[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 &ampi 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 &ampi 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