Safety Standards for Steel Erection

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 §§ 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 §§ 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

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

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.

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 § 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 § 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 § 1926.757(b)(3), and possibly § 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. § 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′ × 3′ skylight hole. The worker accidently stepped into the hole and fell to the ground below. OSHA believes that compliance with the requirements of § 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

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 § 1926.500(a)(2)(iii) states: “Requirements relating to fall protection for employees performing steel erection work are provided in § 1926.105 and in subpart R of this part”. This final rule revises the language of § 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 § 1926.500(a)(2)(iv) to subpart M to clarify that fall protection requirements for tanks and communication and broadcast towers are covered by § 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 § 1926.105”. The final revision to subpart M is to revise § 1926.500(a)(3)(iv). Section 1926.500(a)(3)(iv) currently states that the fall protection systems and criteria contained in § 1926.502 do not apply to steel erection. Since the final steel erection standard refers to § 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 § 1926.502. The criteria for tanks and communication and broadcast towers will continue to be covered by § 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 § 1926.107 provide definitions for the pertinent terms.)

Section 1926.750 Scope

Paragraphs (a) through (c) of § 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 § 1910.12(b) which applies to all of part 1926.

The final rule defines steel erection (in § 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,

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 1926.752(a) (approval to begin steel erection), § 1926.752(c) (site layout), § 1926.755(b)(2) (notification of repair, replacement or modification of anchor bolts), § 1926.759(b) (protection from

falling objects) and § 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, § 1910.1200(e)(2), Hazard Communication; § 1910.146, Permit-Required Confined Spaces; and § 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 § 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.

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 § 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 § 1926.755.

“Competent person.” This term is already defined in § 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 § 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 § 1926.754(e)(2)(i), § 1926.756(e)(1) and (e)(2), and § 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 § 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.

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, § 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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.

“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 § 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 § 1926.760(d)(1), requires positioning device systems to comply with the requirements of § 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 § 1926.755, the Agency feels that a definition for post is needed to clarify the application of § 1926.755. (See also the definition of “Column” in § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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

workgroup. Although no comments were received on the definition, the term itself was changed for reasons explained in the discussion of § 1926.758.

“Tank” is a new definition. It means a container for holding gases, liquids or solids. Although, as explained in the discussion of § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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, § 1926.752(b), to ensure that a steel erector does not begin erecting steel before receiving the information required in § 1926.752(a).

A commenter (Ex. 13-149) suggested that the word “must” in the proposed § 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 § 1926.20 (General Safety and Health Provision); § 1926.550 (Cranes and Derricks); and § 1926.602(a)(3)(i) (Material Handling Equipment standards). However, these standards do not protect employees from the hazards addressed in § 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

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 § 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 § 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. § 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 § 1926.753(d)—working under loads.

Paragraph (e) Site-specific Erection Plan

Paragraph § 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 (§ 1926.753(c)(5)). The second is when an employer provides an alternative erection method for setting certain steel joists detailed in § 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 (§ 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 § 1926.753(c)(5), § 1926.757(a)(4), and § 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

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 § 1926.550.

Paragraph (a) of the final rule provides that all provisions of § 1926.550, the general construction requirements for cranes and derricks, apply to hoisting and rigging operations in steel erection except for § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 (§ 1926.753(c)(4)); to suspend loads over certain employees (§ 1926.753(d)); and to perform multiple lifts (§ 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 § 1926.550 requires pre-shift inspections by a competent person but does not spell out the detailed inspection requirements contained in the new § 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 § 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

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 § 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 § 1926.550(g)(2)—Crane or Derrick Suspended Personnel Platforms if they hoist employees on a personnel platform. § 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

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, § 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 § 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 § 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.

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 § 1926.550(a) and § 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.

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 § 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

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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, § 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 § 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 § 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/

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 § 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 § 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

“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 § 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

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 § 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, § 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

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 in

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.