# Safety Standards for Steel Erection

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-21112

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** August 13, 1998
- **Citation:** 63 FR 43452

## Text

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 f

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-21112. Public record. Not legal advice.