Safety Standards for Steel Erection

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

proposes to revise the construction industry safety standards

addressing steel erection. The intent of this revision is to enhance

the protections provided to workers engaged in steel erection and to

update and strengthen the general provisions that address steel

erection. This proposal contains requirements for hoisting and rigging,

structural steel assembly, beam and column connections, joist erection,

pre-engineered metal building erection, fall protection and training.

The proposed requirements address significant hazards in the steel

erection industry. The principal hazards addressed by this proposal are

those associated with working under loads; hoisting, landing and

placing decking; column stability; double connections; hoisting,

landing and placing steel joists; and falls to lower levels. Notice is

also given of an informal public hearing.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule and notices of intention

to appear at the informal public hearing on the proposed rule must be

postmarked by November 12, 1998. Parties who request more than 10

minutes for their presentations at the informal public hearing and

parties who will submit documentary evidence at the hearing must submit

the full text of their testimony and all documentary evidence

postmarked no later than November 17, 1998. The hearing will take place

in Washington, DC and is scheduled to begin on December 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposal are to be submitted in

quadruplicate or 1 original (hardcopy) and 1 disk (5\1/4\ or 3\1/2\) in

WP 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1, 8.0 or ASCII to: the Docket Officer, Docket S-

775, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20210, (202) 219-7894. Written comments of 10 pages or less may be

transmitted by facsimile (fax) to the Docket Office at (202) 219-5046,

provided an original and three (3) copies are sent to the Docket Office

thereafter. Comments may be submitted electronically by e-mail to

[email protected]. If the e-mail contains attached

electronic files, the files must be in WordPerfect 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1,

8.0 or ASCII. When submitting a comment by e-mail, please include your

name and address.

Any information not contained on the disk or in the e-mail (e.g.,

studies, articles) must be submitted in quadruplicate. Specific

comments on the collection of information requirements may also be

submitted to: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn:

OMB Desk Officer for OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235,

Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316.

Notices of intention to appear at the hearing, and testimony and

documentary evidence which will be introduced into the hearing record,

must be submitted in quadruplicate to: the Docket Officer, Docket S-

775, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20210, (202) 219-7894. The hearing will be held in Washington,

D.C., beginning December 1, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in the Auditorium of the

Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Information and Consumer

Affairs, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3647, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20210, (202) 219-8151.

For an electronic copy of this Federal Register notice, contact the

Labor News Bulletin Board, (202) 219-4784 (callers must pay any toll-

call charges. 300, 1200, 2400, 9600 or 14,400 BAUD; Parity: None; Data

Bits = 8; Stop Bit = 1. Voice phone (202) 219-8831); or OSHA's Webpage

on Internet at http://www.osha.gov/ and http://www.osha-slc.gov/. For

news releases, fact sheets, and other documents, contact OSHA FAX at

(900) 555-3400 at $1.50 per minute.

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) [P.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, currently entitled ``Steel Erection,'' incorporating

Secs. 1926.750 through 1926.752, was adopted as an OSHA standard during

this process. The requirements in the existing standard cover flooring,

steel assembly, bolting, plumbing-up and related operations. In 1974 a

revision in the temporary flooring requirement was made pursuant to a

rulemaking conducted under section 6(b) of the Act (39 FR 24361).

Since that time, OSHA has received several requests for

clarification of various provisions, including those pertaining to fall

protection. 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). During these discussions, the

fall protection requirements of the standard often aroused controversy.

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

[[Page 43453]]

intended the proposed rule to apply to all walking/working surfaces

found in construction, alteration, repair (including painting and

decorating), and demolition work, except for five specific areas.

Although none of the specific areas pertained to steel erection, the

Agency noted that ``Additional requirements to have fall protection for

connectors and for workers on derrick and erection floors during steel

erection would remain in subpart R--Steel Erection.''

This statement led to confusion. Many of the commenters to the

subpart M rulemaking noted that they were not sure whether subpart M or

subpart R would govern their activities. In one case, two sets of

comments were provided, one to be used if subpart M applied and the

other if subpart R applied. In the face of this uncertainty, the Agency

decided that it would regulate the fall hazards associated with steel

erection in its planned revision of subpart R.

OSHA announced its intention to regulate the hazards associated

with steel erection, and in particular the fall hazards associated with

steel erection, in a notice published in the Federal Register on

January 26, 1988 (53 FR 2048). In that notice OSHA stated the

following:

The rulemaking record developed to date indicates that the

Agency needs more information in order to develop a revised standard

covering fall protection for employees engaged in steel erection

activities. The comments received to date have convinced the Agency

to develop a separate proposed rule which will provide comprehensive

coverage for fall protection in steel erection. OSHA intends,

therefore, that the consolidation and revision of fall protection

provisions in subpart M do not apply to steel erection and that the

current fall protection requirements of Part 1926 continue to cover

steel erection until the steel erection rulemaking is completed.

Accordingly, in order to maintain coverage under existing fall

protection standards pending completion of the separate steel

erection fall protection rulemaking, OSHA plans to redesignate

existing Secs. 1926.104, 1926.105, 1926.107(b), 1926.107(c),

1926.107(f), 1926.500 (with Appendix A), 1926.501, and 1926.502 into

subpart R when the Agency issues the final rule for the subpart M

rulemaking.

Since that time, the Agency drafted several documents which it

presented to 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 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 (Ex. 4-18A).

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 resolve issues associated with the

development of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Steel Erection.

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.

II. Establishing the Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory

Committee (SENRAC)

Negotiated rulemaking is a process by which a proposed rule is

developed through negotiation of differing viewpoints by a committee

that is intended to be composed of representatives of all the interests

that will be significantly affected by the rule. The negotiated

rulemaking process is thus fundamentally different from OSHA's usual

development process for proposed rules. Negotiation allows interested

parties to discuss possible approaches to various issues rather than

the Agency asking them to respond to the details of an OSHA draft

proposal. The negotiation process involves a mutual education of the

parties on the reasons for different positions on the issues as well as

on the concerns about the practical impact of various approaches.

Each committee member participates in resolving the interests and

concerns of other members instead of leaving it up to OSHA to bridge

different points of view.

A key principle of negotiated rulemaking is that agreement is

reached by consensus of all the interests. The NRA defines consensus as

unanimous concurrence among the interests represented on a negotiated

rulemaking committee, unless the committee itself unanimously agrees to

use a different definition of consensus.

SENRAC was formed with particular attention to obtaining full and

adequate representation of those interests that may be significantly

affected by the proposed rule. Section 562 of the NRA defines the term

``interest'' as follows:

``interest'' means, with respect to an issue or matter, multiple

parties which have a similar point of view or which are likely to be

affected in a similar manner.

Particular care was taken to identify any unique interests which

were determined to be significantly affected by the proposed rule and

ensure that they were fully represented on the Committee.

The members of the Committee are: Richard Adams--Army Corps of

Engineers, who was later replaced by Donald Pittinger; 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 Iron Workers; Stephen D.

Cooper--International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental

Iron Workers; Phillip H. Cordova--El Paso

[[Page 43454]]

Crane & Rigging, Inc.; Perry A. Day--International Brotherhood of

Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers; James

R. Hinson--J. Hinson Network, Inc.; Jim Lapping--Building and

Construction Trades Department (AFL-CIO), replaced by Brad Sant and

later replaced by Sandy Tillett; Richard King--Black & Veatch; John R.

Molovich--United Steelworkers of America; Carol Murkland--Gilbane

Building Company; John J. Murphy--Williams Enterprises of Georgia,

Inc.; Steven L. Rank--Holton & Associates, Ltd.; Ray Rooth--CAL/OSHA;

Alan Simmons--International Association of Bridge, Structural &

Ornamental Iron Workers; 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 trained

facilitator. The role of the facilitator was to apply proven consensus

building techniques to the OSHA advisory committee setting. This

individual was not involved with the substantive development of the

standard. Rather, the facilitator's role generally included:

(1) Chairing the meetings of the committee in an impartial manner;

(2) Impartially assisting the members of the committee in

conducting discussions and negotiations;

(3) Acting as disclosure officer for committee records under the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); and

(4) In accordance with FACA's requirements, keeping minutes of all

committee meetings.

SENRAC consists of 20 members. Although these members represent

particular interests, natural coalitions formed around particular

issues, and certain members were identified as spokespersons for these

coalitions.

Interested parties who were not selected to membership on the

Committee were provided an opportunity to contribute to the negotiated

rulemaking effort in the following ways:

(1) by being placed on the Committee mailing list and submitting

written comments to the Committee as appropriate;

(2) by attending the Committee meetings, which were open to the

public, caucusing with the SENRAC member representing his or her

interest on the Committee, and addressing the Committee (usually

allowed at the end of the discussion of an issue or the end of a

session, as time permitted); and/or

(3) by participating in a workgroup established by the Committee.

Informal workgroups were established by SENRAC to assist the

Committee in ``staffing'' various technical matters (e.g., researching

or preparing summaries of the technical literature or commenting on

particular matters before the Committee) to facilitate Committee

deliberations. They also assisted in drafting regulatory text. The

workgroups were made up of SENRAC members and other parties who had

expertise or a particular interest in the technical matter(s) being

studied.

SENRAC began negotiations in mid-June, 1994, and has met 11 times.

Initial meetings dealt with procedural matters, including schedules,

agendas and the establishment of workgroups. Workgroups addressed major

issues, such as Scope, Fall Protection, Joists, Slippery Surfaces, Pre-

Engineered Metal Buildings, and Cranes. During subsequent meetings, the

foundations for negotiations were established and preliminary

resolutions of issues were reached. Through negotiations at full

Committee meetings and options developed by Committee workgroups, the

Committee reached consensus on a proposed revision to the regulatory

text for subpart R. This preamble addresses that text, which is the

basis for OSHA's proposed rule.

During SENRAC negotiations, the Committee addressed some difficult

issues. Particularly controversial was the relationship between the

fall protection requirements of subpart M (OSHA's standard for Fall

Protection in construction) and such requirements in the steel erection

context. Subpart M was published in the Federal Register on August 9,

1994 (59 FR 40672), and became effective on February 6, 1995.

Initially, that standard applied to steel erection in non-building

structures such as tanks, towers and bridges but not to steel erection

in buildings. On October 7, 1994, five steel erection companies

petitioned OSHA for an administrative stay of final subpart M to the

extent that the standard applied to steel erection activities. The

companies alleged that they had not received fair notice that the

requirements of subpart M would apply to steel erection in non-building

structures such as bridges, tanks and towers and that, in consequence,

they had not had the opportunity to comment on the issue. Subsequently,

OSHA agreed to stay subpart M as it applied to such activities and

announced this decision to SENRAC on December 8, 1994. The Committee

was informed that the Agency had decided to consider fall protection

standards for all steel erection activities in the subpart R rulemaking

as part of the SENRAC process. OSHA also indicated that it intends to

address any aspects of steel erection fall protection not ultimately

addressed by SENRAC by proposing to include them under subpart M or in

a separate regulation, after notice and comment.

On January 26, 1995, OSHA issued a notice in the Federal Register

(60 FR 5131) delaying the application of subpart M to non-building

steel erection activities until August 6, 1995. On August 2, 1995, OSHA

published a follow-up notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 39254)

amending subpart M to indicate that its provisions did not cover steel

erection, and that requirements relating to fall protection for

employees performing steel erection work are included in Sec. 1926.105

and in subpart R. The notice also stated that, until such time as

subparts M and R have been revised, the Agency's enforcement policy on

fall protection during steel erection would be the policy outlined in

Deputy Assistant Secretary James R. Stanley's July 10, 1995, memorandum

to the Office of Field Programs, ``Fall Protection in Steel Erection''

(Ex. 9-13F)(see full discussion of this memo in the fall protection

section below). The notice also noted the Agency's intention to conduct

a supplemental rulemaking in the near future, to provide an opportunity

for public comment on the extension of subpart M coverage to any steel

erection activity that subpart R does not address.

OSHA believes that the proposed subpart R will help to reduce the

significant risk of death and serious injury that has continued to

confront workers engaged in steel erection activities. In addition, the

clarified and revised language of the proposal will help employers and

employees understand the requirements of the steel erection standard

and will improve worker safety by clarifying and consolidating current

requirements into a single set of provisions that will be easier for

employers to understand. OSHA is also proposing changes and additions

to the current rules to provide more protective requirements and to

close gaps in the current rule's coverage of steel erection hazards.

These proposed revisions have been achieved through the SENRAC

negotiations, with active participation from workgroup members such as

the Steel Joist Institute (SJI), American Institute for Steel

Construction (AISC), Steel Erectors Association of America (SEAA),

American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), Metal Building Manufacturers

[[Page 43455]]

Association (MBMA), Steel Deck Institute (SDI), National Association of

Miscellaneous, Ornamental and Architectural Products Contractors

(NAMOA), the Institute of the Ironworking Industry (III), the

Ironworkers Employers Associations of Washington, D.C. and Western

Pennsylvania (IWEA), and the Allied Building Metal Industries. These

organizations, although not members of the Committee, were able to

contribute significantly to the negotiations through recommendations

they made at various full Committee and workgroup meetings. This

proposal has also been reviewed by OSHA's Advisory Committee on

Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). ACCSH was kept informed of

SENRAC's progress throughout the negotiated rulemaking process and was

given copies of the draft consensus regulatory text (Exs. 9-147, 9-

148).

In summary, the SENRAC Committee was established by OSHA to

negotiate a draft revision of the steel erection standard to serve as

the basis for a proposed rule. The Committee and its workgroups met

over an 18-month period and recommended a consensus document to OSHA.

OSHA believes that the consensus document reflects the concerted effort

of the entire steel erection community--steel erectors (both union and

non-union); employee representatives; steel fabricators; major

producers of domestic steel; manufacturers of steel joists, steel deck,

steel coatings, pre-engineered metal buildings and safety equipment;

insurance interests; safety consultants; and construction safety

associations--to develop a comprehensive, workable and enforceable

proposed standard for the safe erection of steel. In accordance with

the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 and the Department of Labor's

Negotiated Rulemaking Policy (57 FR 61925), the draft regulatory text

and accompanying rationale presented to OSHA by the SENRAC Committee

constitute the basis for this proposed rule.

In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), OSHA provides notice

to all affected employers and employees of these proposed revisions to

subpart R, which the Agency believes are necessary to protect

employees. OSHA believes the clarified language of the proposal will

help employers to protect their employees more effectively and to

comply more readily.

III. Pertinent Legal Authority

The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C.

Secs. 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.

Sec. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of

Labor to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health

standards (see 29 U.S.C. Secs. 655(a) (authorizing summary adoption of

existing consensus and federal standards within two years of Act's

enactment), 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. Sec. 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. See 58 FR 16612--16616

(March 30, 1993).

OSHA has generally considered, at minimum, a fatality risk of 1/

1000 over a 45-year working lifetime to be a significant health risk.

See the Benzene decision Industrial Union Dep't v. American Petroleum

Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 646 (1980); the Asbestos decision Building and

Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1265 (D.C. Cir.

1988); the Formaldehyde decision International Union, UAW v.

Pendergrass, 878 F.2d 389, 392 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

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.

Sec. 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.

IV. Hazards in Steel Erection

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 believes

that the current standard, which has been in place with little change

for 25 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 and providing

more effective protection 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 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 are

derived from NIOSH and industry studies and from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS) (Ex. 9-39). 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). Of the data reviewed,

the IMIS fatality/catastrophe reports provided the richest source of

accident descriptions. However, it was frequently difficult for OSHA

and the Committee 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.

Nevertheless, OSHA believes that the IMIS reports, combined with

the collective experience of the members of the SENRAC workgroup,

provide a solid basis for identifying the types of hazards that result

in accidents during steel

[[Page 43456]]

erection. An analysis of OSHA fatality/catastrophe data was performed

by the SENRAC Statistical Workgroup which analyzed an eleven-year

period (January 1984 through November 1994) and determined that 323

fatal accidents involved factors that are addressed both by OSHA's

current and proposed steel erection standards [Ex. 9-42, Attachment C].

After categorizing the accidents according to primary contributing

factors, the SENRAC workgroup concluded that the leading initial cause

of accidents was slips (23.8 percent). The next highest categories were

unknown (17.3 percent) and collapse (15.8 percent). Categorizing the

accidents in the IMIS database by the immediate (final) cause of death,

the SENRAC analysis reveals that 284 of the 323 fatalities (87.9

percent) involved falls from various heights where fall protection was

either not provided or not used. Categorized by activity, decking was

associated with the most fatalities (22.9 percent), followed by

connecting (17.0 percent) and bolting (11.5 percent). An OSHA staff

evaluation of these reports for an eight year period (January 1984

through December 1990) revealed that fatalities associated with various

types of accidents were caused by the following factors:

Collapses while landing or placing a load--most were the

result of placing loads on unsecured or unbridged joists.

Collapses while connecting joists or trusses--most were

the result of prematurely disconnecting the crane before the piece was

secure.

Workers struck by objects during miscellaneous

activities--most were the result of walking or working under a load.

Workers struck by objects and then falling--most were the

result of being struck while landing a load or making a connection, by

a tool slipping, or by a piece of decking being blown off a pile when

fall protection was not provided or used.

Improper use or failure of fall protection--most were the

result of employee failure to use available fall protection systems

even though the worker was wearing a belt (and in some cases lifelines

were rigged).

Unsecured or unstable decking--most were the result of

stepping onto or working on unsecured decking that slipped out of place

when fall protection was not provided or used.

Other falls during decking activities--most were the

result of stepping off the metal decking onto insulation (and then

falling to the ground) during roofing operations where fall protection

was not provided or used.

Plumbing, bolting, welding and cutting--most were the

result of the worker not being tied off while at the work station

(whether or not fall protection was provided).

Walking/standing on the beam/joist (i.e., moving point-to-

point)--most were slips or falls where fall protection was not provided

or used.

Based upon these analyses, OSHA has preliminarily determined that

the SENRAC recommendations would, taken together, generally address

those situations that have caused a significant number of ironworker

catastrophes and fatalities in the past.

For the time period examined, the fatality/catastrophe reports

described accidents that involved at least one fatality or 5

hospitalizations. (In April, 1994, the reporting criterion was changed

to 1 fatality or 3 hospitalizations (59 FR 15594).) These reports do

not cover the entire universe of steel erection accidents; for example,

an individual accident that did not result in a fatality would not be

reported in the IMIS reports. Nonetheless, the IMIS data enabled OSHA

to broadly characterize the fatality data in a way that permitted the

estimation of baseline risk for specific types of steel erection

hazards.

For its assessment of baseline risk in steel erection, OSHA used

fatality data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Census of

Fatal Occupational Injuries and distributed the data according to the

committee's categorization of the OSHA IMIS accident data. BLS reports

that over the period 1982-1993, structural metal workers experienced an

average of 40 fatalities per year. OSHA determined that, of these

fatalities, approximately 28 deaths per year were caused by factors

that are addressed by the proposed standard (see the preliminary

economic analysis, Chapter III, summarized below in Section VII).

Furthermore, results from the 1992 BLS injury survey identify 1,836

lost-workday injuries (1,164 ``struck-by'' injuries and 672 ``falls to

lower levels'') whose circumstances would be addressed by provisions in

the proposed standard. With an estimated workforce of 38,980 iron

workers in construction ([BLS, Occupational Employment Statistics

Survey, 1993]; see the preliminary 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.

Therefore, OSHA has undertaken this negotiated rulemaking to reduce

these significant risk levels. OSHA preliminarily concludes that the

proposed standard will substantially reduce this significant risk.

Even though detailed data targeted exclusively at steel erection

accidents are not available, steel erection is known to have a high

rate of serious accidents. Available sources of information on steel

erection injuries and fatalities include a draft report on fatal work-

related falls in structural steel erection (Ex. 9-13E); a draft

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) document

entitled ``Structural Steel Erection: Falls'' (Ex. 9-15); the report of

the SENRAC Statistical Workgroup (Exs. 9-42 and 9-49); a comparison of

non-union and union contractor construction fatalities (Ex. 9-85); and

a report on fatalities in the construction industry in the United

States, 1992 and 1993, by the Center to Protect Workers' Rights (Ex. 9-

119). The Committee urged OSHA to use improved technology to collect

more detailed steel erection fatality inspection data. OSHA agrees with

SENRAC on this issue, because an improved fatality data base will

permit a more in-depth analysis of construction fatalities and provide

information not available at the time of the negotiations on the most

hazardous types of construction and construction activities by

occupation. In response, OSHA has developed and implemented an enhanced

coding system which must 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 rich source of detailed information

indicating how and where construction fatalities occur.

Three years after the rule becomes final, 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 (see Ex. 9-130).

The following examples from OSHA's IMIS reports of accident

investigations illustrate the types of accidents that occur in steel

erection (Ex. 9-157):

1. April 25, 1990: 1 Fatality and 3 injuries. Four employees were

sitting on steel roof beams. Two employees were bolting beams to

columns and the other two employees were sitting on the beams

connecting roof purlins. A gust of wind caused the columns to topple in

a domino fashion. One of the employees connecting roof purlins fell 25

feet to his death and the other three employees

[[Page 43457]]

fell and were hospitalized. OSHA believes that compliance with the

anchor bolt requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.755(a) could have

prevented this accident by requiring that all columns be anchored by a

minimum of four anchor bolts and that unstable columns be guyed or

braced where deemed necessary by a competent person.

2. July 23, 1984: Fatality. An employee was welding roof decking

adjacent to an unguarded staircase opening. The employee fell through

the opening 57 feet to the sub-level and died of multiple injuries.

OSHA believes that compliance with proposed Sec. 1926.754(e)(2) could

have prevented this accident by requiring proper procedures for cutting

and covering floor and roof openings.

3. October 5, 1988: Fatality. While walking atop structural steel

checking joints and bolts, an employee slipped or misjudged his footing

and fell approximately 20 feet to the concrete floor below, resulting

in his death. OSHA believes that compliance with the fall protection

requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.760(a)(1) could have prevented the

accident by ensuring that the employee was properly protected from fall

hazards.

4. July 24, 1987: Fatality. While bolting-up, an employee's foot

slipped, causing him to fall nearly 24 feet head first to the concrete

below. OSHA believes that compliance with the fall protection

requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.760(a)(1) could have prevented the

accident by ensuring that the employee was properly protected from fall

hazards.

OSHA believes that in this case and the case before, compliance

with the proposed fall protection requirements in Sec. 1926.760(a)(1)

could have prevented these fatalities by requiring that employees on a

walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge more than 15

feet above a lower level be protected from fall hazards.

5. November 12, 1987: Fatality. An employee was connecting X-

bracing at the end of a bar joist. The joist was 40 feet long and

welded at one end. The employee was sitting on the joist connecting the

X-bracing when the joist slipped. The employee rode the joist down 25

feet and died of massive head injuries. OSHA believes that compliance

with existing Sec. 1926.751(c)(3) or the clarified and more

comprehensive provisions of proposed Sec. 1926.757, the open web steel

joist section, and more specifically with paragraph (d)(1), could have

prevented the accident by ensuring that specific erection bridging

requirements were met before the hoisting cable was released from a

joist.

6. April 2, 1987: 1 Fatality, 1 hospitalized injury. Two employees

had unloaded 2 bundles of metal decking, 2 bundles of bridging and 2

bundles of roof frames onto 6 open web steel joists 25 feet above

ground level. The joists were at 5\1/2\ foot centers and welded on the

end to the ``I'' beam. The employees had just unhooked the second

bundle of frames when the joist rolled, causing the employees to fall.

All six joists broke from the welds and collapsed, landing on the

employee. OSHA believes that this accident also could have been

prevented by compliance with the proposed open web steel joist section

of the proposed standard. Specifically, the proposed provisions of

Sec. 1926.757(e) provide criteria to be met before landing loads on

joists. The requirements of current subpart R are not as complete or

comprehensive in this regard.

OSHA believes that the proposed provisions 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 VII, Preliminary Economic Analysis.

Based on the available information referenced in OSHA's preliminary

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 proposal. The Agency has estimated that, each year, approximately

38,980 workers in the United States suffer 1,836 serious (i.e., lost-

workday) steel erection injuries. In addition, an estimated 28 steel

erection workers die every year because of preventable hazardous

workplace conditions. OSHA's analysis has estimated that, of the 28

annual steel erection fatalities, 26 (93 percent) will be averted by

compliance with the proposed standard. Additionally, of the 1,836 lost-

workday steel erection injuries occurring annually, OSHA's analysis

estimates that 1,151 (63 percent) will be averted by compliance with

the proposed standard. Therefore, OSHA preliminarily finds it both

necessary and appropriate to proceed with rulemaking for steel erection

activities.

V. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard

The following discussion summarizes and explains each provision in

the proposal and the substantive changes proposed to be made to the

provisions of OSHA's existing steel erection standard.

Section 1926.750 Scope and application

The existing standard does not contain a scope and application

section. OSHA is proposing to add this new section to clarify that the

standard would apply to employers engaged in the erection, alteration

and/or repair of steel in single and multi-story buildings, bridges and

other structures where steel erection occurs as well as to identify

some of the specific activities that may be included in steel erection.

Paragraph (a) Scope. This proposed paragraph states the purpose of

the subpart, which is to protect employees from the hazards associated

with steel erection in the construction, alteration and/or repair of

single and multi-story buildings, bridges, and other structures where

steel erection occurs. The fact that the existing standard does not

clearly address scope has caused much debate in the past over what

structures are covered by subpart R. This paragraph would also clarify

that subpart R does not apply to electrical transmission towers,

communication and broadcast towers, or tanks. These structures are

covered by provisions in other subparts of Part 1926.

Paragraph (b) Application. In this paragraph, OSHA lists the steel

erection activities that may be covered by subpart R.

When SENRAC began negotiations on subpart R, the scope and

application of subpart R was anticipated to be a major issue for

deliberation. At the first meeting, the Committee formed a workgroup to

determine what the proposed scope of subpart R should be. The Committee

wanted to state clearly that this proposed steel erection standard

would apply to more than multi-story buildings. The workgroup

recommended, and the Committee agreed, that steel erection activities

should include hoisting, connecting, welding, bolting, and rigging

structural steel, steel joists and metal buildings. The Committee also

decided that steel erection activities should include the installation

of metal deck, siding systems, miscellaneous metals, ornamental iron

and similar materials as well as moving point-to-point while performing

these activities. OSHA is proposing to include these activities among

those considered to be steel erection activities, as recommended by the

Committee.

In an attempt to clarify what structures and activities could be

considered steel erection, the scope and application paragraph includes

an

[[Page 43458]]

extensive list of structures and activities as developed by SENRAC (see

notes to paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.750). The notes

are an attempt to ensure that employers performing the listed

activities will be aware that they could potentially be covered by the

proposed steel erection standard.

SENRAC intended the notes to enhance compliance by listing

structures where steel erection could occur since many of the

structures listed do not always involve steel erection. Likewise, the

steel erection activities listed include examples of construction

activities that are sometimes involved in steel erection but may not

always be conducted by the steel erector. Simply because an employee is

working on a listed structure or is performing a listed activity does

not necessarily mean that the employee is engaged in steel erection.

Thus, there is no presumption that every listed item constitutes a

steel erection activity or operation. To determine whether a given

activity on a particular structure does indeed constitute steel

erection, the employer first must determine that steel erection is

actually being performed and that the activities being performed are

covered by this subpart. This determination would be based on the

following criteria: (1) Whether the work falls within the definition of

steel erection found in proposed Sec. 1926.751; and (2) Whether the

structure being erected and the activities being performed fall within

the scope and application paragraphs found in proposed Sec. 1926.750.

In other words, in order to be covered by subpart R, as proposed, work

would have to fit within the definition of steel erection, the scope of

the proposed standard, and the application of the proposed standard.

The Committee discussed at length the differences between

construction and maintenance because the construction industry performs

millions of manhours per year of ``industrial maintenance'' work. The

definition of construction contained in the Davis-Bacon Act is:

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

structure.

After clarifying that work is defined based on the nature of the

work being performed rather than on the job title of the worker

performing it, SENRAC agreed that the scope of proposed subpart R

should be governed by the definition of construction work contained in

Sec. 1910.12(b), Sec. 1926.13 and Sec. 1926.32(g).

SENRAC debated extensively the detailed lists of structures and

activities. The Committee decided that these lists should be placed in

the standard itself in paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively, because

they stated the broad range of structures and activities that might be

covered by subpart R. The lists are intended to enhance compliance by

listing structures where steel erection could occur. OSHA is proposing

these lists for comment from interested parties. Specifically, are

these lists necessary? Do they clarify the extent of steel erection

activities? Will they introduce confusion by suggesting that all steel

erection activities and structures are included in these lists or,

alternatively, that any listed activity performed on a listed structure

necessarily constitutes steel erection? Because of their size, would

they be more effective as an appendix to the rule or in compliance

materials?

OSHA is proposing that the scope of subpart R exclude electrical

transmission towers, communication and broadcast towers, and tanks from

coverage. The Committee concluded that tower erection is a specialized

form of steel erection and that electrical transmission towers are

regulated under subpart V of 29 CFR Part 1926. In discussing potential

exclusions from the scope of the proposed standard, the Committee as a

whole expressed uncertainty about the extent to which these towers were

currently covered by OSHA standards. OSHA provided a memo to the

Committee (Ex. 9-53) describing the current coverage of towers in OSHA

standards. Based on that information and the tower erection industry's

reasons for exclusion from coverage by subpart R (Ex. 9-127), the

Committee agreed that it would be appropriate to exclude electrical

transmission, communication, and broadcast towers from the proposed

scope. The Committee also believes that tanks should not be included in

the scope of subpart R since tank construction is also, based on its

use of cylindrical construction techniques, a specialized industry. In

addition, the tank industry has clearly stated its reasons for not

being covered by subpart R (Ex. 9-32F). Since tanks have never been

covered by subpart R, OSHA is proposing to exclude them from the scope

of revised subpart R, as well, and the Committee is in agreement with

this approach. In the case of water towers, OSHA intends subpart R to

cover the steel structure upon which the water tank is supported but

not the water tank itself, as recommended by the Committee. OSHA

specifically solicits comments on the appropriateness of these

exclusions from the scope of the proposed standard.

Section 1926.751 Definitions

The current standard does not contain a definitions section. Since

the proposal is more comprehensive than the existing standard and

refers to many technical concepts, terms and materials, a definition

section is being proposed. The proposed definition section lists and

defines all major terms used in the proposed standard to assist

employers in understanding the proposed provisions and thus facilitate

compliance.

Anchored bridging. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean that

the steel joist bridging is connected to a bridging terminus point.

This definition was recommended by the Steel Joist Institute (SJI),

accepted by the Committee and is being proposed by OSHA.

Bolted diagonal bridging. OSHA is proposing to define this term to

mean diagonal bridging which is bolted to a steel joist or joists. This

definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup, was accepted by the

Committee, and is being proposed by OSHA.

Bridging clip. OSHA is proposing that this term be defined as a

device that is attached to the steel joist to allow the bolting of the

bridging to the steel joist. This definition was recommended by SJI and

accepted by the Committee.

Bridging terminus point. This term would be defined to mean a wall,

beam, tandem joists (with all bridging installed and a horizontal truss

in the plane of the top chord) or other element at an end or

intermediate point(s) of a line of bridging that provides an anchor

point for the steel joist bridging. This definition was recommended by

SJI, accepted by the Committee, and is being proposed by OSHA.

Choker. OSHA would define this term to mean a wire rope or

synthetic fiber rigging assembly that is used to attach a load to a

hoisting device. This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup

and accepted by the Committee.

Clipped connection. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean the

connection material on the end of a structural member intended for use

in a double connection which has a notch at the bottom and/or top to

allow the bolt(s) of the first member placed on the opposite side of

the central member to remain in place. The notch(es) fits around the

nut or bolt head of the opposing member to allow the second member to

be bolted up without

[[Page 43459]]

removing the bolt(s) holding the first member. This definition was

developed by a workgroup of the Committee and accepted by SENRAC.

Cold formed joist. OSHA defines this term as an open web joist

fabricated with cold formed steel components. This definition was

recommended by SJI, was accepted by the Committee, and is being

proposed by OSHA.

Cold forming. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean the

process of using press brakes, rolls, or other methods to shape steel

into desired cross sections at room temperature. This definition was

recommended by the Steel Deck Institute, was accepted by the Committee,

and is being proposed by the Agency.

Competent person. This term is defined in Sec. 1926.32(f) as one

who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the

surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or

dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt

corrective measures to eliminate them. Because of the frequent use of

the term in this proposal, the Committee urged OSHA to repeat this

definition in subpart R even though the definition appears in

Sec. 1926.32 and applies to all of the standards contained in 29 CFR

Part 1926, and OSHA agrees with the Committee's recommendation. The

Committee reasoned that an employer performing steel erection should be

able to locate the competent person definition in subpart R instead of

having to search for it elsewhere in Part 1926.

Composite joists. OSHA defines this term to mean steel joists

designed to act in composite action with concrete floor and (or)

concrete roof slabs. Typically, a portion of the top chord of the joist

(or a lug or similar device attached to the top chord of the joist) is

embedded in the concrete slab. This definition was developed by a

SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the Committee.

Connector. OSHA would define this term to mean an employee who,

working with hoisting equipment, is placing and connecting structural

members and/or components. After lengthy discussion on how to define

what a connector is and what tasks a connector performs, the Committee

decided to define as narrowly as possible the activities that a

connector performs in light of the connector-specific proposed fall

protection provisions in Sec. 1926.760, which will be discussed later

in the preamble. OSHA requests comment on this definition.

Construction load for joist erection. This term would be defined to

mean any load other than the weight of the employee(s), the joists and

the bridging bundle. This definition was recommended by SJI, accepted

by the Committee, and is being proposed by OSHA.

Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ). This term would be defined by OSHA

to mean an area in which certain work (e.g., initial installation and

placement of metal deck) may take place without the use of guardrail

systems, personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems provided

that alternative procedures (e.g., controlled access, worker training,

use of control lines or equivalent) are implemented. Controlled decking

zones are discussed in proposed Sec. 1926.760(c). OSHA requests comment

on the necessity of defining a CDZ since all of the requirements for a

CDZ are in proposed Sec. 1926.760(c). If it is necessary to define a

CDZ, is this an appropriate definition?

Controlled load lowering. OSHA would define this term to mean

lowering a load by means of a mechanical hoist drum device that allows

a hoisted load to be lowered with maximum control using the gear train

or hydraulic components of the hoist mechanism. Controlled load

lowering requires the use of the hoist drive motor to lower the load.

This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the

Committee. Controlled load lowering is an essential component of the

multiple lift rigging procedure and the hoisting of personnel platforms

addressed in proposed Sec. 1926.753.

Controlling contractor. OSHA would define this term to mean a prime

contractor, general contractor, construction manager or any other legal

entity at the site who has, by contract with other parties, the overall

responsibility for the project, its planning, quality and completion

and is intended to describe an entity in addition to the steel erector

who is responsible for hazards that result from poor performance, pre-

planning, or communication. Based on its analysis of actual steel

erection fatalities, catastrophes and collapses, the Committee agreed

that many hazardous situations could have been avoided if, for example,

concrete foundations had been properly cured, anchor bolts that were

replaced had been properly repaired, or cranes had been appropriately

placed to avoid overhead exposure. All of these primarily fall within

the responsibility of the controlling contractor. In several of the

proposed revisions, therefore, OSHA is proposing, based on the

Committee's recommendation, that the controlling contractor be held

responsible for communicating with the steel erector to prevent

accidents from happening during certain activities; see, for example,

Sec. 1926.752(a), (b) and (c) (Approval to begin steel erection, site

layout and overhead protection, respectively); Sec. 1926.755(b)(3)

(Repair, replacement or field modification of anchor bolts);

Sec. 1926.759(b) (Falling object protection); and Sec. 1926.760(e)

(Fall protection). OSHA solicits comments from interested parties on

the appropriateness of this approach to ensuring accountability for

adequate planning and coordination.

Critical lift. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean 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. This definition

was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the Committee.

Decking hole. OSHA would define this term 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. Pre-engineered holes in cellular decking are

not included in this definition. This definition was developed by a

SENRAC workgroup to be industry specific and was accepted by the

Committee. The workgroup borrowed part of this definition from the

subpart M definition of ``hole.'' The subpart M definition was

modified, however, to limit the size of a hole to more than 2 inches in

its least dimension and less than 12 inches in its greatest dimension

to be compatible with the definition of an opening (defined later). The

proposed definition of decking hole and the proposed definition of

opening differ from the subpart M definitions in that subpart M uses

the term ``hole'' to describe all holes and openings in floors, roofs

and other walking/working surfaces and uses the term ``opening'' to

apply only to holes and openings in walls. By custom and practice, the

common usage of these same terms in steel erection refers to different

situations and hazards. In steel erection, a hole is a commonly used

term that means a small gap or void that presents a tripping hazard or

a falling object hazard and an opening is a larger gap or void in a

walking/working surface that presents a fall hazard to the employee.

Therefore, to be more industry specific, OSHA is proposing to define

``decking hole'' and ``opening'' based on the size of the gap or void

in a floor, roof or other walking/working surface only. This proposal

contains requirements that treat ``decking holes'' and ``openings''

differently, which necessitates having

[[Page 43460]]

two separate definitions based on the size of the gap or void.

Derrick floor. This term, which was developed by a SENRAC workgroup

and accepted by the Committee, would be defined by OSHA to mean that

elevated floor of a building or structure that has been designated to

receive hoisted pieces of steel prior to their final placement.

Double connection. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean an

attachment method where the connection point is intended for two pieces

of steel which share common bolts on either side of a central piece.

This definition was developed by the Committee to address the serious

collapse hazard involved in making this complex connection. Double

connections are discussed in proposed Sec. 1926.756(c).

Erection bridging. OSHA would define this term to mean the bolted

diagonal bridging that must be installed prior to releasing the

hoisting cables from the steel joists. This definition was recommended

by SJI and accepted by the Committee and the term is found in proposed

Sec. 1926.757, Open Web Steel Joists.

Fall restraint (Positioning device) system. This term would be

defined by OSHA to mean a body belt or body harness used to prevent an

employee from free falling more than 24 inches (61 cm) and where self

rescue can be assured. Such a system consists of an anchorage,

connectors, a body belt or harness and may include a lanyard,

deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combination of these. This

definition was developed by the Committee, and the term is used in

proposed Sec. 1926.760, Fall Protection. The criteria for ``positioning

device systems'' found in Sec. 1926.502(e) would apply to these types

of fall restraint systems used in steel erection.

Girt (in pre-engineered metal buildings). This term would be

defined by OSHA to mean a ``Z'' or ``C'' shaped member formed from

sheet steel spanning between primary framing and supporting wall

material. This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup, accepted

by the Committee, and the term is used in proposed Sec. 1926.758, Pre-

engineered Metal Buildings.

Headache ball. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean a weighted

hook that is used to attach loads to the hoist load line of the crane.

This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup, accepted by the

Committee, and is used in proposed Sec. 1926.753, Hoisting and Rigging.

Hoisting equipment. This term would be defined to mean commercially

manufactured lifting equipment designed to lift and position a load of

known weight to an erection 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 Committee developed a definition for hoisting equipment

that would include all equipment that is used in steel erection to lift

loads to a specified location. The intent was to ensure that this

equipment is not strictly limited to cranes. The definition was also

crafted to avoid a situation where a steel erector might elect to

characterize employees who are not true connectors, e.g., detailers, as

connectors by providing them with a ``come-a-long'' to meet the

definition of connector. Thus, a ``come-a-long'' would not be included

in the definition of hoisting equipment because 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

leverage rather than true hoisting equipment.

Leading edge. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean the

unprotected side and edge of a floor, roof, or formwork for a floor or

other walking/working surface (such as deck) which changes location as

additional floor, roof, decking or formwork sections are placed, formed

or constructed. This definition is based on the subpart M definition of

``leading edge'' but was enhanced by the Committee which added

``unprotected side and'' before ``edge'' to clarify that all

unprotected sides and edges would be defined in subpart R as leading

edges.

Metal deck. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean a

commercially manufactured, structural grade, cold rolled metal panel

formed into a series of parallel ribs; for this subpart, this would

include metal floor and roof decks, standing seam metal roofs, other

metal roof systems and other products such as bar gratings, checker

plate, expanded metal panels, and similar products. After installation

and proper fastening, these decking materials serve a combination of

functions including, but not limited to: a structural element designed

in combination with the structure to resist, distribute and transfer

loads, stiffen the structure and provide a diaphragm action; a walking/

working surface; a form for concrete slabs; a support for roofing

systems; and a finished floor or roof. This definition was developed by

a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the Committee. This workgroup

believes that, for the purposes of steel erection, rather than

referring to several similar building materials associated with a

particular hazard, a generic term should be defined and then be used

consistently in the standard. Since the materials listed in this

definition are all similarly installed and eventually become walking/

working surfaces, the workgroup believes that a single term would

provide both greater clarity and facilitate compliance. In developing

this definition, the workgroup relied on the Steel Deck Institute (SDI)

``Manual of Construction with Steel Deck,'' in addition to its own

collective expertise.

Multiple lift rigging. OSHA would define this term to mean a

rigging assembly manufactured by wire rope rigging suppliers that

facilitates the attachment of up to five independent loads to the hoist

rigging of a crane. This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup

and accepted by the Committee.

Opening. OSHA would define this term 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

for covered openings in Sec. 1926.760(d)(1) would be regarded as

openings. This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup to

prevent workers from sitting or walking on covers that are insufficient

to support their weight. The last sentence of the definition was added

to ensure that skylights and smoke domes would not be considered

covered if they do not meet the strength requirements for covered

openings in Sec. 1926.760(d)(1) and therefore must be protected by

other means. This definition differs from the definition in subpart M

of this part as discussed earlier in the definition of ``decking

hole.''

Permanent floor. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean a

structurally completed floor at any level or elevation (including slab

on grade). A floor would be considered a permanent floor when all the

work contained on the structural contract documents has been completed

for that floor. Concrete poured on metal deck and grating or floor

plate applied to structural members would be considered permanent

floors. This definition was developed by the Committee to promote

clarity.

Personal fall arrest system. OSHA would define this term to mean a

system used to arrest an employee in a fall from a working level; a

personal fall arrest system consists of an anchorage, connectors, and a

body harness and may

[[Page 43461]]

include a lanyard, deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable

combination of these. The Committee recommended that this definition be

identical to the definition used in subpart M of this part.

Pre-engineered metal building. This term would be defined by OSHA

to mean a field-assembled building system consisting of framing, roof

and wall coverings, and generally made of steel. Typically, in a pre-

engineered metal building, 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. Engineering design of the system is normally the

responsibility of the pre-engineered metal building manufacturer. This

definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the

Committee.

Project structural engineer of record. This term, which was

developed by the Committee and is used throughout the proposed

standard, would be defined by OSHA to mean the registered, licensed

professional responsible for the design of structural steel framing and

whose seal appears on the structural contract documents.

Purlin (in pre-engineered metal buildings). OSHA proposes to define

this term to mean a ``Z'' or ``C'' shaped member formed from sheet

steel spanning between primary framing and supporting roof material.

This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the

Committee.

Qualified person. This term, which is also defined in

Sec. 1926.32(m), would be defined in the proposed standard to mean 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 proposal, the Committee urged OSHA to repeat this definition in

subpart R even though the definition already exists in Sec. 1926.32 and

applies to all of the standards contained in 29 CFR Part 1926 because

repeating it would enable an employer performing steel erection to

locate the qualified person definition in subpart R instead of having

to search for it somewhere else in Part 1926.

Safety deck attachment. OSHA is proposing to define this term to

mean an initial attachment that is used to secure an initially placed

sheet of decking to keep proper alignment and bearing with structural

support members. The term originally used in the controlled decking

zone (CDZ) working draft was ``safety deck welding'' and ``tack

welds.'' Committee members pointed out that there were ways to attach

the decking other than welding, e.g., mechanical fastening. Since the

intent is to safely ``attach'' the newly placed decking panels, the

proposed rule uses the broader language recommended by the Committee.

Seat. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean a structural

attachment mounted to a structural member beneath a connection point,

designed to support an incoming member that is to be connected to the

first member. This term, which was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and

accepted by the Committee, is used in the double connection section,

Sec. 1926.756(c).

Shear connector. OSHA is proposing to define this term to include

headed steel studs, steel bars, steel lugs, and similar devices which

are attached to a structural member for the purpose of achieving

composite action with concrete, i.e., strengthening the top flange of

the beam by interacting with the concrete to achieve a higher strength.

This definition was developed by the Committee.

Steel erection. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean 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. This definition was

developed by the Committee, and OSHA requests comments on the

appropriateness of this definition.

Steel joist. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean an open web,

secondary load-carrying member of 144 feet (43.9 m) or less suitable

for the support of floors and roofs. This term does not include

structural steel trusses or cold-formed joists. This definition was

recommended by SJI and accepted by the Committee.

Steel joist girder. OSHA would define this term to mean an open

web, primary load-carrying member, designed by the manufacturer,

suitable for the support of floors and roofs. This does not include

structural steel trusses. This definition was recommended by SJI and

accepted by the Committee.

Steel truss. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean an open web

member designed of structural steel components by the project

structural engineer of record. For the purposes of this subpart, a

steel truss would be considered equivalent to a solid web structural

member. This definition was recommended by SJI and accepted by the

Committee.

Unprotected sides and edges. OSHA proposes to define this term to

mean any side or edge (except at entrances to points of access) of a

walking/working surface, e.g., floor, roof, ramp or runway, where there

is no wall or guardrail system at least 39 inches (1.0 m) high. This

definition is identical to the corresponding definition in subpart M of

this part.

Section 1926.752 Site Layout, Site-specific Erection Plan and

Construction Sequence

After a review of accident reports involving collapses, the

Committee reached the conclusion that many of these accidents could

have been averted had adequate pre-erection communication and planning

occurred. This section of the proposed 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, would also provide guidelines for

employers who elect to develop a site-specific erection plan. OSHA's

current standard does not contain provisions similar to those being

proposed in this section.

Paragraph (a) Approval to begin steel erection.

The Committee recognized that under current practices in the

industry, erection decisions are often made in the field when the steel

arrives. The Committee believes that pre-planning and coordination are

currently not occurring to the extent they should be.

OSHA agrees that lack of adequate planning and coordination

contributes to accidents and is proposing, in paragraph (a)(1), that

the controlling contractor ensure that the concrete in footings, piers,

or walls, or the mortar in masonry piers and walls has achieved a

minimum of 75% of its design compressive strength prior to the

imposition of any structural steel load or has achieved a strength that

is sufficient to support the loads imposed. This proposed requirement

agrees with a recommendation by the American Institute of Steel

Construction (AISC) and is similar to the OSHA requirement for concrete

construction found in Sec. 1926.703(e)(ii), which requires that

formwork not be removed from cast-in-place concrete ``* * * until the

concrete has been properly tested with an appropriate American Society

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard

[[Page 43462]]

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.

Paragraph (a)(2) cross-references Sec. 1926.755(b) and would

require that any repairs, replacements, and field modifications be

performed in accordance with the anchor bolt requirements contained in

Sec. 1926.755(b). As in the case of proposed paragraph (a)(1), OSHA,

along with the Committee, wishes to ensure that the steel erector is

informed of any repair, replacement, or modification to the anchor

bolts prior to the placement of steel.

Paragraph (b) of this section sets out the site conditions that

would have to be provided and maintained by the controlling contractor

in order for the steel erector to move around the site and perform

necessary operations in a safe manner.

Paragraph (b)(1) would require that the controlling contractor

provide and maintain adequate access roads into and through the site

for the safe delivery and movement of derricks, cranes, trucks, other

necessary equipment, and the material to be erected as well as means

and methods for pedestrian and vehicular control. Compliance with this

provision could be achieved by developing access roads and clearly

demonstrated pedestrian areas, and maintaining these throughout the

life of the project.

Paragraph (b)(2) would require that the controlling contractor also

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. The

provisions in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) are necessary to ensure that

a site is prepared for the safe commencement of steel erection at a

site. The Committee determined and OSHA agrees that the responsibility

to provide and maintain site conditions lies primarily with the

controlling contractor, who is responsible for the overall project and

is the employer in the best position to minimize the hazards associated

with improper site layout and conditions. The provisions in proposed

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) were derived from the AISC code of

standard practice for steel buildings and bridges (Ex. 9-36).

Proposed paragraph (c) addresses 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 hazard. Given the nature of

the loads used in steel erection, either of these events could result

in serious injury or death.

Paragraph (c) would require that all hoisting operations in steel

erection be pre-planned to ensure that no employee is required to be

exposed to overhead hazards and that this pre-planning be done in

accordance with Sec. 1926.753(b), which contains criteria for working

under loads, and Sec. 1926.759, which contains requirements for falling

object protection. (Although the specific requirements of proposed

Sec. 1926.753(b) and Sec. 1926.759 are discussed later in the preamble,

OSHA believes that including a cross-reference to these overhead

protection requirements along with the other requirements that deal

with site preparation and pre-planning would enhance safety and promote

compliance.)

As a result of site-specific considerations, paragraph (d) would

permit employers to elect, due to conditions specific to the site, to

provide employee protection by means other than those specified in

Sec. 1926.753(a)(5), Sec. 1926.757(a)(3), or Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i), if

they develop a site-specific erection plan that specifies alternative

means and methods to be used. The site-specific erection plan would

have to be developed by a qualified person, and the plan must be

available to the employees at the site. During initial discussions, the

Committee considered a requirement that would require 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.

OSHA is providing, in Appendix A, a guideline for establishing the

components of a site-specific erection plan, as recommended by the

Committee. This appendix will assist employers in developing a site-

specific erection plan. A site-specific erection plan will be easier to

complete once the erector has developed a model plan. Some site-

specific conditions that might lead an employer to rely on an

alternative rather than the requirements specified in paragraphs

Sec. 1926.753(a)(5), Sec. 1926.757(a)(3), and Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i),

and examples of possible alternative methods, are addressed in the

discussion of these paragraphs later in this preamble.

Section 1926.753 Hoisting and Rigging

An essential element of steel erection is the rigging and hoisting

of structural steel members and materials. Several hazards are

associated with these operations. This section proposes requirements

for hoisting and rigging operations during steel erection activities.

Paragraph (a) General.

Paragraph (a)(1) would require a pre-shift visual inspection of

cranes to be used for steel erection. Paragraph (a)(1)(i) would require

that, in addition to meeting the requirements of Sec. 1926.550, cranes

being used in steel erection activities be visually inspected prior to

each shift by a competent person; this inspection must include

observation of the equipment during operation to detect any

deficiencies.

The current requirements of Sec. 1926.550 require that all crawler,

truck or locomotive cranes in use meet the applicable requirements for

design, inspection, construction, testing, maintenance and operation

prescribed in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard

B30.5-1968, Safety Code for Crawler, Locomotive and Truck Cranes (Ex.

9-114). In addition to the requirements of Sec. 1926.550, OSHA has

preliminarily concluded, and the Committee agrees, that a more frequent

inspection is needed for cranes being used for steel erection. An

inspection prior to each shift is necessary to provide an added measure

of protection because the proposed rule would permit certain

specialized and potentially hazardous types of hoisting operations.

These hoisting operations include the use of cranes to hoist employees

on a personnel platform (Sec. 1926.753(a)(4)); to perform multiple

lifts (Sec. 1926.753(c)); and to suspend loads over employees

(Sec. 1926.753(b)). Since these operations are inherently dangerous, it

is particularly critical for the hoisting equipment to be in proper

working condition, which means that a complete visual inspection must

be performed before each shift by a competent person, e.g., the

operator or oiler of the hoisting equipment being used or, on a large

project, the master mechanic who checks each crane. This pre-shift

visual inspection is anticipated to take between 10 and 20 minutes. At

a minimum, the inspection would include the items listed in paragraphs

(a)(i)(A) through (L); namely, inspection of (A) all control mechanisms

for maladjustment; (B) control and drive mechanisms for excessive wear

of

[[Page 43463]]

components and contamination by lubricants, water or other foreign

matter; (C) safety devices, including, but not limited to, boom angle

indicators, boom stops, boom kick-out devices, anti-two block devices,

and load moment indicators where required; (D) air, hydraulic, and

other pressurized lines for deterioration or leakage, particularly

those which flex in normal operation; (E) hooks and latches for

deformation, chemical damage, cracks, or wear; (F) wire rope reeving

for compliance with hoisting equipment manufacturer's specifications;

(G) electrical apparatus for malfunctioning, signs of excessive

deterioration, dirt, or moisture accumulation; (H) hydraulic system for

proper fluid level; (I) tires for proper inflation and condition; (J)

ground conditions around the hoisting equipment for proper support,

including ground settling under and around outriggers, ground water

accumulation or other similar conditions; (K) the hoisting equipment

for level position; and (L) the hoisting equipment for level position

after each move and setup.

These are the inspection criteria listed in the ANSI B30.5-1968

standard; this standard is referenced in the current OSHA crane

requirements of Sec. 1926.550. These criteria are also included in the

updated ANSI B30.5-1994, Mobile and Locomotive Cranes standard (Ex. 9-

113), as a guideline for items which should be included in a pre-shift

visual inspection. Items (A) through (I) are essentially the same as

the requirements contained in the ANSI B30.5-1994 standard. The

Committee recommended using the B30.5-1994 standard as the basis of

reference since it reflects the most up-to-date industry practices;

OSHA agrees with this recommendation. In the B30.5-1994 standard, items

(a)(1)(i)(A) through (I) must be inspected during frequent inspections

which, according to that standard, are assumed to take place at daily

to monthly intervals, although items (A) and (D) are specifically

recommended for daily inspection by that standard. The Committee

considered whether the items in (A) through (L) should be inspected

daily rather than pre-shift. However, the Committee noted that if a

crane or other piece of hoisting equipment is not used for several

days, it is only necessary to inspect that equipment before the shift

on which it is to be used. As recommended by the Committee, OSHA is

proposing that equipment need not be inspected if it is not to be used

that day. Items (J), (K) and (L) were added by the Committee to provide

additional safety during the critical period when the hoisting

equipment is being set up. Item (J) is important when hoisting

equipment is set up to ensure that all ground conditions in the area of

the hoisting equipment are adequate to provide proper support for the

hoisting equipment. Item (K) would simply require that the operator

check a site glass, carpenter's level or the leveling mechanism

contained on the hoisting equipment. Item (L) would ensure that, if the

hoisting equipment is moved during a shift, it would be checked for

level after setup. OSHA requests comment on whether, since items (A)

through (K) are pre-shift inspections and item (L) is actually an

inspection that takes place during the shift, item (L) should be placed

elsewhere in paragraph (a).

As indicated above, the Committee intended these pre-shift

inspections to reflect the current safe practices of the industry while

at the same time imposing as little additional burden on the employer

as possible. OSHA agrees with SENRAC's determination that a visual

inspection is sufficient to accomplish these intentions, together with

such movement of the crane as may be necessary to conduct the visual

inspection. For example, to visually inspect the boom angle indicators

the crane must be moved to determine that the indicators are

functioning properly. Also, the anti-two blocking device can be

visually inspected only by raising the headache ball to the crown block

to ensure that the device automatically cuts off the power to the

hoisting equipment. The ANSI B30.5 language, ``[Inspect] tires for

recommended inflation pressure,'' was interpreted by the Committee to

mean that a tire pressure gauge should be used to determine inflation

pressure. However, the SENRAC Committee believes that the tires need

only to be visually inspected for proper inflation as well as for

overall condition and that no tire pressure gauge is needed. The

proposal, therefore, calls for a ``visual inspection of tires for

proper inflation and condition.''

Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would require that, after the pre-shift

inspection has been completed and a deficiency has been identified, the

competent person is to determine immediately whether the deficiency

constitutes a hazard. This paragraph is essentially the same as the

requirement in ANSI B30.5-1994. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) proposes to

require that, if the competent person determines that the deficiency

constitutes a hazard, the hoisting equipment be removed from service

until the deficiency has been corrected. The Committee felt and OSHA

concurs that it is necessary not only to determine that there is a

deficiency but to ensure that the hoisting equipment is taken out of

service until corrective actions are taken.

Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would require that the employer keep a record

of the inspection, including the date of the inspection; the signature

of the person who inspected the hoisting equipment; and a serial number

or other identifier for the hoisting equipment inspected. This

certification record can be a check sheet or log book in which the

operator or other inspector places a check mark next to the appropriate

item on the list after visually checking it and then signs and dates

the sheet or book. A crane operator's log book would be sufficient (Ex.

9-112).

Paragraph (a)(1)(v) would require that equipment operators be

responsible for those operations under their direct control. Whenever

there is any doubt as to the safety of the hoisting operation, the

operator would have the authority to stop and to refuse to continue

until safety has been assured. Since the operator is normally the most

knowledgeable person about the equipment being used, OSHA agrees that

the operator should have control over shutting down the equipment if it

is believed to pose a safety concern. This requirement is identical to

the parallel requirement in the ANSI B30.5-1968 standard for operating

practices and is currently required since Sec. 1926.550(b)(2)

incorporates the ANSI B30.5-1968 standard by reference. The Committee

decided that the B30.5-1968 requirement assigning responsibility for

the safe operation of the hoisting equipment to the operator provides a

greater degree of safety than the ANSI B30.5-1994 requirement, which

places authority with the supervisor. A letter from a professional

engineering firm to the secretary of the ASME B30 committee (Exhibit 9-

133) addresses this issue as follows:

* * * 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 operation * * *

A qualified crane operator can make decisions about handling a

crane load. A supervisor may or may not have qualifications in safe

crane operation. Safe crane operation belongs in the domain of

qualified operators, not managers.

Paragraph (a)(2) would require that, prior to each shift, a

qualified rigger inspect the rigging in accordance with

[[Page 43464]]

Sec. 1926.251 of this part. OSHA accepts the Committee's conclusion

that it is not necessary to define the term ``qualified rigger.'' A

qualified rigger is thus simply a ``qualified person'' who is

performing the inspection of the rigging equipment. Rigging would be

inspected according to the requirements in Sec. 1926.251 of this part,

Rigging Equipment for Material Handling. To promote ease of compliance,

the proposal provides a cross reference to that section.

Paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) address the issue of transporting

employees using hoisting equipment. Paragraph (a)(3) would prohibit the

direct use of the headache ball, hook or load to transport personnel

except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(v)(4) of this section. These

practices are widely recognized to be unsafe since they expose the

employee to hazards of falling off the load or, in a case where the

load falls, falling with the load.

Paragraph (a)(4) of the proposal would allow the use of cranes and

derricks to hoist employees on a personnel platform (e.g., man basket)

when work under this subpart is being conducted, even though the

requirements of Sec. 1926.550(g)(2), Crane or Derrick Suspended

Personnel Platforms, prohibit the use of a crane or derrick to hoist

employees on a personnel platform unless structural design or worksite

conditions make conventional means more hazardous or infeasible. In

steel erection, however, the work station moves progressively as pieces

of structural steel are connected to each other. This means that

elevators cannot be installed until much of the structure has been

completed. Transporting ironworkers to a workstation elevated hundreds

of feet in the air by hoisting a personnel platform with a crane

eliminates the hazards associated with worker fatigue that can occur

from climbing or walking up. The Committee also believes that many

steel erection activities (particularly repetitive activities performed

at different locations, such as bolting-up, that require a great deal

of climbing up and down) can be performed much more safely and

efficiently, and with greatly reduced exposure to hazards, when done

from a personnel platform than from scaffolding. The time to perform

the activity is only a fraction of the time to erect and dismantle the

scaffolding that would be required to do the job safely. Exposures to

fall hazards and other hazards associated with erection and dismantling

of scaffolds for short term, repetitive activities are eliminated by

the use of a personnel platform. The Committee further noted that, when

cranes or lifts are used to hoist a personnel platform, employees

engaged in steel erection are still protected by the other requirements

of Sec. 1926.550(g). These include hoisting work practices, such as

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. OSHA agrees that these

measures increase the safety of employees being hoisted on a personnel

platform; OSHA seeks comment from interested parties on the issue of

hoisting employees as a regular practice in steel erection.

Paragraph (a)(5) would prohibit 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. Some activities in steel

erection create a situation where it is actually safer to hoist members

by deactivating the safety latch, e.g., when it eliminates the need for

workers to climb up or onto unstable structural members, such as single

columns or single bar joists, to unhook the member. The proposal would

allow the employer to defeat or tie-back the safety latch in two

situations: first, if a qualified rigger (during hoisting and placing

of purlins and single joists) determines that deactivating the safety

latch presents a lesser hazard than leaving it on, or second, if it

provides equivalent protection and is incorporated as a safe practice

for particular lifts in a site-specific erection plan. This would

eliminate abuse of the technique and ensure that, when it is performed,

the necessary precautions are taken. OSHA solicits information on the

appropriateness of this approach, particularly with regard to the

protection provided to the workers involved in such lifts.

Paragraph (b) Working under loads. The proposed requirements of

paragraph (b) were patterned after requirements in Sec. 5002 of the

California Code of Regulations (Ex. 9-24D1) that regulate overhead

loads for occasional unavoidable exposure.

Paragraph (b)(1) would require that routes for suspended loads be

pre-planned to ensure that no employee is required to work directly

below a suspended load, with exceptions for certain employees.

Normally, hoisting operations can be performed from one location with a

clear travel path and no overhead passes. OSHA understands, however,

that overhead passes cannot be eliminated entirely due to the

complexity of modern construction, which requires that many activities

take place concurrently. On many building sites, for example, existing

buildings, structures, streets, overhead lines and so forth make it

possible to hoist construction materials from one or two storage areas.

As a result, loads must be moved over the same work areas throughout

the course of the job. In addition, 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 access every part of the project. Scheduling the work to

avoid moving loads over occupied work areas is often not feasible.

Although the proposed requirement allows loads to be moved overhead, it

requires the employer to minimize such exposure to the extent possible.

Employees engaged in the initial connection of steel and employees

necessary for hooking or unhooking the load are the only employees

allowed to work directly below a suspended load, because they must do

so to accomplish their jobs. This provision is intended to limit the

number of employees exposed to the hazard of falling overhead loads.

OSHA has allowed employees to work under overhead loads in certain

other, narrowly limited, work situations. For example, a similar

provision is found in the OSHA construction standards in subpart Q of

this Part, Concrete and Masonry Construction. Section 1926.704(e) of

that 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.

Similarly, the lift-slab section, Sec. 1926.705(k)(1), allows some

employees in certain operations to work under a suspended load; in this

case, the operation involves lifting the slabs into place by the jacks:

No employee, 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.

When employees engaged in steel erection must work under a

suspended load, such exposure must be governed by the criteria in

paragraph (b)(2). These criteria require, first, that materials being

hoisted be rigged to prevent unintentional displacement. In addition,

safety hooks with self-closing latches or their equivalent must be used

to prevent components from slipping out of the hook; this precaution

eliminates the

[[Page 43465]]

chance of components disengaging from the hook and causing the load to

fall. An equivalent device could be a hook with another type of closing

device, i.e., a hook with a spring-loaded gate or another type of

safety hook that would provide the same level of safety as a safety

hook with a self-closing latch. Finally, the loads must be rigged by a

qualified rigger.

Paragraph (c) Multiple lift rigging procedure.

This section proposes specific performance and work practice

requirements to be met when a steel erector chooses to lift multiple

pieces of steel at one time as an alternative to single lifting of

individual structural members. This procedure, also known as

``christmas treeing'' or ``tandem loading,'' is not addressed in OSHA's

existing steel erection standard. Although the hazards associated with

the lifting of tandem loads are substantial, the Committee believes

that the practice can be made safe if the means and methods set forth

in this paragraph are strictly observed. In drawing this conclusion,

the Committee considered the information described in the following

paragraphs.

Floor beams currently in use are comparatively light and may not be

strong enough to support a bundle of structural steel safely. Thus, the

steel must be picked up from the ground. Picking up single beams one at

a time is not always practical, and tandem loads significantly increase

efficiency. Some safety benefits are associated with this procedure,

including a reduction in the length of time connectors and others are

exposed to the hazards posed by overhead loads because fewer swings are

required, a reduction in the time connectors must spend out on the iron

because tandem loading allows them to complete their tasks more

quickly, and reduced stress on the crane operator because fewer

mechanical operations are required.

An OSHA letter dated September 9, 1993, from the Director of the

Office of Construction and Engineering to the Regional Administrator of

Region 1 describes some of the benefits of christmas treeing:

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).

Paragraph (c)(1) would provide the criteria that must be met for a

multiple lift to be permitted at all under this rule. A multiple lift

rigging assembly, as defined in the definition section, must be

utilized. 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 the specifics of the

definition. A multiple lift may not involve hoisting more than five (5)

members during the lift. Limiting the number of members hoisted is

essential to safety, and the Committee has determined that five members

is the maximum number that can be hoisted safely, taking into account

the necessity of controlling both the load and the empty rigging. In

addition, this limit on the number of members recognizes that a typical

bay, consisting of up to five members, could 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.

In addition, only structural members may be lifted during a

multiple lift. Other items, such as bundles of decking, do not lend

themselves to the multiple lift procedure. 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. Employees engaged in a

multiple lift operation must be trained in these procedures in

accordance with Sec. 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 (c)(2) describes how the components of the multiple lift

rigging assembly are to be designed and assembled. The employer must

ensure that each multiple lift rigging assembly is designed and

assembled with a maximum capacity for the total assembly and for each

individual attachment point. This capacity, certified by the

manufacturer or qualified rigger, would be based on the manufacturer's

specifications and would have a 5 to 1 safety factor for all

components. Since multiple lift rigging is special rigging used only

for the purpose of performing a multiple lift rigging procedure (MLRP),

the rigging would be certified by the qualified rigger who assembles or

the manufacturer who provides the entire assembly to ensure that the

main line is capable of supporting the whole load and 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 that OSHA propose a provision in paragraph (c)(3)

that would prohibit 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 (c)(3)

proposes these provisions.

Paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) address safe rigging for the multiple

lift. Paragraph (c)(4) would require 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 would be the one attached on the

rigging assembly closest to the headache ball. The next to last member

to be connected would be attached to the next lower hook on the rigging

assembly and so on. As each member is attached, it would be 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 would be made during this

trial lift procedure. The choker length would then be 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

[[Page 43466]]

will be sufficient clearance to prevent 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. OSHA requests comment on whether spacing greater

than 7 feet would constitute a hazard.

Once the members are ready to be set, paragraph (c)(5) would

require that the members be set from the bottom up. Even though this is

the only practical way that the members can be set, the inclusion of

this proposed requirement promotes clarity.

Paragraph (c)(6) sets forth the proposed requirements for lowering

the load. Like the hoisting of personnel platforms, multiple lifts must

employ controlled load lowering when lowering loads into position for

the connectors to set the members. OSHA agrees with the Committee's

recommendation that such a device is essential to prevent potential

accidents if the crane operator's foot should slip off the brake, the

brake fails, or the load slips through the brake. When the load is over

the connectors and is being lowered into place, the operator must have

maximum control over the load. This proposed requirement would have

prevented the July 20, 1990, fatality in Austin, Texas, referred to in

Ex. 9-13G (p. 4).

Several members of the Committee stated that the use of a 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 accordingly

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 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 that reducing the number of swings enhances

safety. The workgroup thus believes that the reduced number and speed

of swing operations associated with MLRPs will increase safety, and

that lift precision will also be increased because MLRPs require that

controlled load lowering devices be used on cranes making such lifts.

When the operator is working in the blind (where the connectors cannot

be seen), according to the workgroup, 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 is

particularly important, according to the workgroup, 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 are hoisted, the emphasis is often

on speed. The lift is 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, a great 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.

Section 1926.754 Structural Steel Assembly

This section sets forth the proposed requirements for the assembly

of structural steel.

Paragraph (a) would require that structural stability be maintained

at all times during the erection process. This would be a general

requirement for any type of steel structure. Since structural stability

is essential to the successful erection of steel structures, this

proposed section is intended to prevent collapse due to lack of

stability, a major cause of fatalities in this industry.

Paragraph (b) proposes additional requirements specifically for

multi-story structures. Paragraph (b)(1) would require 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 existing Sec. 1926.750(a)(1) in OSHA's steel erection

standard.

Paragraph (b)(2) would prohibit 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 essentially the same as existing Sec. 1926.750(a)(2),

except for the addition pertaining to situations where structural

integrity is maintained as a result of the design. The Committee

recommended an exception similar to that in paragraph (b)(1) to allow

for flexibility in design.

Paragraph (b)(3) would require that a fully planked or decked floor

or nets be maintained within 2 stories or 30 feet (9.1 m), whichever is

less, directly under any erection work being performed. This is

essentially the same provision as existing Sec. 1926.750(b)(2)(i),

except that the proposed revision adds the option of installing nets in

addition to the planked or decked floor options. Paragraph (b) thus

retains many of the requirements of OSHA's existing steel erection

rule.

Paragraph (c) Walking/working surfaces. This paragraph sets forth

proposed requirements to control the slipping/tripping hazards

encountered when working on steel structures. The Committee pointed out

that the hazards posed by shear connectors need to be addressed in any

revision of subpart R. Shear connectors are commonly found in bridges

and in other types of steel erection. 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. Any costs imposed by field installation of the attachments

is likely to be more than offset by the increased productivity and

safety for employees who walk on the top flange of the structural

steel. It is much safer to walk on a beam that is not

[[Page 43467]]

studded with these shear connectors or otherwise covered with a

temporary working surface. The installation of these shear connectors

needs to be performed on a beam in a manner that allows the installer

to maintain a clear walking surface.

Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would prohibit 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) would require that when shear

connectors are utilized in the construction of composite floors, roofs

and bridge decks, employees lay out and install the shear connectors

after the decking has been installed, using the deck as a working

platform. This paragraph would also prohibit the installation of shear

connectors from within a controlled decking zone (CDZ), as specified in

Sec. 1926.760(c)(8).

SENRAC reviewed the issue of slippery surfaces caused by painted or

coated steel. 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. Related to this is the issue of the slipperiness of metal

decking.

The problem of slipperiness created by coated steel has been

discussed by industry and union safety committees for more than two

decades. In the late 1970's, a study was conducted by the National

Bureau of Standards. This study, according to a SENRAC workgroup,

reached no definite conclusions and proposed no solution (Ex. 9-10). At

the urging of labor and management during the late 1980's, a NIOSH

sponsored study entitled, ``Correlation of Subjective Slipperiness

Judgments with Quantitative COF Measurements For Structural Steel,''

was conducted by the University of Oklahoma's Institute for Safety &

Ergonomics Studies (Ex. 9-10). This study looked into the effects that

protective coatings have on the slipperiness of structural steel. Once

again, according to the SENRAC workgroup, the data did not provide a

sufficient basis for determining adequate means for controlling or

eliminating the slippery surfaces on painted structural steel members.

Slipperiness of painted surfaces has been a problem not only in the

United States but also in Canada. In the Province of Alberta the

problem has been addressed by requiring the use of an anti-skid

coating. Although use of this coating involves an added cost, this cost

is not significant, according to those involved (Ex. 9-10).

A SENRAC workgroup considered all the information available to it

and recommended that SENRAC adopt a performance standard that would

mandate a minimum 0.5 static coefficient of friction (COF) for all

working, walking and climbing surfaces when they arrive on the job

site. The workgroup noted that the slippery surface issue was

originally limited to slippery paint on structural members but had been

expanded to include metal decking.

This recommendation of the SENRAC workgroup was questioned by some

members of the industry, including the Steel Deck Institute (SDI)

(Ex.9-87) and the Metal Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA) (Ex.

9-129). The main concern expressed by these groups was how an employer

would know that it was in compliance, and, specifically, how surfaces

would be tested to determine that this COF had been achieved and what

instrument would be used to make this determination. An expert on slip

prevention made a presentation to the Committee on how to measure the

COF of a slippery surface.

The expert reviewed the primary methods for testing the

slipperiness of surfaces. The first instrument was described as a drag

meter. A major limitation of this device is that it will not work on

dirty or wet surfaces. Thus, testing wet and dirty surface conditions

which actually occur on job sites is impossible using this device. A

second instrument was an articulated strut device. This device is

currently being tested by the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM). A third device examined was a pendulum-like device.

It is limited in that it requires a level floor for proper measurement.

Lastly, the expert described a measuring device that he has developed

that measures not COF but slip resistance. He noted that this

instrument has been modified and is available as a portable unit. He

described two major advantages to this device: it can test wet surfaces

and it can be used in the field to test surfaces as they are actually

walked on.

Following this presentation and after lengthy discussions on the

slippery surface issue, the Committee concluded that conclusive studies

and documented information on the subject of slippery surfaces in steel

erection are not available. To obtain more information, the Committee

agreed that a study should be conducted by the expert to test these

slippery surfaces. This study, commissioned by SENRAC, was conducted in

May of 1995 under the guidance of the SENRAC workgroup. In a final

report of the study to SENRAC (Ex. 9-64), the expert summarized the

methodology and findings. Seven surfaces were tested under both wet and

dry conditions using two different instruments. In addition to these

mechanical tests, five ironworkers ranked how slippery these surfaces

felt while walking on them. The two results were compared. A minimum

standard for slip resistance was set forth in the report.

The study was presented to SENRAC and suggested the following

tentative draft regulatory text for discussion based on the

recommendation of the study: ``all painted, coated or otherwise visibly

treated skeletal structural steel members that are walking/working

surfaces shall have a finish that has a slip index of .75 or higher as

measured with an English XL Slip-Resistance tester or a slip index of

.60 or higher as measured with a Brungraber, Mark II Slip Tester and

would have to be tested in accordance with certain test procedures set

out in an appendix.'' The Committee determined, based on information

obtained from and presentations given by industry groups at SENRAC

meetings, that the draft language was not acceptable. The industry

groups providing information included the Steel Deck Institute (Ex. 9-

73), the Metal Building Manufacturers Association (Ex. 9-74), the Metal

Construction Association (Ex. 9-75), Bethlehem Steel (Exs. 9-106 and 9-

110), the National Coil Coaters Association (Ex. 9-108), American Iron

and Steel Institute (Ex. 1-109), and the American Institute of Steel

Construction (Ex. 9-128). The Committee thus concluded that it could

not determine a minimum value for slip resistance or COF, given all the

variables to be

[[Page 43468]]

considered, nor could it agree on an acceptable testing method.

The Committee next decided to separate the issues of slippery

surfaces on metal decking and on structural steel. Furthermore, based

on perceived differences in the feasibility of compliance, there was

general agreement that a requirement for structural steel could be

proposed while one for metal decking should not be proposed at this

time.

The Committee, consequently, recommended that OSHA propose

paragraph (c)(3) to prohibit workers from walking the top surface of

any structural steel member which has been finish coated with paint or

similar material unless documentation or certification, based on an

appropriate ASTM standard test method, is provided stating that the

finished coat has not decreased the COF from that of the original steel

before it was finish-coated. This documentation or certification must

be available at the site and to the steel erector. Rather than define a

minimum requirement for the COF, the Committee decided to ensure that

the product on which the workers are walking/working is no more

slippery than bare, uncoated steel, which is considered by the

Committee to be safe to walk/work on, even when wet. OSHA seeks

comments and additional information on this point and on the

availability of methods to increase the safety of workers in this

situation and to measure the slipperiness of such surfaces. There are

currently two ASTM standardized test methods for determining the COF of

wet surfaces, thus enabling the painted or coated surface to be tested

for possible certification that the COF has not decreased (see Appendix

B).

With regard to the issue of the slipperiness of metal decking, OSHA

is reserving paragraph (c)(2) to allow additional time to study the

slippery surface aspects of metal decking and identify a solution to

the problem. A coalition of steel-producing and steel-related

organizations has indicated its intention to gather data and prepare

comments with respect to paragraph (c)(2). The coalition intends to

identify the principal factors contributing to slip and fall injuries

in steel erection, and devise feasible and effective approaches to

reduce those risks (Ex. 9-151). OSHA invites additional comments and

information on walking/working surfaces and the slippery aspects of

metal decking from other interested parties.

Paragraph (d) Plumbing-up. Paragraph (d)(1) would require that

connections of the equipment used in plumbing up be properly secured.

This is identical to existing Sec. 1926.752(d)(1) of OSHA's steel

erection standard. Paragraph (d)(2) would require that plumbing-up

equipment be removed only with the approval of a competent person. This

is essentially the same as existing Sec. 1926.752(d)(4), except that

the word ``guys'' is changed to ``equipment'' and ``under the

supervision'' is changed to ``with the approval.'' In addition,

Committee members noted that, with respect to open web steel joists,

the stabilizer plate requirement of proposed Sec. 1926.757(a)(4) will

greatly facilitate the plumbing-up of structures. It should be noted

that several SENRAC members have raised an issue (issue #3 in section

VI, Other Issues) regarding the adequacy of this performance language.

Paragraph (e) Decking. This paragraph sets forth the proposed

requirements to protect employees during decking operations, including

the installation of metal deck (metal deck is defined in the definition

section of this standard). The Committee recognized that improper

installation of decking can cause accidents. Analyses of the fatality/

catastrophe reports in OSHA's IMIS system by SENRAC and OSHA staff

(Exs. 9-14A, 9-42 and 9-49) indicate that falls related to decking when

fall protection is not used account for a large percentage of steel

erection related fatalities. The proposed requirements contained in

paragraph (e) attempt to address many of the hazards which cause

decking accidents.

Paragraph (e)(1) deals with some of the common hazards associated

with hoisting, landing and placing of deck bundles. Many of the

proposed requirements of this paragraph are adapted from the Steel Deck

Institute Manual of Construction With Steel Deck (Ex. 9-34A).

Paragraph (e)(1)(i) would prohibit the use of bundle packaging and

strapping for hoisting unless specifically designed for that purpose.

Bundle straps usually are applied at the factory and are intended to

keep the bundle together until it is placed for erection and the sheets

are ready to be spread. Decking is bundled differently; some

manufacturers design the strapping to be used as a lifting device.

However, hoisting a bundle by straps that are not designed for lifting

is extremely dangerous. The bundle straps can break apart or loosen,

creating a falling object hazard or, if a structural member is hit by

the bundle or its contents, a potential collapse hazard.

Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) would require that, if loose items such as

dunnage, flashing, or other materials are placed on top of deck bundles

which are being hoisted, such items must be secured to the bundles.

Sometimes, to expedite unloading and hoisting, items such as dunnage or

flashing are placed on the decking bundle to save time. Dunnage, for

example, will be sent up with the bundle to help support it on the

structure and to protect the decking which has already been installed.

This proposal would prevent hoisting loose items or ``piggy backing''

unless the items are secured to prevent them from falling off the

bundle in the event that it catches on the structure and tilts.

Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) would require that the landing of bundles of

decking on joists be conducted in accordance with proposed

Sec. 1926.757(e)(4). This requirement is a cross-reference to the joist

section of the proposed standard. Paragraph (e)(4) of that section sets

out proposed criteria for landing decking on joists and will be

discussed later in the preamble.

Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) also addresses the landing of bundles. Under

this proposed requirement, bundles would be landed on framing members

that provide sufficient support for unbanding the bundles. The bundles

would have to be set in such a manner that the decking can be unbanded

without losing the support of the structure. If the blocking should

move while the bundle is being unbanded, the bundle would be required

to have enough support to prevent it from tilting and falling into

``the hole.'' The analysis of the fatality/catastrophe reports produced

from OSHA's IMIS system (Exs. 9-14A, 9-42 and 9-49) identified the

improper landing of bundles of decking as a significant factor in

decking accidents because it may cause a collapse of the support

members and/or bundle. Proposed paragraphs (e)(1)(iii) and (iv) are

intended to eliminate these hazards by providing direction for properly

landing decking bundles.

Paragraph (e)(1)(v) would require decking to be secured against

displacement after the end of the shift or when environmental or

jobsite conditions warrant. This requirement would prevent decking from

being left unsecured between shifts or overnight and would prevent

decking from becoming dislodged from the structure or bundle because of

environmental conditions such as high wind. A gust of wind may cause

individual sheets to peel off an unsecured bundle of decking and fly

through the air. Wind can also move a sheet of loose decking and create

a hazard where an employee inadvertently steps onto a loose piece of

decking, believing it to be secured.

Paragraph (e)(2) Roof and floor openings. This paragraph proposes

steel

[[Page 43469]]

erection procedures for installing metal deck at roof and floor

openings to prevent, among other things, the hazard of employee falls

through deck openings. The Committee found such falls to be a major

cause of decking accidents.

Paragraph (e)(2)(i) would require that, where structural design and

constructibility allow, framed deck openings have structural members

turned down to allow continuous deck installation. Requiring framed

deck openings to be turned down allows continuous decking to be

performed without having to cut the deck around the opening. This

procedure generally applies to small openings rather than larger

openings, such as elevator or mechanical shaft openings; it may not be

appropriate to cut the decking around larger openings at a later time.

Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) would require that roof and floor openings be

covered during the decking process so that uncovered openings do not

create potential fall hazards. If the design of the structure does not

allow for covering of the roof and floor openings, they must be

protected in accordance with proposed Sec. 1926.760(a)(2). Openings for

elevator shafts and stairs are typically too large to cover and would

usually be protected with a guardrail. To decrease even further the

possibility of an employee falling through a deck opening, proposed

paragraph (e)(2)(iii) would require that decking holes and openings not

be cut until necessary for the construction process. Once cut, however,

openings would have to be protected immediately in accordance with

Sec. 1926.760(d), which sets forth the criteria for covering roof and

floor openings, or they would have to be otherwise permanently filled

(i.e., filled with the equipment or structure intended for the opening,

at which time the opening would no longer be a fall hazard).

Paragraph (e)(3) would require that wire mesh, exterior plywood, or

the equivalent, be installed around columns where planks or decking do

not fit tightly. Gauge metal, typically cut out to the profile of the

column, is commonly used for this purpose and would be considered an

equivalent material. This provision is identical to existing

Sec. 1926.752(h), except that the proposed provision adds ``or

decking'' to make clear that the requirement to cover open areas around

columns applies during decking operations both to prevent falls and to

prevent items from falling through these openings to lower levels.

Paragraph (e)(4) would require that decking be laid tightly and

secured to prevent accidental movement or displacement. This is

essentially the same as existing Sec. 1926.752(f) of OSHA's steel

erection standard. The analysis of the fatality/catastrophe reports of

data in OSHA's IMIS system (Exs. 9-14A, 9-42 and 9-49) established that

stepping onto or working on unsecured decking is a factor in decking

accidents.

Paragraph (e)(5)(i) would require that a derrick floor be fully

decked and/or planked and the steel member connections be completed so

as to support the intended floor loading. Paragraph (e)(5)(ii) would

require that temporary loads on a derrick floor be distributed over the

underlying support members to prevent local (spot) overloading of the

deck material. These provisions contain essentially the same

requirements as those in existing Sec. 1926.750(b)(1)(i). OSHA is

clarifying and updating the existing requirement, but the basic concept

of the provision would be unchanged. This provision would apply mainly

to multi-story structures and is intended to ensure that the derrick or

erection floor has been installed with all required bolts and that

final decking has been completed before the floor is loaded and the

sequence of constructing subsequent levels begins. This level, which

then becomes the working level for the erection of floors above, may

need to support a derrick and the steel members required for the

erection of those levels. Such temporary loads would have to be

distributed evenly over the derrick floor to ensure stability.

Section 1926.755 Anchor Bolts

This section addresses the hazards associated with column stability

and, specifically, the proper use of anchor bolts to ensure column

stability. The Committee concluded that inadequate anchor bolt

installation could be a factor in causing structure collapses. One

participant, a connector by trade, addressed the Committee and asserted

that collapses due to poor footings and anchor bolts are currently the

primary cause of connector accidents (Ex. 6-3, p. 4). The Committee was

in general agreement; OSHA solicits comments and additional information

on the relative importance of these and other causes of structural

collapse and the extent to which they result in falls during steel

erection activities.

This section sets out parameters for properly installing and, when

necessary, modifying anchor bolts. Paragraph (a) proposes general

requirements for ensuring erection stability. Paragraph (a)(1) would

require that all columns be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts.

Additionally, as discussed below, this paragraph would require that

column anchor bolt assemblies, including the welding of the column to

the base plate, be designed to resist a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric

load located 18 inches (.46 m) from the column face in each direction

at the top of the column shaft. The Committee listened to some

presenters who were of the opinion that there may be some types of

columns that may require only two anchor bolts. Also, it was contended

by some participants that space limitations or structural

considerations may limit the size of the base plate or the bearing

surface (particularly on a masonry wall) so that it is not wide enough

to allow the placement of four anchor bolts. The Committee recommended,

however, that OSHA propose to require a minimum of four anchor bolts

for all columns, for the reasons discussed above. In some instances,

installing two anchor bolts at the column base might create a stable

structure, but this would not be the case until after all of the

horizontal beams have been installed and the frame has been completed.

Until the frame has been completed, using two bolts could cause a hinge

effect that could tip the column. Requiring all column anchorages to

have four bolts eliminates the possibility of creating this hinge

effect.

Additionally, since a connector with a tool belt must climb the

column, which creates an eccentric load on the column, proper anchor

bolt installation is doubly necessary. Anchor bolt assemblies would

have to be designed to resist a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric load

located 18 inches (.46 cm) from the column face to prevent the column

from toppling over with a worker on it. Based on a SENRAC workgroup

determination, 300 pounds (136.2 kg) represents the maximum weight of

an ironworker with a tool belt. Eighteen (18) inches (.46 cm) off the

face of the column is the center of gravity for an ironworker climbing

a column.

Paragraph (a)(2) addresses the setting of columns and would require

that columns be set on level finished floors, pre-grouted leveling

plates, leveling nuts, or shim packs which are adequate to transfer the

construction loads. This proposed requirement is intended to ensure

that the column sits on a level surface. Placing a column on a surface

that is not level could allow the column to pivot and pull out the

anchor bolts, creating a collapse hazard.

Paragraph (a)(3) would require that unstable columns be evaluated

by a competent person and be guyed or braced where deemed necessary. If

it is determined, for example, that the

[[Page 43470]]

anchor bolts could potentially be pulled out under field conditions,

the competent person can elect to guy or brace the column.

Paragraph (b) Repair, replacement or field modification. This

paragraph addresses the situation where the steel erector may be

working after another contractor who has repaired, replaced or modified

an anchor bolt. The steel erector often cannot visually tell when an

anchor bolt has been repaired and thus will not be aware of the repair

unless notified that a repair has been made. If an anchor bolt has been

improperly repaired, replaced or modified, it could lead to a collapse.

The intent of this proposed paragraph is to ensure that the erector has

the opportunity to make sure that any work on anchor bolts has been

adequately performed.

Paragraph (b)(1) would prohibit the repair, replacement or field

modification of anchor bolts without the approval of the project

structural engineer of record. This would ensure that any change to the

original anchor bolt is performed in a manner consistent with original

specifications.

Paragraph (b)(2) would require that any such approval by the

project structural engineer of record also indicate any requirements

for special column guying or bracing as a result of the repair,

replacement or modification. If the project structural engineer of

record has approved the repair, replacement, or field modification,

guying or bracing may be required as a precaution.

Paragraph (b)(3) would require that, prior to the erection of a

column, the controlling contractor provide written notification to the

steel erector if there has been any repair, replacement or modification

of the anchor bolts for that column. This proposed requirement, working

in conjunction with proposed Sec. 1926.752(a)(2), completes the

communication loop. Generally, the steel erector does not have contact

with the project structural engineer of record and would rely on the

controlling contractor to convey any notification from the project

structural engineer of record. This form of communication between the

controlling contractor and steel erector is already a common jobsite

practice.

Section 1926.756 Beams and Columns

This section sets forth proposed requirements for connections of

beams and columns to ensure stability of the steel structure during the

erection process. Recognizing that inappropriate or inadequate

connections of beams and columns is inherently hazardous and can lead

to collapse and worker fatalities, the Committee recommended, and OSHA

proposes, a combination of performance and specification requirements

to address these hazards.

Paragraph (a) General. This paragraph would require that, during

the final placing of solid web structural members, the load not be

released from the hoisting line until the members are secured with at

least two bolts per connection, drawn up wrench-tight, or the

equivalent as specified by the project structural engineer of record.

This is identical to existing Sec. 1926.751(a) of OSHA's steel erection

standard, except that ``or the equivalent as specified by the project

structural engineer of record'' has been added to allow for alternative

types of connections such as welding, or, in the case of heavy members,

allowance for more than two bolts.

Paragraph (b) Diagonal bracing. Paragraph (b) would allow solid web

structural members used as diagonal bracing to be secured by a single

bolt per connection, drawn up wrench-tight or the equivalent as

specified by the project structural engineer of record. In many cases,

solid web structural members such as channels or beams are used as

diagonal bracing or wind bracing. These members technically fall under

paragraph (a) above; however, since they are used in a different

application, i.e., as bracing to be welded at a later time, a one-bolt

connection is sufficient. These members play a different role in

erection stability since they are designed to provide stability for the

final completed structure and are not used as walking/working surfaces.

Compliance with this provision would provide safe connections for these

members.

Paragraph (c) Double connections at columns and/or at beam webs

over a column. ``Double connections'' are an essential method for

connecting structural steel members in some design concepts. However,

these connections can pose significant hazards while erecting

structural steel. When a double connection at a column is not properly

executed, the resulting failure can lead to the immediate collapse of

the entire structure, endangering the connector and every other worker

on or around the structure. At one of the SENRAC meetings, several

types of double connections were demonstrated with the use of scale

model structural web members, together with a discussion of why they

are hazardous and how they can be made safely. Proposed paragraph (c)

would require that, when two structural members on opposite sides of a

column web, or a beam web over a column, share common connection holes,

at least one bolt with its wrench-tight nut must remain connected to

the first member unless a shop-attached or field-bolted seat or similar

connection device is present to secure the second member and prevent

the column from being displaced. When seats are provided, the

connection between the seat and the structural member that it supports

must be bolted together before the nuts are removed for the double

connection.

A double connection, by definition, is one where more than two

pieces of steel are bolted together using the same (common) bolts. This

can occur where two beams are bolted to opposite sides of a column web

or to the opposite sides of a beam or girder. OSHA's current steel

erection standard does not address this practice. When utilizing a

double connection in field erection procedures, a beam is first bolted

to another beam or column. Later in the erection sequence, another beam

or other member is added to the opposite side of the existing

connection, using the same holes and the same bolts to ``make up'' the

third piece in the connection. This is the situation where the practice

of double connections becomes a safety concern: the nuts must be

removed from the initially placed connection bolts and these bolts are

then backed out to the point where they barely grip the first two

pieces of steel, so that the third piece can be lined up with the

existing holes. Then the same bolts are pushed back through all the

holes and the nuts are tightened on the bolts to secure the three

pieces of steel together. This maneuver is extremely dangerous for the

connector because of the tenuous grip of the loosened bolts and the

possibility that the connector's spud wrench, which is used to align

the incoming piece, may slip. If at any time during the process, the

carrying member (i.e., the central member to which the other two

members are being attached) reacts to residual stresses developed

through welding and/or misaligned connections at lower elevations, the

carrying member can move suddenly, causing the bolts or the spud wrench

to become dislodged. The incoming third member can also cause problems

if it bumps up against the fitting or wrench end. Additionally, crane

operators, wind, building movements and the connector straining to make

a tough connection impose stresses that can lead to disengagement of

the connection.

Several methods for performing double connections safely were

discussed by the Committee. For example, a seat lug could be inserted

on one side of a column, below the

[[Page 43471]]

connection point. When the first beam is placed, two bolts could be

inserted downward into the seat lug. This would leave the other side of

the column web clear so that the new beam could be positioned without

disconnecting the beam on which the connector sits. In another method,

an extra set of holes on one side of the connection could be added to

secure the first beam installed. This would require that the connection

plate on the end of the first beam be enlarged so that two additional

holes could be placed just below the double connection point. Bolts

could be placed in these two holes to secure the beam to the column.

Even though these two bolts would go through the web of the column,

they would be located below the area where the second beam would be

aligned. This again would not require the connector to disconnect the

first beam to allow for the second beam to be positioned. This is the

configuration used for a double connection situation in Canada, called

the ``clipped end plate connection'' (Ex. 9-27).

As mentioned earlier, double connections are essential in steel

erection and cannot be eliminated; they can, however, be performed

safely. The proposed requirements address hazards that exist whenever

there are double connections which present a danger of structural

collapse. It should be noted that double connections of filler beams in

the webs of girders are not considered to be an unsafe situation and

are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (c). This is because

once the bay is ``boxed,'' all filler beams are trapped between the

girders. The connector sits on the girder while making the double

connection and has no exposure to collapse of the individual members.

In these cases there is no reason to require bolts to remain in the

connection or seats or other devices to restrain the first member while

the second is being erected. The seat or similar device requirement of

this paragraph is also addressed in the corresponding requirement in

the latest American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A10.13-1989,

Steel Erection-Safety Requirements standard (Ex. 9-35), which provides

that ``when double connections are involved, the structural detailer

and fabricator shall be consulted concerning the provisions for a seat

lug or flange length extension on one of the beams, and a corresponding

bolt hole in the web of the column floor or beam.'' The ANSI

requirement does not, however, explicitly require a seat or similar

device as proposed paragraph (c) would.

Paragraph (d) Column splices. This paragraph would require that

each column splice be designed to resist a 300 pound (136.2 kg)

eccentric load located 18 inches (.46 m) from the column face in each

direction at the top of the column shaft. This is similar to the

proposed strength requirement for anchor bolts in Sec. 1926.755(a)(1).

In the same manner as anchor bolts, a column splice must be designed to

allow for a worker to climb the column to perform work. These splices

are joints that are temporarily fastened until the final welding or

bolting is performed, and they must be sufficient to support the worker

without folding over.

Paragraph (e) Perimeter columns. This paragraph would require that

perimeter columns extend a minimum of 48 inches (1.2 m) above the

finished floor to permit installation of perimeter cables, prior to

erection of the next tier except where structural design and

constructibility do not allow.

Paragraph (f) Perimeter safety cables. Paragraph (f)(1) would

require that perimeter safety cables be installed during the structural

steel assembly of multi-story structures. Paragraph (f)(2) would

require that the perimeter safety cables consist of \1/2\-inch wire

rope or equivalent and be installed at 42-45 inches above the finished

floor and at the midpoint between the finished floor and the top cable.

Paragraph (f)(3) would require that where structural design and

constructibility allow, holes or other devices be provided by the

fabricator/supplier in, or attached to, perimeter columns at a height

of 42 to 45 inches above the finished floor and at the midpoint between

the finished floor and the top cable to permit installation of

perimeter cables.

Proposed paragraphs (e) and (f) update and clarify the existing

requirement in Sec. 1926.750(b)(1)(iii) of OSHA's steel erection

standard. They clarify that the columns need to extend far enough above

the floor decking to facilitate the installation of perimeter cable.

The perimeter cable must be installed at a height of 42 to 45 inches

above the finished floor and at the midpoint between that cable and the

finished floor level. These safety cables provide fall protection at

the perimeter of the structure and are to be installed as soon as the

deck has been installed to provide protection to subsequent detail

crews. These perimeter safety cables are not intended to be used as

lifelines or as attachment points for fall protection systems but

rather as a guardrail system. The holes or other devices necessary to

accommodate the safety cables would have to be provided by the

fabricator of the columns prior to installation to enable the cables to

be installed readily in the field after the columns have been erected.

The AISC raised concerns regarding the impact of paragraph (f) on steel

fabricators. The AISC is concerned that this provision will create

liability for the fabricator, confuse existing contractual

relationships, and create new feasibility and materials handling

problems (Ex. 9-151). However, both SENRAC and OSHA believe that the

enhanced safety afforded by this provision is necessary and the Agency

seeks comment on this issue.

The proposed requirements in paragraph (e) and (f) do allow for

cases where the design of a structure would not allow either for the

columns to extend 48 inches (1.2 m) above the finished floor or for the

holes or other devices to be provided by the fabricator. Proposed

Appendix F provides a guideline to assist employers in complying with

these paragraphs.

Section 1926.757 Open Web Steel Joists

Some of the most serious risks facing the ironworker are

encountered during the erection of open web steel joists. A limited

analysis of ironworker fatalities from January 1984 to December 1990,

discussed in Section IV--Hazards in Steel Erection, indicated that, of

the approximately 40 fatalities caused by collapse, more than half were

related to the erection of steel joists (Ex. 9-14A). Although the

existing OSHA steel erection standard addresses these hazards in a

limited manner, this proposed section utilizes a combination of

specification and performance requirements that will provide more

comprehensive protection to workers engaged in these activities. SENRAC

developed these proposed requirements in cooperation with the Steel

Joist Institute (SJI) and many of its member companies.

Paragraph (a) General. Paragraph (a) addresses the erection of

steel joists in general. Paragraph (a)(1) would provide that where

steel joists or steel joist girders are utilized and columns are not

framed in at least two directions with solid web structural steel

members, the steel joist or steel joist girder must be field-bolted at

or near columns to provide lateral stability to the column during

erection. This proposed paragraph refines the existing steel erection

standard provision, Sec. 1926.751(c)(1), which is otherwise identical

to the proposed requirement, by adding the words ``solid web'' before

``structural steel members'' and expanding ``bar joist'' to ``steel

joists or steel joist girders.'' These additions are necessary

clarification in light of technological advances in the industry.

[[Page 43472]]

Specifically, the existing language was developed at a time when the

only structural steel involved in steel framing was solid web members.

In the mid 1970's, the steel joist industry developed the steel joist

girder to be used as a primary member in steel framing to support steel

joists. Bolting these connections is considered preferable to other

methods of connection because bolting provides the greatest safety

while requiring the least amount of time and equipment.

Several other provisions in this proposed paragraph refer to

special requirements for connections at the column. Paragraph (a)(2)

would require that steel joists at or near the column that span 60 feet

or less be designed with sufficient lateral stiffness that, when bolted

at both ends, and with the bottom chord restrained at each end with the

required column stabilizer plate (required by paragraph (a)(4) of this

section), the joist does not need erection bridging to prevent it from

rotating when an employee goes out onto it to release the hoisting

cable. The existing rule prohibits placing any load on joists until

erection bridging has been installed. However, since the joist at the

column is the first joist in place, there is no place to attach

erection bridging and, consequently, the joist itself must possess

sufficient lateral stiffness to allow the erection process to progress

safely.

The next provision, paragraph (a)(3), addresses a longer steel

joist at the same position. The Committee preliminarily determined, and

OSHA is proposing, that steel joists that span more than 60 feet

located at columns must be set in tandem, i.e., two steel joists must

be attached together, usually with bolted diagonal erection bridging,

to ensure stability. These joists are commonly used in larger open

structures such as warehouses, gymnasiums and arenas. This proposed

provision would allow the use of alternate means of erection of such

long span steel joists, provided that the alternative is designed by a

qualified person to ensure equivalent stability and is included in the

site-specific erection plan.

Proposed paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) also refer to connections at

the column. Paragraph (a)(4) is a specification for the column that

would require a stabilizer plate to extend at least 3 inches (76 mm)

below the bottom chord of the steel joist or steel joist girder. The

plate would be required to have a \13/16\ inch (21 mm) hole placed in

it to provide an attachment point for guying or plumbing cables.

Paragraph (a)(5) works in conjunction with paragraph (a)(4) and would

require that the bottom chords of both the primary steel joist girders

and the secondary steel joists at columns be stabilized to prevent

rotation.

The foregoing provisions will result in a more stable primary

structure upon which to erect steel joists. In addition, a stabilizer

plate provides a ready attachment point for more efficient guying. The

sequence of guying is essential to safety. These proposed requirements

allow the erector more easily to guy the structure to prevent collapse

as the steel is set in place. Moreover, compliance with these

provisions should help to satisfy the stability requirements of

paragraph (a)(6). Paragraph (a)(6) would prohibit the placement of

steel joists on any support structure unless it has been stabilized.

Again, this is essentially identical to the existing requirement found

in Sec. 1926.751(c)(3) of OSHA's steel erection standard.

Proposed paragraph (a)(7) addresses the hazard that arises when a

steel joist or joists are placed on the structure and then left

unattended and unattached. An example of a situation addressed by this

paragraph involves lighter steel joists, under 40 feet in length, that

would not require erection bridging under this section. A common

practice in erecting these lighter joists, which can be set in place by

hand, is to have a crane set the columns, steel joist girders, or solid

web primary members as well as the boltable joists required by OSHA at

the columns, thus boxing the bays. The crane would then place a bundle

of filler joists at an end or, more likely, at the center of the bay,

and then move on to the next bay. Because cranes are among the more

costly pieces of equipment on a steel erection job, minimizing crane

time at the site is cost effective. This provision would require that,

when steel joists are landed on structures, they be secured to prevent

unintentional displacement prior to installation, i.e., the bundles

must remain intact until the time comes for them to be set. This

proposed paragraph would also prevent those ironworkers who are shaking

out the filler joists from getting too far ahead of those workers

welding the joists, a practice that leaves too many joists placed but

unattached (paragraph (b)(3) of this proposed section, discussed below,

requires that at least one end of each steel joist be attached

immediately upon placement in its final erection position and before

additional joists are placed). A final example of a situation addressed

by this paragraph would be when the exact dimensions of a piece of

mechanical equipment to be installed in the decking is not known. A

common practice, when this occurs, is to leave a joist unattached until

the dimension is known. This paragraph requires such a joist to be

secured (probably to the support structure or an attached joist)

pending its attachment.

The Committee spent considerable time debating the appropriateness

of requiring that certain joists be fabricated with bolt holes at the

ends to allow for field bolting to the structure. As recommended by

SENRAC, OSHA is proposing paragraph (a)(8), which would require that,

when individual steel joists are being connected to steel structures in

bays of 40 feet or more, these joists be fabricated to allow for field

bolting.

This provision is necessary because certain joists that are thin

and flexible can be difficult to install because of their sweep.

Bolting these types of joists first allows straightening of the joist,

thus returning its camber and eliminating torque. Additionally, after

bolting, welding can be more easily accomplished. Note that this

provision would not require these joists to be bolted as paragraph

(a)(1) would require of the joist at the column. (Attachment

requirements and the exceptions to this paragraph are discussed in

connection with paragraph (b) below.) Instead, proposed paragraph

(a)(8) would require that the joists arrive at the jobsite with holes

pre-existing, thereby providing steel erectors with the option either

of bolting or welding the joists. In practice, not requiring the joists

to be fabricated in this manner would require the steel erector to

drill holes in the joists in those cases where bolting is preferable.

Just as the joist at the column is a special risk situation, long steel

joists that are placed in bays of 40 feet or more have a greater

tendency to twist or rotate, which creates hazards for the workers

installing them.

SENRAC discussed a number of hazardous situations for which bolting

joists is a safer method of attachment than welding. For example,

SENRAC noted that bolting is safer whenever unattached joists could be

displaced by wind or construction activity, by the movement of

employees, by trailing welding leads, by accidental impact against the

supporting structure by a crane or other equipment, or by harmonic

motion or vibration. In addition, the vision and balance of an employee

working at elevation can be impaired while wearing a welding hood,

which may make bolting a safer approach in this situation. Further,

joists can roll and pop welds due to the movement of an erector on the

joist or the stresses caused by removing the sweep; if the weld breaks,

the joist fails and may cause a structural collapse. Finally, there are

special hazards

[[Page 43473]]

associated with welding that are not associated with bolting, such as

electrical and fire hazards.

Both bolting and welding provide connections of equivalent

strength, and both involve some risk. The Steel Joist Institute (SJI)

asserted that welding joist ends is its recommended manner of

attachment and that welding eliminates the weakening that holes in the

supporting member can cause. After reviewing all relevant options, the

Committee concluded that steel erectors should have the option of

attaching joists either by bolting or welding. When conditions for

welding are adverse, however, proposed paragraph (a)(8) would allow the

steel erector to bolt the joists, thus avoiding many of the hazards

mentioned above.

As noted, questions were raised about this proposed requirement.

SJI and others questioned whether it is possible to bolt a joist to a

masonry or similar support structure. However, the proposal clearly

states that the provision allowing bolting would apply only when the

joist is to be attached to a steel support structure, usually a solid

web beam or a steel joist girder. Additional concerns were raised about

the cost and feasibility of putting holes in the steel joists and

support members (see Ex. 6-8, p. 7), but SENRAC believes that the

safety and other advantages of permitting bolting are clearly more

important than the disadvantages of this technique.

The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) pointed out

that, to put the holes in the supporting beams, the fabricator of the

beams must know the exact location the joist will occu

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