveling plates, leveling nuts, or shim packs which are adequate to
transfer the construction loads.
(4) All columns shall be evaluated by a competent person to
determine whether guying or bracing is needed; if guying or bracing is
needed, it shall be installed.
(b) Repair, replacement or field modification of anchor rods
(anchor bolts).
(1) Anchor rods (anchor bolts) shall not be repaired, replaced or
field-modified without the approval of the project structural engineer
of record.
(2) Prior to the erection of a column, the controlling contractor
shall provide written notification to the steel erector if there has
been any repair, replacement or modification of the anchor rods (anchor
bolts) of that column.
Sec. 1926.756 Beams and columns.
(a) General. (1) During the final placing of solid web structural
members, the load shall not be released from the hoisting line until
the members are secured with at least two bolts per connection, of the
same size and strength as shown in the erection drawings, drawn up
wrench-tight or the equivalent as specified by the project structural
engineer of record, except as specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(2) A competent person shall determine if more than two bolts are
necessary to ensure the stability of cantilevered members; if
additional bolts are needed, they shall be installed.
(b) Diagonal bracing. Solid web structural members used as diagonal
bracing shall be secured by at least one bolt per connection drawn up
wrench-tight or the equivalent as specified by the project structural
engineer of record.
(c) (1) Double connections at columns and/or at beam webs over a
column. When two structural members on
[[Page 5270]]
opposite sides of a column web, or a beam web over a column, are
connected sharing common connection holes, at least one bolt with its
wrench-tight nut shall remain connected to the first member unless a
shop-attached or field-attached seat or equivalent connection device is
supplied with the member to secure the first member and prevent the
column from being displaced (See Appendix H to this subpart for
examples of equivalent connection devices).
(2) If a seat or equivalent device is used, the seat (or device)
shall be designed to support the load during the double connection
process. It shall be adequately bolted or welded to both a supporting
member and the first member before the nuts on the shared bolts are
removed to make the double connection.
(d) Column splices. Each column splice shall be designed to resist
a minimum eccentric gravity load of 300 pounds (136.2 kg) located 18
inches (.46 m) from the extreme outer face of the column in each
direction at the top of the column shaft.
(e) Perimeter columns. Perimeter columns shall not be erected
unless:
(1) The perimeter columns extend a minimum of 48 inches (1.2 m)
above the finished floor to permit installation of perimeter safety
cables prior to erection of the next tier, except where
constructibility does not allow (see Appendix F to this subpart);
(2) The perimeter columns have holes or other devices in or
attached to perimeter columns at 42-45 inches (107-114 cm) above the
finished floor and the midpoint between the finished floor and the top
cable to permit installation of perimeter safety cables required by
Sec. 1926.760(a)(2), except where constructibility does not allow. (See
Appendix F to this subpart).
Sec. 1926.757 Open web steel joists.
(a) General. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, where steel joists are used and columns are not framed in at
least two directions with solid web structural steel members, a steel
joist shall be field-bolted at the column to provide lateral stability
to the column during erection. For the installation of this joist:
(i) A vertical stabilizer plate shall be provided on each column
for steel joists. The plate shall be a minimum of 6 inch by 6 inch (152
mm by 152 mm) and shall extend at least 3 inches (76 mm) below the
bottom chord of the joist with a \13/16\ inch (21 mm) hole to provide
an attachment point for guying or plumbing cables.
(ii) The bottom chords of steel joists at columns shall be
stabilized to prevent rotation during erection.
(iii) Hoisting cables shall not be released until the seat at each
end of the steel joist is field-bolted, and each end of the bottom
chord is restrained by the column stabilizer plate.
(2) Where constructibility does not allow a steel joist to be
installed at the column:
(i) an alternate means of stabilizing joists shall be installed on
both sides near the column and shall:
(A) provide stability equivalent to paragraph (a)(1) of this
section;
(B) be designed by a qualified person;
(C) be shop installed; and
(D) be included in the erection drawings.
(ii) hoisting cables shall not be released until the seat at each
end of the steel joist is field-bolted and the joist is stabilized.
(3) Where steel joists at or near columns span 60 feet (18.3 m) or
less, the joist shall be designed with sufficient strength to allow one
employee to release the hoisting cable without the need for erection
bridging.
(4) Where steel joists at or near columns span more than 60 feet
(18.3 m), the joists shall be set in tandem with all bridging installed
unless an alternative method of erection, which provides equivalent
stability to the steel joist, is designed by a qualified person and is
included in the site-specific erection plan.
(5) A steel joist or steel joist girder shall not be placed on any
support structure unless such structure is stabilized.
(6) When steel joist(s) are landed on a structure, they shall be
secured to prevent unintentional displacement prior to installation.
(7) No modification that affects the strength of a steel joist or
steel joist girder shall be made without the approval of the project
structural engineer of record.
(8) Field-bolted joists. (i) Except for steel joists that have been
pre-assembled into panels, connections of individual steel joists to
steel structures in bays of 40 feet (12.2 m) or more shall be
fabricated to allow for field bolting during erection.
(ii) These connections shall be field-bolted unless
constructibility does not allow.
(9) Steel joists and steel joist girders shall not be used as
anchorage points for a fall arrest system unless written approval to do
so is obtained from a qualified person.
(10) A bridging terminus point shall be established before bridging
is installed. (See Appendix C to this subpart.)
(b) Attachment of steel joists and steel joist girders. (1) Each
end of ``K'' series steel joists shall be attached to the support
structure with a minimum of two \1/8\-inch (3 mm) fillet welds 1 inch
(25 mm) long or with two \1/2\-inch (13 mm) bolts, or the equivalent.
(2) Each end of ``LH'' and ``DLH'' series steel joists and steel
joist girders shall be attached to the support structure with a minimum
of two \1/4\-inch (6 mm) fillet welds 2 inches (51 mm) long, or with
two \3/4\-inch (19 mm) bolts, or the equivalent.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, each
steel joist shall be attached to the support structure, at least at one
end on both sides of the seat, immediately upon placement in the final
erection position and before additional joists are placed.
(4) Panels that have been pre-assembled from steel joists with
bridging shall be attached to the structure at each corner before the
hoisting cables are released.
(c) Erection of steel joists. (1) Both sides of the seat of one end
of each steel joist that requires bridging under Tables A and B shall
be attached to the support structure before hoisting cables are
released.
(2) For joists over 60 feet, both ends of the joist shall be
attached as specified in paragraph (b) of this section and the
provisions of paragraph (d) of this section met before the hoisting
cables are released.
(3) On steel joists that do not require erection bridging under
Tables A and B, only one employee shall be allowed on the joist until
all bridging is installed and anchored.
Table A.--Erection Bridging for Short Span Joists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joist Span
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8L1........................................ NM
10K1....................................... NM
12K1....................................... 23-0
12K3....................................... NM
12K5....................................... NM
14K1....................................... 27-0
14K3....................................... NM
14K4....................................... NM
14K6....................................... NM
16K2....................................... 29-0
16K3....................................... 30-0
16K4....................................... 32-0
16K5....................................... 32-0
16K6....................................... NM
16K7....................................... NM
16K9....................................... NM
18K3....................................... 31-0
18K4....................................... 32-0
18K5....................................... 33-0
18K6....................................... 35-0
[[Page 5271]]
18K7....................................... NM
18K9....................................... NM
18K10...................................... NM
20K3....................................... 32-0
20K4....................................... 34-0
20K5....................................... 34-0
20K6....................................... 36-0
20K7....................................... 39-0
20K9....................................... 39-0
20K10...................................... NM
22K4....................................... 34-0
22K5....................................... 35-0
22K6....................................... 36-0
22K7....................................... 40-0
22K9....................................... 40-0
22K10...................................... 40-0
22K11...................................... 40-0
24K4....................................... 36-0
24K5....................................... 38-0
24K6....................................... 39-0
24K7....................................... 43-0
24K8....................................... 43-0
24K9....................................... 44-0
24K10...................................... NM
24K12...................................... NM
26K5....................................... 38-0
26K6....................................... 39-0
26K7....................................... 43-0
26K8....................................... 44-0
26K9....................................... 45-0
26K10...................................... 49-0
26K12...................................... NM
28K6....................................... 40-0
28K7....................................... 43-0
28K8....................................... 44-0
28K9....................................... 45-0
28K10...................................... 49-0
28K12...................................... 53-0
30K7....................................... 44-0
30K8....................................... 45-0
30K9....................................... 45-0
30K10...................................... 50-0
30K11...................................... 52-0
30K12...................................... 54-0
10KCS1..................................... NM
10KCS2..................................... NM
10KCS3..................................... NM
12KCS1..................................... NM
12KCS2..................................... NM
12KCS3..................................... NM
14KCS1..................................... NM
14KCS2..................................... NM
14KCS3..................................... NM
16KCS2..................................... NM
16KCS3..................................... NM
16KCS4..................................... NM
16KCS5..................................... NM
18KCS2..................................... 35-0
18KCS3..................................... NM
18KCS4..................................... NM
18KCS5..................................... NM
20KCS2..................................... 36-0
20KCS3..................................... 39-0
20KCS4..................................... NM
20KCS5..................................... NM
22KCS2..................................... 36-0
22KCS3..................................... 40-0
22KCS4..................................... NM
22KCS5..................................... NM
24KCS2..................................... 39-0
24KCS3..................................... 44-0
24KCS4..................................... NM
24KCS5..................................... NM
26KCS2..................................... 39-0
26KCS3..................................... 44-0
26KCS4..................................... NM
26KCS5..................................... NM
28KCS2..................................... 40-0
28KCS3..................................... 45-0
28KCS4..................................... 53-0
28KCS5..................................... 53-0
30KC53..................................... 45-0
30KCS4..................................... 54-0
30KCS5..................................... 54-0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM=diagonal bolted bridging not mandatory for joists under 40 feet.
Table B.--Erection Bridging for Long Span Joists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joist Span
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18LH02.................................... 33-0.
18LH03.................................... NM.
18LH04.................................... NM.
18LH05.................................... NM.
18LH06.................................... NM.
18LH07.................................... NM.
18LH08.................................... NM.
18LH09.................................... NM.
20LH02.................................... 33-0.
20LH03.................................... 38-0.
20LH04.................................... NM.
20LH05.................................... NM.
20LH06.................................... NM.
20LH07.................................... NM.
20LH08.................................... NM.
20LH09.................................... NM.
20LH10.................................... NM.
24LH03.................................... 35-0.
24LH04.................................... 39-0.
24LH05.................................... 40-0.
24LH06.................................... 45-0.
24LH07.................................... NM.
24LH08.................................... NM.
24LH09.................................... NM.
24LH10.................................... NM.
24LH11.................................... NM.
28LH05.................................... 42-0.
28LH06.................................... 42-0.
28LH07.................................... NM.
28LH08.................................... NM.
28LH09.................................... NM.
28LH10.................................... NM.
28LH11.................................... NM.
28LH12.................................... NM.
28LH13.................................... NM.
32LH06.................................... 47-0 through 60-0.
32LH07.................................... 47-0 through 60-0.
32LH08.................................... 55-0 through 60-0.
32LH09.................................... NM through 60-0.
32LH10.................................... NM through 60-0.
32LH11.................................... NM through 60-0.
32LH12.................................... NM through 60-0.
32LH13.................................... NM through 60-0.
32LH14.................................... NM through 60-0.
32LH15.................................... NM through 60-0.
36LH07.................................... 47-0 through 60-0.
36LH08.................................... 47-0 through 60-0.
36LH09.................................... 57-0 through 60-0.
36LH10.................................... NM through 60-0.
36LH11.................................... NM through 60-0.
36LH12.................................... NM through 60-0.
36LH13.................................... NM through 60-0.
36LH14.................................... NM through 60-0.
36LH15.................................... NM through 60-0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM = diagonal bolted bridging not mandatory for joists under 40 feet.
(4) Employees shall not be allowed on steel joists where the span
of the steel joist is equal to or greater than the span shown in Tables
A and B except in accordance with Sec. 1926.757(d).
(5) When permanent bridging terminus points cannot be used during
erection, additional temporary bridging terminus points are required to
provide stability. (See appendix C of this subpart.)
(d) Erection bridging. (1) Where the span of the steel joist is
equal to or greater than the span shown in Tables A and B, the
following shall apply:
(i) A row of bolted diagonal erection bridging shall be installed
near the midspan of the steel joist;
(ii) Hoisting cables shall not be released until this bolted
diagonal erection bridging is installed and anchored; and
(iii) No more than one employee shall be allowed on these spans
until all other bridging is installed and anchored.
(2) Where the span of the steel joist is over 60 feet (18.3 m)
through 100 feet (30.5 m), the following shall apply:
(i) All rows of bridging shall be bolted diagonal bridging;
(ii) Two rows of bolted diagonal erection bridging shall be
installed near the third points of the steel joist;
(iii) Hoisting cables shall not be released until this bolted
diagonal erection bridging is installed and anchored; and
(iv) No more than two employees shall be allowed on these spans
until all other bridging is installed and anchored.
(3) Where the span of the steel joist is over 100 feet (30.5 m)
through 144 feet (43.9 m), the following shall apply:
(i) All rows of bridging shall be bolted diagonal bridging;
(ii) Hoisting cables shall not be released until all bridging is
installed and anchored; and
(iii) No more than two employees shall be allowed on these spans
until all bridging is installed and anchored.
(4) For steel members spanning over 144 feet (43.9 m), the erection
methods used shall be in accordance with Sec. 1926.756.
(5) Where any steel joist specified in paragraphs (c)(2) and
(d)(1), (d)(2), and
[[Page 5272]]
(d)(3) of this section is a bottom chord bearing joist, a row of bolted
diagonal bridging shall be provided near the support(s). This bridging
shall be installed and anchored before the hoisting cable(s) is
released.
(6) When bolted diagonal erection bridging is required by this
section, the following shall apply:
(i) The bridging shall be indicated on the erection drawing;
(ii) The erection drawing shall be the exclusive indicator of the
proper placement of this bridging;
(iii) Shop-installed bridging clips, or functional equivalents,
shall be used where the bridging bolts to the steel joists;
(iv) When two pieces of bridging are attached to the steel joist by
a common bolt, the nut that secures the first piece of bridging shall
not be removed from the bolt for the attachment of the second; and
(v) Bridging attachments shall not protrude above the top chord of
the steel joist.
(e) Landing and placing loads. (1) During the construction period,
the employer placing a load on steel joists shall ensure that the load
is distributed so as not to exceed the carrying capacity of any steel
joist.
(2) Except for paragraph (e)(4) of this section, no construction
loads are allowed on the steel joists until all bridging is installed
and anchored and all joist-bearing ends are attached.
(3) The weight of a bundle of joist bridging shall not exceed a
total of 1,000 pounds (454 kg). A bundle of joist bridging shall be
placed on a minimum of three steel joists that are secured at one end.
The edge of the bridging bundle shall be positioned within 1 foot (.30
m) of the secured end.
(4) No bundle of decking may be placed on steel joists until all
bridging has been installed and anchored and all joist bearing ends
attached, unless all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The employer has first determined from a qualified person and
documented in a site-specific erection plan that the structure or
portion of the structure is capable of supporting the load;
(ii) The bundle of decking is placed on a minimum of three steel
joists;
(iii) The joists supporting the bundle of decking are attached at
both ends;
(iv) At least one row of bridging is installed and anchored;
(v) The total weight of the bundle of decking does not exceed 4,000
pounds (1816 kg); and
(vi) Placement of the bundle of decking shall be in accordance with
paragraph (e)(5) of this section.
(5) The edge of the construction load shall be placed within 1 foot
(.30 m) of the bearing surface of the joist end.
Sec. 1926.758 Systems-engineered metal buildings.
(a) All of the requirements of this subpart apply to the erection
of systems-engineered metal buildings except Secs. 1926.755 (column
anchorage) and 1926.757 (open web steel joists).
(b) Each structural column shall be anchored by a minimum of four
anchor rods (anchor bolts).
(c) Rigid frames shall have 50 percent of their bolts or the number
of bolts specified by the manufacturer (whichever is greater) installed
and tightened on both sides of the web adjacent to each flange before
the hoisting equipment is released.
(d) Construction loads shall not be placed on any structural steel
framework unless such framework is safely bolted, welded or otherwise
adequately secured.
(e) In girt and eave strut-to-frame connections, when girts or eave
struts share common connection holes, at least one bolt with its
wrench-tight nut shall remain connected to the first member unless a
manufacturer-supplied, field-attached seat or similar connection device
is present to secure the first member so that the girt or eave strut is
always secured against displacement.
(f) Both ends of all steel joists or cold-formed joists shall be
fully bolted and/or welded to the support structure before:
(1) Releasing the hoisting cables;
(2) Allowing an employee on the joists; or
(3) Allowing any construction loads on the joists.
(g) Purlins and girts shall not be used as an anchorage point for a
fall arrest system unless written approval is obtained from a qualified
person.
(h) Purlins may only be used as a walking/working surface when
installing safety systems, after all permanent bridging has been
installed and fall protection is provided.
(i) Construction loads may be placed only within a zone that is
within 8 feet (2.5 m) of the center-line of the primary support member.
Sec. 1926.759 Falling object protection.
(a) Securing loose items aloft. All materials, equipment, and
tools, which are not in use while aloft, shall be secured against
accidental displacement.
(b) Protection from falling objects other than materials being
hoisted. The controlling contractor shall bar other construction
processes below steel erection unless overhead protection for the
employees below is provided.
Sec. 1926.760 Fall protection.
(a) General requirements. (1) Except as provided by paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, each employee engaged in a steel erection
activity who is on a walking/working surface with an unprotected side
or edge more than 15 feet (4.6 m) above a lower level shall be
protected from fall hazards by guardrail systems, safety net systems,
personal fall arrest systems, positioning device systems or fall
restraint systems.
(2) Perimeter safety cables. On multi-story structures, perimeter
safety cables shall be installed at the final interior and exterior
perimeters of the floors as soon as the metal decking has been
installed.
(3) Connectors and employees working in controlled decking zones
shall be protected from fall hazards as provided in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section, respectively.
(b) Connectors. Each connector shall:
(1) Be protected in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this
section from fall hazards of more than two stories or 30 feet (9.1 m)
above a lower level, whichever is less;
(2) Have completed connector training in accordance with
Sec. 1926.761; and
(3) Be provided, at heights over 15 and up to 30 feet above a lower
level, with a personal fall arrest system, positioning device system or
fall restraint system and wear the equipment necessary to be able to be
tied off; or be provided with other means of protection from fall
hazards in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(c) Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ). A controlled decking zone may be
established in that area of the structure over 15 and up to 30 feet
above a lower level where metal decking is initially being installed
and forms the leading edge of a work area. In each CDZ, the following
shall apply:
(1) Each employee working at the leading edge in a CDZ shall be
protected from fall hazards of more than two stories or 30 feet (9.1
m), whichever is less.
(2) Access to a CDZ shall be limited to only those employees
engaged in leading edge work.
(3) The boundaries of a CDZ shall be designated and clearly marked.
The CDZ shall not be more than 90 feet (27.4 m) wide and 90 (27.4 m)
feet deep from any leading edge. The CDZ shall be marked by the use of
control lines or the equivalent. Examples of acceptable procedures for
demarcating CDZ's can be found in Appendix D to this subpart.
[[Page 5273]]
(4) Each employee working in a CDZ shall have completed CDZ
training in accordance with Sec. 1926.761.
(5) Unsecured decking in a CDZ shall not exceed 3,000 square feet
(914.4 m 2).
(6) Safety deck attachments shall be performed in the CDZ from the
leading edge back to the control line and shall have at least two
attachments for each metal decking panel.
(7) Final deck attachments and installation of shear connectors
shall not be performed in the CDZ.
(d) Criteria for fall protection equipment. (1) Guardrail systems,
safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, positioning device
systems and their components shall conform to the criteria in
Sec. 1926.502 (see Appendix G to this subpart).
(2) Fall arrest system components shall be used in fall restraint
systems and shall conform to the criteria in Sec. 1926.502 (see
Appendix G). Either body belts or body harnesses shall be used in fall
restraint systems.
(3) Perimeter safety cables shall meet the criteria for guardrail
systems in Sec. 1926.502 (see Appendix G).
(e) Custody of fall protection. Fall protection provided by the
steel erector shall remain in the area where steel erection activity
has been completed, to be used by other trades, only if the controlling
contractor or its authorized representative:
(1) Has directed the steel erector to leave the fall protection in
place; and
(2) Has inspected and accepted control and responsibility of the
fall protection prior to authorizing persons other than steel erectors
to work in the area.
Sec. 1926.761 Training.
The following provisions supplement the requirements of
Sec. 1926.21 regarding the hazards addressed in this subpart.
(a) Training personnel. Training required by this section shall be
provided by a qualified person(s).
(b) Fall hazard training. The employer shall provide a training
program for all employees exposed to fall hazards. The program shall
include training and instruction in the following areas:
(1) The recognition and identification of fall hazards in the work
area;
(2) The use and operation of guardrail systems (including perimeter
safety cable systems), personal fall arrest systems, positioning device
systems, fall restraint systems, safety net systems, and other
protection to be used;
(3) The correct procedures for erecting, maintaining,
disassembling, and inspecting the fall protection systems to be used;
(4) The procedures to be followed to prevent falls to lower levels
and through or into holes and openings in walking/working surfaces and
walls; and
(5) The fall protection requirements of this subpart.
(c) Special training programs. In addition to the training required
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the employer shall provide
special training to employees engaged in the following activities.
(1) Multiple lift rigging procedure. The employer shall ensure that
each employee who performs multiple lift rigging has been provided
training in the following areas:
(i) The nature of the hazards associated with multiple lifts; and
(ii) The proper procedures and equipment to perform multiple lifts
required by Sec. 1926.753(e).
(2) Connector procedures. The employer shall ensure that each
connector has been provided training in the following areas:
(i) The nature of the hazards associated with connecting; and
(ii) The establishment, access, proper connecting techniques and
work practices required by Sec. 1926.756(c) and Sec. 1926.760(b).
(3) Controlled Decking Zone Procedures. Where CDZs are being used,
the employer shall assure that each employee has been provided training
in the following areas:
(i) The nature of the hazards associated with work within a
controlled decking zone; and
(ii) The establishment, access, proper installation techniques and
work practices required by Sec. 1926.760(c) and Sec. 1926.754(e).
Appendix A to Subpart R--Guidelines for Establishing the Components of
a Site-specific Erection Plan: Non-mandatory Guidelines for Complying
with Sec. 1926.752(e).
(a) General. This appendix serves as a guideline to assist
employers who elect to develop a site-specific erection plan in
accordance with Sec. 1926.752(e) with alternate means and methods to
provide employee protection in accordance with Sec. 1926.752(e),
Sec. 1926.753(c)(5), Sec. 1926.757(a)(4) and Sec. 1926.757(e)(4).
(b) Development of a site-specific erection plan. Pre-
construction conference(s) and site inspection(s) are held between
the erector and the controlling contractor, and others such as the
project engineer and fabricator before the start of steel erection.
The purpose of such conference(s) is to develop and review the site-
specific erection plan that will meet the requirements of this
section.
(c) Components of a site-specific erection plan. In developing a
site-specific erection plan, a steel erector considers the following
elements:
(1) The sequence of erection activity, developed in coordination
with the controlling contractor, that includes the following:
(i) Material deliveries:
(ii) Material staging and storage; and
(iii) Coordination with other trades and construction
activities.
(2) A description of the crane and derrick selection and
placement procedures, including the following:
(i) Site preparation;
(ii) Path for overhead loads; and
(iii) Critical lifts, including rigging supplies and equipment.
(3) A description of steel erection activities and procedures,
including the following:
(i) Stability considerations requiring temporary bracing and
guying;
(ii) Erection bridging terminus point;
(iii) Anchor rod (anchor bolt) notifications regarding repair,
replacement and modifications;
(iv) Columns and beams (including joists and purlins);
(v) Connections;
(vi) Decking; and
(vii) Ornamental and miscellaneous iron.
(4) A description of the fall protection procedures that will be
used to comply with Sec. 1926.760.
(5) A description of the procedures that will be used to comply
with Sec. 1926.759.
(6) A description of the special procedures required for
hazardous non-routine tasks.
(7) A certification for each employee who has received training
for performing steel erection operations as required by
Sec. 1926.761.
(8) A list of the qualified and competent persons.
(9) A description of the procedures that will be utilized in the
event of rescue or emergency response.
(d) Other plan information. The plan:
(1) Includes the identification of the site and project; and
(2) Is signed and dated by the qualified person(s) responsible
for its preparation and modification.
Appendix B to Subpart R--Acceptable Test Methods for Testing Slip-
Resistance of Walking/Working Surfaces (Sec. 1926.754(c)(3)). Non-
Mandatory Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.754(c)(3).
The following references provide acceptable test methods for
complying with the requirements of Sec. 1926.754(c)(3).
Standard Test Method for Using a Portable Inclineable
Articulated Strut Slip Tester (PIAST)(ASTM F1677-96)
Standard Test Method for Using a Variable Incidence
Tribometer (VIT)(ASTM F1679-96)
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[[Page 5274]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18JA01.021
[[Page 5275]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18JA01.022
[[Page 5276]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18JA01.023
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
[[Page 5277]]
Appendix D to Subpart R--Illustration of the Use of Control Lines to
Demarcate Controlled Decking Zones (CDZs): Non-mandatory Guidelines for
Complying with Sec. 1926.760(c)(3)
(1) When used to control access to areas where leading edge and
initial securement of metal deck and other operations connected with
leading edge work are taking place, the controlled decking zone
(CDZ) is defined by a control line or by any other means that
restricts access.
(i) A control line for a CDZ is erected not less than 6 feet
(1.8 m) nor more than 90 feet (27.4 m) from the leading edge.
(ii) Control lines extend along the entire length of the
unprotected or leading edge and are approximately parallel to the
unprotected or leading edge.
(iii) Control lines are connected on each side to a guardrail
system, wall, stanchion or other suitable anchorage.
(2) Control lines consist of ropes, wires, tapes, or equivalent
materials, and supporting stanchions as follows:
(i) Each line is rigged and supported in such a way that its
lowest point (including sag) is not less than 39 inches (1.0 m) from
the walking/working surface and its highest point is not more than
45 inches (1.3 m) from the walking/working surface.
(ii) Each line has a minimum breaking strength of 200 pounds
(90.8 kg).
Appendix E to Subpart R--Training: Non-mandatory Guidelines for
Complying with Sec. 1926.761
The training requirements of Sec. 1926.761 will be deemed to
have been met if employees have completed a training course on steel
erection, including instruction in the provisions of this standard,
that has been approved by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of
Apprenticeship.
Appendix F to Subpart R--Perimeter Columns: Non-Mandatory Guidelines
for Complying with Sec. 1926.756(e) To Protect the Unprotected Side or
Edge of a Walking/Working Surface
In multi-story structures, when holes in the column web are used
for perimeter safety cables, the column splice must be placed
sufficiently high so as not to interfere with any attachments to the
column necessary for the column splice. Column splices are
recommended to be placed at every other or fourth levels as design
allows. Column splices at third levels are detrimental to the
erection process and should be avoided if possible.
Appendix G to Subpart R--Sec. 1926.502 (b)-(e) Fall Protection Systems
Criteria and Practices
(b) ``Guardrail systems.'' Guardrail systems and their use shall
comply with the following provisions:
(1) Top edge height of top rails, or equivalent guardrail system
members, shall be 42 inches (1.1 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm)
above the walking/working level. When conditions warrant, the height
of the top edge may exceed the 45-inch height, provided the
guardrail system meets all other criteria of this paragraph
(Sec. 1926.502(b)).
Note: When employees are using stilts, the top edge height of
the top rail, or equivalent member, shall be increased an amount
equal to the height of the stilts.
(2) Midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members, or
equivalent intermediate structural members shall be installed
between the top edge of the guardrail system and the walking/working
surface when there is no wall or parapet wall at least 21 inches (53
cm) high.
(i) Midrails, when used, shall be installed at a height midway
between the top edge of the guardrail system and the walking/working
level.
(ii) Screens and mesh, when used, shall extend from the top rail
to the walking/working level and along the entire opening between
top rail supports.
(iii) Intermediate members (such as balusters), when used
between posts, shall be not more than 19 inches (48 cm) apart.
(iv) Other structural members (such as additional midrails and
architectural panels) shall be installed such that there are no
openings in the guardrail system that are more than 19 inches (.5 m)
wide.
(3) Guardrail systems shall be capable of withstanding, without
failure, a force of at least 200 pounds (890 N) applied within 2
inches (5.1 cm) of the top edge, in any outward or downward
direction, at any point along the top edge.
(4) When the 200 pound (890 N) test load specified in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section (Sec. 1926.502) is applied in a downward
direction, the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a
height less than 39 inches (1.0 m) above the walking/working level.
Guardrail system components selected and constructed in accordance
with the appendix B to subpart M of this part will be deemed to meet
this requirement.
(5) Midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members,
solid panels, and equivalent structural members shall be capable of
withstanding, without failure, a force of at least 150 pounds (666
N) applied in any downward or outward direction at any point along
the midrail or other member.
(6) Guardrail systems shall be so surfaced as to prevent injury
to an employee from punctures or lacerations, and to prevent
snagging of clothing.
(7) The ends of all top rails and midrails shall not overhang
the terminal posts, except where such overhang does not constitute a
projection hazard.
(8) Steel banding and plastic banding shall not be used as top
rails or midrails.
(9) Top rails and midrails shall be at least one-quarter inch
(0.6 cm) nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and
lacerations. If wire rope is used for top rails, it shall be flagged
at not more than 6-foot intervals with high-visibility material.
(10) When guardrail systems are used at hoisting areas, a chain,
gate or removable guardrail section shall be placed across the
access opening between guardrail sections when hoisting operations
are not taking place.
(11) When guardrail systems are used at holes, they shall be
erected on all unprotected sides or edges of the hole.
(12) When guardrail systems are used around holes used for the
passage of materials, the hole shall have not more than two sides
provided with removable guardrail sections to allow the passage of
materials. When the hole is not in use, it shall be closed over with
a cover, or a guardrail system shall be provided along all
unprotected sides or edges.
(13) When guardrail systems are used around holes which are used
as points of access (such as ladderways), they shall be provided
with a gate, or be so offset that a person cannot walk directly into
the hole.
(14) Guardrail systems used on ramps and runways shall be
erected along each unprotected side or edge.
(15) Manila, plastic or synthetic rope being used for top rails
or midrails shall be inspected as frequently as necessary to ensure
that it continues to meet the strength requirements of paragraph
(b)(3) of this section (Sec. 1926.502).
(c) Safety net systems. Safety net systems and their use shall
comply with the following provisions:
(1) Safety nets shall be installed as close as practicable under
the walking/working surface on which employees are working, but in
no case more than 30 feet (9.1 m) below such level. When nets are
used on bridges, the potential fall area from the walking/working
surface to the net shall be unobstructed.
(2) Safety nets shall extend outward from the outermost
projection of the work surface as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum required horizontal
Vertical distance from working level to distance of outer edge of net
horizontal plane of net from the edge of the working
surface
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 5 feet........................... 8 feet
More than 5 feet up to 10 feet......... 10 feet
More than 10 feet...................... 13 feet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5278]]
(3) Safety nets shall be installed with sufficient clearance
under them to prevent contact with the surface or structures below
when subjected to an impact force equal to the drop test specified
in paragraph (4) of this section [Sec. 1926.502].
(4) Safety nets and their installations shall be capable of
absorbing an impact force equal to that produced by the drop test
specified in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section [Sec. 1926.502].
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section
(Sec. 1926.502), safety nets and safety net installations shall be
drop-tested at the jobsite after initial installation and before
being used as a fall protection system, whenever relocated, after
major repair, and at 6-month intervals if left in one place. The
drop-test shall consist of a 400 pound (180 kg) bag of sand 30+ or
-2 inches (76+ or -5 cm) in diameter dropped into the net from the
highest walking/working surface at which employees are exposed to
fall hazards, but not from less than 42 inches (1.1 m) above that
level.
(ii) When the employer can demonstrate that it is unreasonable
to perform the drop-test required by paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this
section (Sec. 1926.502), the employer (or a designated competent
person) shall certify that the net and net installation is in
compliance with the provisions of paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4)(i) of
this section (Sec. 1926.502) by preparing a certification record
prior to the net being used as a fall protection system. The
certification record must include an identification of the net and
net installation for which the certification record is being
prepared; the date that it was determined that the identified net
and net installation were in compliance with paragraph (c)(3) of
this section (Sec. 1926.502) and the signature of the person making
the determination and certification. The most recent certification
record for each net and net installation shall be available at the
jobsite for inspection.
(5) Defective nets shall not be used. Safety nets shall be
inspected at least once a week for wear, damage, and other
deterioration. Defective components shall be removed from service.
Safety nets shall also be inspected after any occurrence which could
affect the integrity of the safety net system.
(6) Materials, scrap pieces, equipment, and tools which have
fallen into the safety net shall be removed as soon as possible from
the net and at least before the next work shift.
(7) The maximum size of each safety net mesh opening shall not
exceed 36 square inches (230 cm) nor be longer than 6 inches (15 cm)
on any side, and the opening, measured center-to-center of mesh
ropes or webbing, shall not be longer than 6 inches (15 cm). All
mesh crossings shall be secured to prevent enlargement of the mesh
opening.
(8) Each safety net (or section of it) shall have a border rope
for webbing with a minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2
kN).
(9) Connections between safety net panels shall be as strong as
integral net components and shall be spaced not more than 6 inches
(15 cm) apart.
(d) ``Personal fall arrest systems.'' Personal fall arrest
systems and their use shall comply with the provisions set forth
below. Effective January 1, 1998, body belts are not acceptable as
part of a personal fall arrest system.
Note: The use of a body belt in a positioning device system is
acceptable and is regulated under paragraph (e) of this section
(Sec. 1926.502).
(1) Connectors shall be drop forged, pressed or formed steel, or
made of equivalent materials.
(2) Connectors shall have a corrosion-resistant finish, and all
surfaces and edges shall be smooth to prevent damage to interfacing
parts of the system.
(3) Dee-rings and snaphooks shall have a minimum tensile
strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN).
(4) Dee-rings and snaphooks shall be proof-tested to a minimum
tensile load of 3,600 pounds (16 kN) without cracking, breaking, or
taking permanent deformation.
(5) Snaphooks shall be sized to be compatible with the member to
which they are connected to prevent unintentional disengagement of
the snaphook by depression of the snaphook keeper by the connected
member, or shall be a locking type snaphook designed and used to
prevent disengagement of the snaphook by the contact of the snaphook
keeper by the connected member. Effective January 1, 1998, only
locking type snaphooks shall be used.
(6) Unless the snaphook is a locking type and designed for the
following connections, snaphooks shall not be engaged:
(i) directly to webbing, rope or wire rope;
(ii) to each other;
(iii) to a dee-ring to which another snaphook or other connector
is attached;
(iv) to a horizontal lifeline; or
(v) to any object which is incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in
relation to the snaphook such that unintentional disengagement could
occur by the connected object being able to depress the snaphook
keeper and release itself.
(7) On suspended scaffolds or similar work platforms with
horizontal lifelines which may become vertical lifelines, the
devices used to connect to a horizontal lifeline shall be capable of
locking in both directions on the lifeline.
(8) Horizontal lifelines shall be designed, installed, and used,
under the supervision of a qualified person, as part of a complete
personal fall arrest system, which maintains a safety factor of at
least two.
(9) Lanyards and vertical lifelines shall have a minimum
breaking strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN).
(10)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this
section [Sec. 1926.502], when vertical lifelines are used, each
employee shall be attached to a separate lifeline.
(ii) During the construction of elevator shafts, two employees
may be attached to the same lifeline in the hoistway, provided both
employees are working atop a false car that is equipped with
guardrails; the strength of the lifeline is 10,000 pounds [5,000
pounds per employee attached] (44.4 kN); and all other criteria
specified in this paragraph for lifelines have been met.
(11) Lifelines shall be protected against being cut or abraded.
(12) Self-retracting lifelines and lanyards which automatically
limit free fall distance to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less shall be capable
of sustaining a minimum tensile load of 3,000 pounds (13.3 kN)
applied to the device with the lifeline or lanyard in the fully
extended position.
(13) Self-retracting lifelines and lanyards which do not limit
free fall distance to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less, ripstitch lanyards,
and tearing and deforming lanyards shall be capable of sustaining a
minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN) applied to the device
with the lifeline or lanyard in the fully extended position.
(14) Ropes and straps (webbing) used in lanyards, lifelines, and
strength components of body belts and body harnesses shall be made
from synthetic fibers.
(15) Anchorages used for attachment of personal fall arrest
equipment shall be independent of any anchorage being used to
support or suspend platforms and capable of supporting at least
5,000 pounds (22.2 kN) per employee attached, or shall be designed,
installed, and used as follows:
(i) as part of a complete personal fall arrest system which
maintains a safety factor of at least two; and
(ii) under the supervision of a qualified person.
(16) Personal fall arrest systems, when stopping a fall, shall:
(i) limit maximum arresting force on an employee to 900 pounds
(4 kN) when used with a body belt;
(ii) limit maximum arresting force on an employee to 1,800
pounds (8 kN) when used with a body harness;
(iii) be rigged such that an employee can neither free fall more
than 6 feet (1.8 m), nor contact any lower level;
(iv) bring an employee to a complete stop and limit maximum
deceleration distance an employee travels to 3.5 feet (1.07 m); and,
(v) have sufficient strength to withstand twice the potential
impact energy of an employee free falling a distance of 6 feet (1.8
m), or the free fall distance permitted by the system, whichever is
less.
Note: If the personal fall arrest system meets the criteria and
protocols contained in Appendix C to subpart M, and if the system is
being used by an employee having a combined person and tool weight
of less than 310 pounds (140 kg), the system will be considered to
be in compliance with the provisions of paragraph (d)(16) of this
section [Sec. 1926.502]. If the system is used by an employee having
a combined tool and body weight of 310 pounds (140 kg) or more, then
the employer must appropriately modify the criteria and protocols of
the Appendix to provide proper protection for such heavier weights,
or the system will not be deemed to be in compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (d)(16) of this section (Sec. 1926.502).
(17) The attachment point of the body belt shall be located in
the center of the wearer's back. The attachment point of the body
harness shall be located in the center of the wearer's back near
shoulder level, or above the wearer's head.
(18) Body belts, harnesses, and components shall be used only
for employee
[[Page 5279]]
protection (as part of a personal fall arrest system or positioning
device system) and not to hoist materials.
(19) Personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to
impact loading shall be immediately removed from service and shall
not be used again for employee protection until inspected and
determined by a competent person to be undamaged and suitable for
reuse.
(20) The employer shall provide for prompt rescue of employees
in the event of a fall or shall assure that employees are able to
rescue themselves.
(21) Personal fall arrest systems shall be inspected prior to
each use for wear, damage and other deterioration, and defective
components shall be removed from service.
(22) Body belts shall be at least one and five-eighths (1\5/8\)
inches (4.1 cm) wide.
(23) Personal fall arrest systems shall not be attached to
guardrail systems, nor shall they be attached to hoists except as
specified in other subparts of this Part.
(24) When a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas,
it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far
as the edge of the walking/working surface.
(e) Positioning device systems. Positioning device systems and
their use shall conform to the following provisions:
(1) Positioning devices shall be rigged such that an employee
cannot free fall more than 2 feet (.9 m).
(2) Positioning devices shall be secured to an anchorage capable
of supporting at least twice the potential impact load of an
employee's fall or 3,000 pounds (13.3 kN), whichever is greater.
(3) Connectors shall be drop forged, pressed or formed steel, or
made of equivalent materials.
(4) Connectors shall have a corrosion-resistant finish, and all
surfaces and edges shall be smooth to prevent damage to interfacing
parts of this system.
(5) Connecting assemblies shall have a minimum tensile strength
of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN)
(6) Dee-rings and snaphooks shall be proof-tested to a minimum
tensile load of 3,600 pounds (16 kN) without cracking, breaking, or
taking permanent deformation.
(7) Snaphooks shall be sized to be compatible with the member to
which they are connected to prevent unintentional disengagement of
the snaphook by depression of the snaphook keeper by the connected
member, or shall be a locking type snaphook designed and used to
prevent disengagement of the snaphook by the contact of the snaphook
keeper by the connected member. As of January 1, 1998, only locking
type snaphooks shall be used.
(8) Unless the snaphook is a locking type and designed for the
following connections, snaphooks shall not be engaged:
(i) directly to webbing, rope or wire rope;
(ii) to each other;
(iii) to a dee-ring to which another snaphook or other connector
is attached;
(iv) to a horizontal lifeline; or to depress the snaphook keeper
and release itself.
(v) to any object which is incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in
relation to the snaphook such that unintentional disengagement could
occur by the connected object being able to depress the snaphook
keeper and release itself.
(9) Positioning device systems shall be inspected prior to each
use for wear, damage, and other deterioration, and defective
components shall be removed from service.
(10) Body belts, harnesses, and components shall be used only
for employee protection (as part of a personal fall arrest system or
positioning device system) and not to hoist materials.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18JA01.024
Clipped end connections are connection material on the end of a
structural member which has a notch at the bottom and/or top to
allow the bolt(s) of the first member placed on the opposite side of
the central member to remain in place. The notch(es)
[[Page 5280]]
fits around the nut or bolt head of the opposing member to allow the
second member to be bolted up without removing the bolt(s) holding
the first member.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18JA01.025
Staggered connections are connection material on a structural
member in which all of the bolt holes in the common member web are
not shared by the two incoming members in the final connection. The
extra hole in the column web allows the erector to maintain at least
a one bolt connection at all times while making the double
connection.
[FR Doc. 01-979 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P