[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 14, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38078-38086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17663]
[[Page 38077]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Part 1926
Safety Standards for Fall Protection in the Construction Industry;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 38078]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1926
RIN 1218-AA66
[Docket No. S-206C]
Safety Standards for Fall Protection in the Construction Industry
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), OSHA
requests comments and information on fall protection for workers
engaged in certain construction activities currently covered by OSHA's
Standards for Fall Protection in the Construction Industry, published
in volume 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Secs. 1926.500-
1926.503 (referred to here as the ``rule''). Since the rule was
published on August 4, 1994, OSHA has received numerous communications
requesting interpretations and claiming that compliance with the rule
is sometimes infeasible in certain activities, such as in residential
and post-frame construction, while climbing reinforced steel, erecting
precast concrete, drilling shafts, and when providing prompt rescue. We
are asking the public for information and data on fall protection for
employees in these situations.
Information provided to the Agency in support of a claim of
infeasibility should explain, in detail, why the rule cannot be
complied with in certain circumstances, what fall protection methods
could be used to protect workers engaged in these activities, and the
degree of protection such methods would provide. In addition, such
claims should be supported by data demonstrating that the current rule
is not feasible for a particular activity and data demonstrating the
effectiveness of any alternative approaches suggested. Respondents
should also provide any information on the costs of alternative
approaches and the reduction in injuries likely to be experienced if
alternatives were to be adopted. With respect to OSHA Instruction STD
3-0.1A (interim fall protection compliance guidelines for residential
construction), the Agency intends to rescind that directive unless
persuasive evidence is submitted in response to this ANPRM
demonstrating that for most residential construction employers
complying with the rule is infeasible or presents significant safety
hazards.
DATES: Comments in response to this ANPRM must be received by October
22, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Two copies of comments must be submitted to the OSHA Docket
Office, Docket S206C, Room N2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20210, 202-693-2350. Comments
consisting of 10 pages or less may be faxed to the Docket Office at the
following FAX number: 202-693-1648. However, two hard copies must be
mailed to us within two days. Electronic comments can be submitted on
the Internet at http://www.osha-slc.gov/e-comments/e-comments-
fallprotection.html. The exhibits referred to throughout this document
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office (see
address and telephone number above), which is open weekdays from 10:00
am to 4:00 pm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Bonnie Friedman, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, Office of Information and Consumer
Affairs, Room N3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, D.C. 20210, Telephone: 202 693-1999. Anyone with
questions regarding the technical content of this document should
contact Ms. Jule Jones at 202 693-2345. For electronic copies, contact
OSHA's web page on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 25, 1986, OSHA proposed to revise the fall protection
standard. The rulemaking record, developed over a nine-year period,
resulted in a more performance-oriented rule, issued on August 9, 1994
(published in volume 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1926,
subpart M, and in volume 59 of the Federal Register, beginning on page
40,672). You can view the rule on OSHA's Internet site at www.osha.gov.
In general, the rule requires that an employee exposed to a fall hazard
of six feet or more must be protected by equipment that prevents or
arrests the fall.
Subsequently, some employers have claimed that parts of the rule
are not appropriate for their operations. The residential, precast
concrete, and post-frame construction industries state that different
fall protection provisions are needed for their activities. Some
vendors who deliver roofing material believe the rule should not apply
to them. Reinforcing steel (rebar construction) employers request that
workers who climb rebar walls and assemblies be permitted to climb
without fall protection and only be required to tie off upon reaching
their work location. Also, some persons familiar with safety harnesses,
restraint systems and positioning devices have raised concerns
regarding the standard's performance criteria for fall protection
systems.
In response to feasibility issues about the rule raised by the
residential construction industry, on December 8, 1995, we issued
interim fall protection procedures for residential construction
employers (``OSHA Instruction STD 3.1'') that differ from those in the
rule (on June 18, 1999, we issued a plain language re-write of STD 3.1.
The re-write, STD 3-0.1A, replaces STD 3.1). We stated that we would
undertake further rulemaking to address these fall protection issues.
STD 3-0.1A permits employers to use specified work practices instead of
conventional fall protection (systems/devices that physically prevent a
worker from falling or arrest a worker's fall) for foundation work,
some installation work on roofs and in attics, and some residential
roofing work.
This notice begins our evaluation of these and other fall
protection practices and of STD 3-0.1A. OSHA emphasizes that the
extensive rulemaking process completed in 1994 established that the
fall protection requirements in the rule are reasonably necessary and
appropriate to protect employees from the significant risks of fall
hazards. Providing such protection was demonstrated to be both
technologically and economically feasible. (See the complete discussion
in the preamble to the final rule for subpart M (volume 59 of the
Federal Register at pages 40672-40722. That preamble is available at
OSHA's Internet web site at www.osha.gov.) However, because of the
concerns raised by employers engaged in the operations listed above, we
are seeking additional information.
OSHA needs to hear the views of interested parties on all issues
raised in this notice. After reviewing your comments and data, OSHA
will decide what further steps, if any, may be appropriate.
We encourage interested parties to respond to the questions raised
in Section IV-- Summary and Explanation of Issues, where we detail each
issue that you have brought to our attention.
[[Page 38079]]
II. Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health
A summary of the issues addressed by this notice was presented to
the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). The
full committee was initially briefed April 8, 1998, with updates
provided on both July 22 and October 8 of that year.
III. Explanation of Issues
OSHA solicits information on a variety of issues pertaining to the
fall protection standard. We are addressing 10 issues, most of which
have been raised by interested parties who believe that alternatives to
some of the rule's provisions should be permitted. They generally
recommend that OSHA allow work practices rather than personal fall
arrest systems and guardrails to protect employees against falls. The
10 issues identified for discussion and comment are as follows:
Issue 1. Whether There Is A Need for Alternative Procedures for
Residential Construction
Issue 2. Whether There Is A Need for Alternative Procedures for
Precast Concrete Erection
Issue 3. Whether There Is A Need for Alternative Procedures for
Post-Frame Construction
Issue 4. Whether There Is A Need For Alternative Procedures For
Vendors Delivering Construction Materials
Issue 5. Whether There Are Alternative Methods of Fall Protection
While Climbing Reinforcing Steel (Rebar Walls and Cages)
Issue 6. What Criteria Should Be Used for Restraint Systems
Issue 7. Whether the Strength Requirements for Anchorage Points for
Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Positioning Device Systems and
Restraint Systems Should Be Changed
Issue 8. Whether the Standard's Prompt Rescue Requirements Should Be
Revised
Issue 9. Whether There Is A Need for Alternative Procedures for
Drilling Shafts
Issue 10. Whether Body Belts Incorporated Into Full Body Harnesses
Provide Appropriate Employee Protection in a Fall
Issue 1. Whether There Is A Need For Alternative Procedures for
Residential Construction
Alternative Measures Allowed by the Rule
Section 1926.501(b)(13) contains the fall protection requirements
for residential construction, which state:
Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6
feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by
guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system
unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides
for an alternative fall protection measure. Exception: When the
employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater
hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and
implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of
paragraph (k) of Sec. 1926.502.
When promulgating this standard, OSHA acknowledged that some
employers in the residential construction industry might have
difficulty providing conventional fall protection for certain
operations. Difficulties were expected during the erection of roof
trusses and the installation of roof sheathing, exterior wall panels,
floor joists, and floor sheathing. Accordingly, the final rule allows
some flexibility for the residential construction employer. The rule
states that conventional fall protection in residential construction is
presumed to be feasible. However, where the employer can show that
conventional fall protection is infeasible at a particular worksite,
the employer may implement a written ``alternative fall protection
plan.'' The plan must be in writing, designed for the particular work
site, and specify alternative measures that are as protective as
possible.
Alternative Procedures Allowed by Appendix E of the Rule
OSHA published a sample fall protection plan for residential
construction that outlined acceptable alternative fall protection
measures for each of the operations mentioned above. That plan is
published in Appendix E to the rule (it begins on page 343 of the July
1, 1998 version of volume 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
1926). The Appendix E procedures consist of training requirements,
supervision and administration of the plan by a designated competent
person, use of a controlled access zone to minimize access to the work
area, and use of a safety monitor. It has additional work practice
requirements for each of the listed work activities. Workers may work
on the ``top plate'' of stud walls and on the peaks of roof trusses and
ridge beams without fall protection, under certain circumstances. Roof
sheathing operations must be done with slide guards and certain work
practice requirements. Work practice requirements are also delineated
for installation of floor joists, floor sheathing, and the erection of
exterior walls.
Alternative Measures Permitted by OSHA Instruction STD 3-0.1A That
Differ From the Rule
After the rule was enacted, homebuilder representatives identified
three additional categories of residential work where the use of
conventional fall protection systems was, in their judgment, infeasible
or would present a greater hazard to their workers: (1) Working on
foundation walls and formwork used to build the walls; (2) installing
drywall, insulation, heating/cooling systems, electrical systems,
plumbing and carpentry in attics and on roofs, and (3) roofing work
(the installation of weatherproofing roofing materials). These
commenters asserted that, when doing these activities, nets could not
be used and there was no place available and/or strong enough to anchor
fall arrest equipment. They also stated that conventional fall
protection for these activities was infeasible, or would create a
greater hazard, in all residential projects, so it did not make sense
to require employers to have written, site-specific alternative
procedure plans for each site.
OSHA Instruction STD 3-0.1A provides a list of work practice
measures that employers engaged in residential construction may use
instead of fall protection for work on foundation walls/formwork,
installation work in attics and on roofs and for roofing work. In
addition, it provides that an employer's alternative fall protection
plan does not have to be written or site-specific as long as it follows
either Appendix E or, for these additional types of work, the
procedures in STD 3-0.1A. Further, it permits employers to use these
procedures without first having to show that conventional fall
protection is infeasible or creates a greater hazard.
Procedures for Foundation/formwork Activities and Installation Work in
Attics and On Roofs
The work practices allowed as alternatives to fall protection for
working on foundation walls and related formwork consist of limiting
the work to trained workers, minimizing their fall exposure, adequately
supporting the wall/formwork, not working in bad weather, staging
materials and equipment in locations that are convenient to those on
the formwork, and eliminating impalement hazards. The procedures for
installation work in attics and on roofs require limiting the work to
trained employees, limiting their exposure, staging materials,
eliminating impalement
[[Page 38080]]
hazards, limiting access to affected work areas, and not working in bad
weather.
Procedures for Roofing Work
STD 3-0.1A also contains alternative procedures for some roofing
work. Shortly after OSHA issued the rule, the National Roofing
Contractors Association (NRCA) and the National Association of Home
Builders (NAHB) asked OSHA to clarify how the roofing provisions
applied to residential construction and asserted that more flexibility
was warranted. They provided information on industry practices in
support of their claims.
NAHB suggested that the sample fall protection plan found in
Appendix E be expanded to specifically address roofing work at
residential sites. The Association considered the use of conventional
fall protection systems in residential roofing to be either infeasible
or to pose a greater hazard. Roofing contractors claimed that requiring
conventional fall protection is extreme and would not improve safety.
They stated that their workers are skilled professionals who wear the
proper footwear and understand the consequences of falling, and do not
believe that fall protection is necessary during roofing activities.
They further believe that full compliance with the rule is too costly
and interferes with their ability to remain competitive, especially
since, in their view, their competitors do not use conventional fall
protection. To a large extent, information from the NAHB formed the
basis of the alternative procedures in STD 3-0.1A for residential
roofing work.
The STD 3-0.1A alternative procedures for roofing work may only be
used where the roof slope is no more than 8 inches (vertical) in 12
(horizontal) and the fall distance, from the eave of the roof to the
ground level, is 25 feet or less. Workers must be trained on slip
hazards, and access to the rake edge must be minimized. Work must be
suspended in bad weather, and impalement hazards must be eliminated.
In addition, for roofs with a slope of up to 4 in 12 inches, the
employer has the option of using either a safety monitor or slide
guards. A slide guard is typically a 2'' x 6'' board attached along the
roof. STD 3-0.1A specifies certain materials, configurations, and
locations for slide guards, depending on the steepness of the roof.
With two exceptions, slide guards must be used on any roof with a
slope of over 4 in 12, up to 8 in 12. Those two exceptions are for
roofs made of tile or metal, in which case a safety monitor may be used
instead of slide guards. Fall protection must be used for all roofs
with a roof slope steeper than 8 in 12.
Since the rule was enacted, there have been advances in the types
and capability of commercially available fall protection equipment.
OSHA specifically solicits comment on the alternatives to the rule
permitted for roofing work by STD 3-0.1A. Specific questions on the
various operations are listed later in this document.
Definition of Residential Construction
Although the rule has specific requirements for residential
construction, it does not define that term. NAHB and others have
asserted that ``residential construction'' should be defined to include
light commercial structures in which the materials, methods and work
environment are essentially the same as in homebuilding. They asserted
that many homebuilders construct light commercial structures and that
the hazards on both residential and these light commercial structures
are essentially the same. NRCA has also asked that we clarify the term
``residential construction.'' NRCA asserts that homebuilding and
similarly constructed light commercial structures should be treated in
the same way with respect to providing fall protection during roofing
work.
In STD 3-0.1A, OSHA defined residential construction as including
work on structures where the working environment, construction
materials, methods, and work procedures are essentially the same as
those used for building typical single family homes and townhouses.
Also, STD 3-0.1A stated that work on discrete parts of a large
commercial structure could be considered residential construction as
long as the working environment, materials, methods, and procedures
were similar to those used for single family homes and townhouses.
We have received a number of inquiries and comments about this
definition. A number of commenters have stated that the definition
fails to adequately distinguish between work that is residential and
work that is commercial. Some have suggested that some fall protection
devices and methods that may not be economically feasible in
constructing single family homes and townhouse residences are
economically feasible when similar structures are built for commercial
use. Others have suggested that as long as the materials, methods and
work environment are the same, the alternative procedures allowed in
STD 3-0.1A should apply, without regard to whether the building will be
occupied as a residence or used for commercial purposes.
Request for Comments and Supporting Information
OSHA solicits comments on the alternative fall protection measures
for residential construction work in Appendix E of the rule and in STD
3-0.1A, as well as on the STD 3-0.1A definition of residential
construction. We seek comments and supporting information on whether
the alternative procedures in STD 3-0.1A are the most protective and
feasible methods currently available for protecting residential
construction workers from falls. We request that comments include
detailed information on fall protection methods, equipment, injuries
and accidents, and personal experience related to these topics in both
residential and light commercial construction.
Questions on Installing Floor Joists and Floor Sheathing
A fall protection system that is currently available consists of
three components: a body harness, an anchor, and an adjustable strap
with snap hooks at each end (Ex. 1-1). The anchor consists of a strap,
which looks similar to a seat belt strap, with a D-ring at one end. For
a floor sheathing operation, the anchor is installed by nailing the
strap end to the first course of floor sheathing with double-headed
nails. The nails are installed through the floor sheathing and into a
floor joist.
The adjustable strap has snap hooks at each end--one connects to
the anchor's D-ring and the other connects to the harness. As the
leading edge advances, or as the worker moves about, the strap can be
lengthened or shortened by depressing an adjustment device and letting
out or pulling in the strap. When the anchor is no longer needed, the
nails are removed (facilitated by the double headed nail) and the strap
is discarded.
Is there a reason why this system is not feasible in floor joist
and floor sheathing installations? Are there situations where movable
catch platforms could not be used below the areas where workers are
installing floor joists and floor sheathing to protect against falls?
Another way of providing fall protection for some construction
activities is to set up a lifeline, to which individual workers attach
their lanyards. As work progresses, the lifeline is moved forward. Is
there a reason why this type of system could not be used when
installing floor joists and floor sheathing? Are there retractable
lanyards that will engage fast
[[Page 38081]]
enough to prevent a worker installing floor joists and floor sheathing
approximately 10 feet above the next lower level from being injured in
an arrested fall?
Questions on Installing Roof Sheathing
There are a number of commercially available products designed to
serve as anchor points in wood framed structures for fall arrest
systems. Most of these are designed to be attached to a roof truss,
rafter or sheathing. Some provide a single attachment point, while
others have multiple attachment points. Some are designed to be used to
support a lifeline to which two workers can attach their lanyards. Some
incorporate a swivelling, retractable lanyard (Exhibits 1-2 through 1-
5).
Most of these products are designed to withstand a 5,000 pound load
(the rule requires fall arrest system anchors to support a 5,000 pound
load or to have a safety factor of two). A key question in determining
the viability of these anchors in roof sheathing operations is the
strength of the part of the structure to which the anchor is attached.
Some contractors are adding bracing to roof trusses so that the strap
anchors can be used during part of the sheathing operation. Are there
other anchor systems available that can be installed before some (or
any) sheathing is in place and still withstand a 5,000 pound load? How
much sheathing (and in what arrangement) has to be installed before an
anchor will support this load?
Various ``shock-absorbing'' lanyards and fall protection devices
have been developed. The loads imposed in an arrested fall on the
anchor point when using shock-absorbing equipment is less than when
using conventional equipment. How much less are those loads? What is
the minimum strength needed for anchors when shock-absorbing equipment
is used?
The rule's 5,000 pound/factor of two requirement is for an anchor
that is used as part of a fall protection system. A fall protection
system arrests a person's fall. In contrast, a fall restraint system is
a system that prevents a worker from falling any distance at all. The
anchor for such a system is not called upon to withstand the forces of
an arrested fall--it only has to withstand the forces of restraining a
worker from moving further than the length of the lanyard. What is an
appropriate minimum strength for an anchor in a restraint system? Is
there a reason why a restraint system could not be used when installing
roof sheathing?
Some roof sheathers use the strap anchor in conjunction with the
following sheathing method: The strap anchor is nailed to (and wrapped
around) one or more roof trusses before it is erected. Sheathing is
installed by workers by standing on platforms on the inside of the
second floor, starting from the eaves and working upward toward the
ridge (top) of the roof (this eliminates the fall hazard to the
exterior). The final (top) course is installed by workers on the roof
who tie-off to the strap anchor. At that point the trusses are braced
by all but the final course of sheathing. Is there a reason why this
system is not feasible in roof sheathing installations?
Questions on Setting and Bracing Roof Trusses and Rafters
The procedures in Appendix E of the rule call for the first two
trusses or rafters to be set from ladders. After the first two are set,
a worker is permitted to climb a ladder onto the interior top plate to
secure the peaks. The worker may remain on the top plate, using the
(now stabilized) trusses or rafters for support, while the other
trusses or rafters are erected. Also, workers may be stationed on the
peaks of trusses or the ridge beam to detach trusses from cranes and to
secure trusses (and also to secure rafters to the ridge beam, where
there is no other feasible means of doing this).
There is now at least one commercially available device that
eliminates the need for a worker to be on a truss to install bracing.
This device is a temporary, reusable brace which is attached on one end
to the truss before the truss is erected. Once the truss is raised, a
worker on the floor level pulls the other end of the brace down onto
the adjoining truss by a rope (Ex. 1-6). This eliminates the need for a
worker to be on the truss or ridge to attach bracing. There are also
devices available that permit a load to be detached from a crane
remotely, rather than having to be on a peak or ridge beam to detach it
manually.
We are interested in hearing from those who are familiar with these
types of systems and have used them in residential construction or
similar situations. Is there a reason why these types of systems are
not feasible or present a greater hazard to workers performing this
type of work? Is there a reason why some of this work could not be done
from platforms? Are there other ways of protecting against the fall
hazards facing workers performing residential construction or similar
work?
The sample plan in Appendix E of the rule contains the following
sample statement of why ladders may be a greater hazard on a particular
site: ``requiring workers to use a ladder for the entire installation
process [of roof trusses and rafters] will cause a greater hazard
because the worker must stand on the ladder with his back or side to
the front of the ladder. While erecting the truss or rafter the worker
will need both hands to maneuver the truss and therefore cannot hold
onto the ladder. In addition, ladders cannot be adequately protected
from movement while trusses are being maneuvered into place. Many
workers may experience additional fatigue because of the increase in
overhead work with heavy materials, which can also lead to a greater
hazard.''
There are commercially available hooking devices for the tops of
ladders. Is there a reason why these or similar devices could not be
used to help secure the ladder? When a ladder is used while erecting a
truss, the ladder and the worker are on the inside of the exterior
wall. If the worker were to fall, the worker would fall to the inside
floor. In contrast, a worker on the top plate could fall to the
exterior. On a second story, that fall would be a significantly greater
distance than the interior fall. Is there a reason why it would be
safer to erect the truss while standing on the top plate than to use a
ladder with a securing device? OSHA seeks comment on these statements
and questions, particularly from equipment manufacturers and those who
have used or seen devices or methods other than working from the top
plate, peak or ridge.
The sample plan in Appendix E of the rule also states that
``exterior scaffolds cannot be utilized on this job because the ground,
after recent backfilling, cannot support the scaffolding. In most
cases, the erection and dismantling of the scaffold would expose
workers to a greater fall hazard than erection of the trusses/
rafters.'' OSHA seeks comments on whether the problem of recently
backfilled soil is unique to residential construction and whether this
is an impediment to using exterior scaffolds. We also ask for comment
on the extent to which different types of scaffolding are suitable to
this work.
Questions on Working on Concrete and Block Foundation Walls and Related
Formwork
STD 3-0.1A permits workers to work on the top of the foundation
wall or formwork to the extent necessary to do the work. The only
protective measures required when working on the top of the foundation
wall or formwork are training, not working in bad weather, staging
materials, and eliminating impalement hazards. Are there reasons why
this work could not be done from ladders and/or scaffolds? Is there
formwork available for this type of work
[[Page 38082]]
to which scaffolds can be attached? We are particularly interested in
hearing from workers or employers who have done this work without
standing on the tops of the walls or formwork.
Questions on Installation Work (Drywall, Insulation, Heating and
Cooling Systems, Alarms, Telephone Lines and Cable TV, Plumbing and
Carpentry) in Attics and on Roofs
The only protective measures required in STD 3-0.1A for these types
of installation work are training, staging materials, eliminating
impalement hazards, restricting access, and suspending work in bad
weather. The strap anchor mentioned above, when attached to roof
trusses before installation, can be left in place to provide tie-off
points for this type of work in attics and on roofs (after all work is
completed, the strap is cut off). Is there a reason why that system is
infeasible for this work? Is there a reason why it is not feasible to
use platforms, scaffolds or ladders when doing some or all of this
work? Is there a reason why other fall arrest or fall restraint systems
could not be used? In particular, with respect to the work on roofs, is
there a reason why a fall restraint or fall arrest system could not be
anchored to the roof structure during this work?
Questions on Roofing Work
The alternative procedures in STD 3-0.1A for roofing work consist
of work practices and, depending on the steepness of the roof, monitors
or slide guards. For roofs with a slope of up to 4 in 12 inches,
monitors may be used instead of slide guards. Are monitors an effective
means of preventing falls? What experience have you had using monitors?
Is there a reason why slide guards are infeasible on roofs with slopes
of less than 4 in 12?
STD 3-0.1A permits monitors to be used in place of slide guards for
tile or metal roofs with a slope of up to 8 to 12 inches. Since these
roof surfaces are more slippery than most other types of roofing, is
there a reason why monitors should be allowed in place of slide guards
for these roofs? Are there slide guard brackets/devices that can be
used on these roofs?
STD 3-0.1A contains specifications for the configuration and
installation of slide guards. Are these specifications appropriate? Are
slide guards effective as replacements for personal fall protection?
OSHA has received a number of comments stating that roof anchors
cannot be used on unsheathed or partially sheathed roofs because the
structure to which the anchor is attached cannot withstand a 5,000
pound load. However, there are anchors on the market that are
advertised as being suitable for use on a fully sheathed roof. Since
roofing work is done after the roof is fully sheathed, are there
technical or other reasons why roof anchors could not be used for
roofing work? Some commenters have suggested that there are liability
issues associated with installing roof anchors and then leaving them in
place for others to use once the job is done. The strap anchors can be
removed by simply cutting the strap. Why is it infeasible to remove a
roof anchor (please specify how much time/expense is needed)? Are there
other roof anchors that are designed to be readily removed? OSHA is
particularly interested in comments from workers, employers and
manufacturers who have studied, used or designed roof anchors for
roofing work.
Questions on the Definition of Residential Construction
STD 3-0.1A defines residential construction as any construction
project where the working environment, materials, methods and
procedures are essentially the same as those used for typical single
family homes and townhouses. Therefore, many buildings that will not be
occupied as residences, but will be used for light commercial purposes,
are included in the definition. Also, the STD 3-0.1A definition would
include portions of commercial structures where the environment,
materials and methods are similar to those used in building homes and
townhouses. Is this an appropriate definition of residential
construction for the purposes of the rule? Does this definition
adequately distinguish between projects where conventional fall
protection is feasible and those where, for some operations, it is not?
Is this a workable definition--can employers readily use it to
determine whether their project is considered residential construction?
OSHA has received letters asking how the STD 3.1 definition applies to
stick frame and brick apartment buildings; single story stick-framed
commercial malls; and single story stick-framed retail structures. Does
the STD 3-0.1A definition adequately deal with these type of projects?
Should OSHA define residential construction in terms of the end use of
the structure? Should the economic scale of the project be a factor in
determining the fall protection options available to the builder? Would
it be appropriate for OSHA to allow the use of alternative fall
protection procedures on portions of a commercial structure that meet
the definition of residential construction?
Issue 2. Whether There Is A Need for Alternative Procedures for Precast
Concrete Erection
The precast concrete erection rule in subpart M,
Sec. 1926.501(b)(12), generally requires protection for employees
exposed to fall hazards of 6 feet or more. Fall protection options are
guardrails, safety nets, or personal fall arrest systems. In addition,
if the employer demonstrates that it is infeasible or creates a greater
hazard to use these systems, alternative measures may be used. When
using alternative measures, the employer must implement a fall
protection plan meeting the requirements of section 1926.502(k).
To meet the section 1926.502(k) requirements, a precast erection
employer may follow the sample plan spelled out in Appendix E to
subpart M (this is printed beginning on page 343 of the July 1, 1998
edition of volume 29 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1926). Under
certain circumstances, that plan permits work without conventional fall
protection during leading edge erection, initial connecting and
grouting. The Precast Concrete Institute (PCI) thinks that fall
protection should not be required for precast concrete erection
activities occurring at heights below fifteen (15) feet and thirty (30)
feet, the same fall protection thresholds as those in the recently
proposed rule for steel erection (volume 63 of the Federal Register at
pages 43452-43513) (Ex. 1-7).
On August 13, 1998, OSHA issued a proposed rule for fall protection
in steel erection. This proposal is a product of negotiated rulemaking,
conducted under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (printed in volume 5 of
the Unites States Code at section 561). The proposed rule would require
fall protection for most steel erection workers above 15 feet. In that
rule, however, there are exceptions for steel erection employees
engaged in connecting activity and for deckers. Employees engaged in
connecting work would be allowed to work at heights up to 30 feet
without fall protection (but they must wear fall protection equipment
and the employer must provide an attachment point). Deckers would also
be allowed to work without fall protection up to 30 feet as long as
they work in a Controlled Decking Zone. Conventional fall protection,
such as safety nets, guardrail systems, or personal fall arrest systems
would be required for all steel erection workers at heights over 30
feet.
[[Page 38083]]
PCI believes that the 15 foot threshold used in the proposed steel
erection rule should also apply to the precast erection industry. They
state that overhead attachment points (anchorages) are not always
available when performing precast concrete work and that workers tied
off at foot level need at least 12-19 feet of clearance below,
depending on the type of system chosen.
PCI believes that the steel erection industry will have an unfair
economic advantage over their industry if the threshold heights for
fall protection differ in each industry. In support of this assertion,
PCI has submitted data which it claims show that the use of fall
protection equipment causes a 25 percent reduction in productivity. (
Ex. 1-8)
PCI also argues that there are structures where both precast
concrete and steel is erected and the same workers on such sites may be
required to operate under two different rules. In such situations,
under the steel erection proposal, workers doing the steel erection
would be under the 15/30 foot thresholds. When the precast concrete is
erected, with concrete members placed directly on the structural steel,
the 6 foot threshold of subpart M would apply. This precast work is
sometimes done by the same crews that erected the steel. PCI believes
there should be one rule for these operations.
OSHA specifically requests comment on the extent to which the
technical limitations of fall protection systems, and the limitations
on the ways those systems can be used, forecloses the option of using
conventional fall protection in precast erection. For example, the 15
foot minimum clearance limitation alluded to by PCI relates to
assertions that have been made on the limitations of three types of
fall protection systems: fixed lanyards anchored at floor level, some
retractable lanyards, and nets. However, no minimum clearance is needed
for temporary guardrails. The strap system described above is designed
to work when anchored at floor level. The adjustable strap lanyard
permits a worker to be tied-off at a fixed point and to move to various
distances by extending and shortening the strap as needed. We believe
that other lanyard systems connected to a lifeline can be installed so
that a worker can work at and along a leading edge and be prevented
from stepping past the edge, or to limit a leading edge worker's fall
to six feet. We seek information on whether there are specific
instances where these types of systems would not work in precast
erection.
Questions on Precast Concrete Erection
In what specific situations are guardrails not useable in precast
erection? Are there situations where lanyards connected to lifelines
are not useable in precast concrete erection? Are there situations
where the strap system would not be feasible? How do these limitations
compare to those used in steel erection? Are there other fall
protection devices that are useable in precast erection at 6 feet? In
what specific way does the current rule for precast concrete erection,
which gives alternatives when employers can show infeasibility or
greater hazard, have insufficient flexibility to account for the
technical limitations of fall protection systems?
Issue 3. Whether There Is A Need for Alternative Procedures for Post-
Frame Construction
Post-frame construction employers believe there are many
similarities between their work and residential construction, and that
they too should be allowed to protect employees by using alternatives
to conventional fall protection systems without showing on a site-
specific basis that conventional fall protection is infeasible or
creates a greater hazard.
The National Frame Builders Association (NFBA) suggested (in a
letter to OSHA dated August 16, 1995, Ex. 1-9) that their work was
similar to steel erection and that OSHA should exempt them from any
fall protection rules up to a height of 25 feet. They assert that
OSHA's requirements for residential construction, along with Appendix E
of the rule and STD 3.1, are reasonable and appropriate for post frame
construction operations.
Questions on Post-frame Construction
OSHA seeks comments and/or data on the following: under what
specific circumstances are there problems with using conventional fall
protection when building a post-frame structure? In what particular
phases and parts of the operation do those problems arise? What factors
limit the usability of fall protection systems in post-frame
construction? Are there reasons why ladders, work platforms, scaffolds,
restraint systems or fall protection systems cannot be used in post-
frame construction? Are workers in post-frame construction exposed to
unique fall hazards? We are particularly interested in hearing from
safety product manufacturers or dealers, familiar with post-frame
construction, who know of fall protection systems that can be used
during post-frame construction and the limitations of those systems. We
are also interested in hearing from builders and employees engaged in
post-frame construction. What experiences do you have with fall
protection systems in these operations? What accidents and/or near
misses have occurred in your post-frame construction operations?
Issue 4. Whether There Is A Need For Alternative Procedures For Vendors
Delivering Construction Materials
Employees of vendors delivering materials to a construction site
can be exposed to the same fall hazards that construction workers face
every day. However, some vendors have stated that fall protection for
their workers is often infeasible, for several reasons. One is that the
strength of a roof under construction is limited; if the weight of the
materials being delivered collapses the structure, being tied-off to
the structure will obviously not provide protection. Second, they
assert that in the limited work area provided by the roof under
construction, the use of fall protection systems creates a greater
hazard because workers may trip over each other's lanyards. Finally,
they point out that ``rope grab'' systems are infeasible for their
workers. Those systems require the user to pull the lanyard with one
hand in order to move across a work surface. Workers delivering
materials would need to hold the rope grab with one hand and, at the
same time, carry the materials, which are often large and/or heavy,
with the other.
In February 1995 OSHA addressed fall protection issues related to
vendors delivering materials by issuing two interpretations, designated
Interpretation M-1 and Interpretation M-2 (Ex. 1-10). In Interpretation
M-1, OSHA clarified when vendor employees are engaged in construction.
They are defined as being so engaged ``when they deliver products or
materials to the construction site that are used during the
construction activity or when they are engaged in an activity that
completes the construction work, such as final cleaning of buildings
and structures.'' The Interpretation also made clear that if a
construction contractor picks up materials at the vendor's store or
outlet (rather than having the vendor deliver the materials), the
vendor is not engaged in construction. Therefore, vendor employees
delivering materials to a construction site and exposed to fall hazards
of 6 feet (l.8 m) or more are covered by subpart M (Interpretation M-
1).
[[Page 38084]]
Interpretation M-2 explained how OSHA would apply the fall
protection requirements to vendor employees:
Gaining Access to the Roof: A handhold (rope, chain, or other
railing) must be attached to the conveyer belt so that the employee
has something to steady himself with as he gains access to the roof
or a ladder must be used to gain access to the roof.
Distributing the Roofing Materials: Once on the roof the
vendor's employee will receive the roofing products from a conveyor
belt (lift truck or similar equipment) and then distribute the
products onto the roof at various locations. During this
distribution process, OSHA will not require the vendor's employees
to install an anchorage point for fall protection equipment
regardless of the slope of the roof or the fall distance.
However, if an anchorage point is already available on the roof, the
employees must use fall protection equipment.
Questions on Fall Protection for Vendor Employees
Is there a reason why conventional fall protection for vendors is
infeasible? Although the use of lanyards may pose a tripping hazard,
that hazard--falling while protected by a fall protection system--must
be compared with falling six or more feet to a lower level or to the
ground. Why would tripping and being in an arrested fall be a greater
hazard than the risk of falling, unprotected, to the ground?
We believe that there are fall protection devices available for
this work other than rope grabs. For example, retractable lanyards and
lanyards attached to lifelines permit workers to move across a surface
while still being protected from falls. We believe that, when using
these systems, a worker can use both hands and not have to hold onto
the fall protection equipment. Are there reasons why these types of
systems cannot be used to protect vendor employees?
There are now commercially available fall protection anchors that
are designed to be placed on top of roof sheathing (Ex. 1-2). Is there
a reason why vendors delivering supplies to a roof could not install
this type of anchor and use it for fall protection for their employees?
Also, the strap anchor can be installed to the trusses and be left
available for the roofing work. Is there a reason why these systems are
infeasible or would pose a greater hazard? We are particularly
interested in hearing from safety product manufacturers or dealers,
familiar with these operations, who are aware of fall protection
systems (and their limitations) that can be used when delivering
materials to roofs. We would also like to hear from vendors and vendor
employees who have knowledge of industry practice and the use of fall
protection for workers delivering construction materials.
Issue 5. Whether There Are Alternative Methods of Fall Protection While
Climbing Reinforcing Steel (Rebar Walls and Cages)
Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1926.501, titled ``Formwork and
reinforcing steel,'' requires employers to protect employees from falls
by a safety net system, personal fall arrest system, or a positioning
device system. These requirements are essentially the same ones that
applied before we revised the rule. The issue concerning climbing rebar
(steel rods used to reinforce concrete) is whether fall protection is
infeasible for employees while climbing rebar walls and assemblies. In
late December 1994, the National Association of Reinforcing Steel
Contractors (NARSC) and the International Association of Bridge,
Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers (IWI) asked OSHA to clarify the
requirements for workers climbing built-in-place rebar walls. They felt
that employees were safer if allowed to climb the rebar without fall
protection; only upon reaching their work location should they have to
attach their personal fall arrest system or positioning device system
(such as a rebar chain assembly).
Usually when placing and tying built-in-place rebar walls (as
opposed to preassembled units, which are built on the ground and lifted
into position), workers carry lengths of rebar cradled in their arms as
they climb. Because of this, and the need to constantly connect and
disconnect the lanyard while climbing, the NARSC and IWI felt their
workers would encounter a greater risk of falling if required to comply
with the rule. Also, the chain length in a rebar chain assembly, or the
length of the lanyard in a positioning device system, ranges from 18 to
24 inches. This restricts the worker's movement and increases the
frequency of disconnecting and reconnecting, according to these
commenters.
In December 1994 and January 1995 (Ex. 1-11), OSHA issued
interpretation letters that responded to these concerns by allowing
employees to climb vertically and/or horizontally on the face of
reinforcing steel walls and cages, up to a height of 24 feet, without
being protected from falls. Over 24 feet, employees could not free
climb.
Subsequently, on July 18 and August 5, 1996, the NARSC and the IWI
submitted another interpretation request, which focused on preassembled
reinforcing steel units. NARSC and IWI wanted us to expand our earlier
interpretation for built-in-place units to cover preassembled units.
Several interested parties supported NARSC's and IWI's request.
In a letter of interpretation dated May 19, 1997 (Ex. 1-12), we
stated that, pending future rulemaking, employees could climb or move
on both built-in-place and preassembled rebar units without fall
protection until they reached their work location or until they reached
a fall distance of 24 feet. Over 24 feet, continuous fall protection
would be required.
Questions on Climbing Rebar
Are there ways of transporting lengths of rebar, other than having
workers carry them in their arms? How far do workers typically have to
move on the rebar in order to get to their initial work station, and to
get to subsequent work stations? What portion is typically vertical,
how much is horizontal, and for what part of the work? How many cycles
of connecting disconnecting/reconnecting a fall protection device would
be required in these point-to-point moves? To what extent is moving
vertically on the rebar similar to climbing a fixed ladder? What
problems are involved with providing fall protection for horizontal
climbing? How are they different from those in vertical climbing? When
employees climb without carrying rebar, are there any problems using
positioning devices or personal fall arrest systems? Are there reasons
why employees engaged in work other than rebar assembly work cannot use
fall protection while climbing rebar? We are particularly interested in
hearing from employers and employees engaged in placing and tying rebar
walls and assemblies, and the type of fall protection methods they
currently use. We would also like to receive information, including
accident experience or data, as well as comments, comparing the risk of
falling while moving horizontally and the risk while moving vertically.
Issue 6. What Criteria Should Be Used for Restraint Systems?
Subpart M does not mention ``restraint systems.'' Employers have
asked for criteria for restraint systems and have questioned whether
they can use a body belt with a restraint system instead of a full body
harness to comply with the rule (Ex. 1-13). They have questioned
whether the anchorage requirements for a restraint system need to be as
strong as those for a personal fall arrest system, since a restraint
system prevents a fall. Since restraint systems prevent falls, they can
be used
[[Page 38085]]
to meet the requirements of the rule, according to some employers.
Is there is a need for a definition clarifying how restraint
systems differ from other types of fall protection? In recent
interpretation letters (Exs. 1-14 and 1-15), OSHA defined a restraint
system as a means of preventing an employee from reaching a fall
hazard. In other words, there will be no fall distance because the fall
is prevented. For example, a restraint system would prevent an employee
from stepping past the edge of a floor or roof. In contrast, a
positioning device permits a fall, but the fall is arrested after no
more than two feet. A personal fall arrest system arrests a fall after
no more than six feet.
There are several reasons to consider adopting a definition and
criteria for restraint systems. When using a restraint system, there is
no fall to arrest--which means that no load is imposed on the body from
an arrested fall. That may obviate the need for a body harness. Also,
restraint system components may not need to be as strong as those for
fall arrest systems; they need only be strong enough to hold an
employee back from the edge.
One drawback to having diminished strength requirements for
restraint systems may be that restraint system components may get mixed
up with fall arrest system components and fail when used in a personal
fall arrest system. This may be a particular problem with anchors--fall
arrest systems may be inadvertently anchored to a restraint system
anchor, which would not be adequate in an arrested fall.
Questions About Restraint System Criteria
OSHA requests comments on whether it should adopt separate
requirements in Sec. 1926.502 for restraint systems. Specifically, what
are the maximum loads expected to be imposed on a system designed to
restrain an employee from stepping past an edge? What are the
appropriate strength requirements for restraint system anchors and
other components? Is there a need for the requirements in subpart M for
snap hooks and other connecting hardware also to apply to restraint
systems? Alternatively, should components of a restraint system meet
the same strength and other criteria as those for personal fall arrest
systems? Is there a significant likelihood that restraint system
components would get mixed up with personal fall arrest system
components?
Issue 7. Whether the Strength Requirements for Anchorage Points for
Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Positioning Device Systems, and Restraint
Systems Should Be Changed
This issue addresses whether the anchorage requirement for
positioning device systems should be changed. Commenters point out
that, in some circumstances, the strength requirements for positioning
device anchors are greater than those for personal fall arrest system
anchors (Ex. 1-16). They assert that this does not make sense because
positioning devices do not have to withstand as much force as fall
arrest systems.
The rule requires fall arrest system anchorages to be capable of
supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn) per employee or that the
system maintain a safety factor of two. These commenters have
calculated that, in some circumstances, a safety factor of two can be
achieved in a 6 foot fall using an anchor strength of 2,000 pounds.
In contrast, positioning device anchors must always have a strength
of at least 3,000 pounds. (Under Sec. 1926.502(e)(2), positioning
device anchors must be capable of supporting at least twice the
potential impact load of an employee's fall, or 3,000 pounds, whichever
is greater.) Since a positioning device limits a fall to only two feet,
while a personal fall arrest system must sustain the much higher loads
imposed by a six foot fall, these commenters suggest that the
positioning device anchor requirements in Sec. 1926.502(e)(2) be
changed to require a support capability of 3,000 pounds, or two times
the potential impact, whichever is less, rather than the current rule's
requirement of whichever is greater.
Questions on Strength Requirements for Positioning Device Anchors
We request comments on whether the strength requirement for
positioning device anchors should be changed to permit a capability
based on the calculated potential impact. Are there circumstances when
a positioning device anchor would have to be stronger than a fall
arrest system anchor, as suggested by these commenters? What are the
factors that a strength calculation should be based on? Should it be
similar to the approach taken for fall arrest system anchors?
Issue 8. Whether the Standard's Prompt Rescue Requirements Should Be
Changed
The rule requires employers to ensure that workers in an arrested
fall either be promptly rescued from the fall arrest system or be able
to rescue themselves, Sec. 1926.502(d)(20). Some employers state that
they cannot comply with this requirement when an employee is working
alone in a remote location. Commenters say that self-rescue is rarely
possible, since the worker is hanging in a harness in mid-air, often at
least six feet down from the anchor point. Providing a mobile telephone
or two-way radio will not always work, because these devices may be out
of range in remote areas. Even in less remote areas, there are ``dead
spots'' where these communication devices will not work. They also
claim that it is often impossible to determine in advance if a
construction crew will be working in a dead spot. A further
complication is that in some remote areas, even if rescue personnel can
be reached by telephone or radio, it may take a long time for help to
arrive.
In some cases, providing an additional worker would ensure a prompt
rescue. Some commenters have asserted that in many situations this
second person would have no work to do other than to ``stand by'' in
the event of an arrested fall. Others have questioned the need for this
provision, pointing out that rescue is not required when employees are
protected from falls by a positioning device or while tethered or
restrained. They assert that rescue is only required when employees are
performing construction work and using a personal fall arrest system--
that there is no comparable rescue requirement while employees are
performing maintenance work.
Most of the general industry standards do not explicitly require
prompt rescue, although OSHA interprets the general industry standard
for electric power generation, transmission and distribution (volume 29
of the Code of Federal Regulations at section 1910.269) as
incorporating the rescue provision of 1926 subpart M. For other work,
an employee who must be protected by the rescue requirement while doing
construction work would not have to be protected in this way when
engaged in maintenance work.
Questions on Prompt Rescue
OSHA seeks comments and information on the rule's prompt rescue
requirement. We specifically seek information on the extent to which
there have been instances where rescue has been necessary from arrested
falls, or where workers have fallen unprotected by a fall arrest
system, but would have needed to be rescued had they been protected. Is
there a need to define ``prompt'? How long can an employee
[[Page 38086]]
be suspended in a harness without being harmed?
Issue 9. Whether There Is a Need for Alternative Procedures for
Drilling Shafts
The rule (Sec. 1926.501(b)(7)(ii)) requires employees at the edge
of a well, pit, shaft, or similar excavation, 6 feet or more in depth,
to be protected from falling by the use of a guardrail system, fences,
barricades, or covers. OSHA's policy is that where these options are
infeasible, this requirement can be met by the use of a personal fall
arrest system.
The International Association of Foundation Drilling and others are
concerned that excavating shafts using drilling rigs presents unique
fall protection problems and that requiring conventional fall
protection while performing certain tasks creates a greater hazard to
workers. They assert that lanyards and lifelines can get entangled with
equipment and that self-retracting lanyards may be rendered inoperable
by mud and/or wet concrete. They do not consider guardrails, fences,
barricades, or covers as viable fall protection options around an
active shaft because these would prevent the drilling workers from
doing their work.
When addressing the fall hazards associated with holes, OSHA stated
in the preamble to the rule (located at volume 59 of the Federal
Register at page 40686) that it did not intend a guardrail to be
erected around holes while employees were working at the hole and that,
if a hole cover was removed while work was in progress, guardrails
would not be required because they would interfere with the performance
of work. The drilling industry commenters believe that this statement
should apply to shafts that are actively being drilled and that only
after the shaft has been completed should fall protection be required.
These commenters also suggest that the diameter of a shaft should
be considered in determining when fall protection is required. They
assert that small diameter shafts do not pose the same hazards as
larger diameter shafts--that workers around shafts with a diameter of
18-30'' do not necessarily need fall protection.
Questions on Fall Protection While Drilling Shafts
OSHA requests comments with supporting information on any
difficulties or hazards associated with providing fall protection
during the drilling of shafts. With respect to the entanglement issue,
what equipment at a drilling or shaft excavation site can entangle a
fall protection system, and under what specific circumstances can that
occur? Where is the fall protection equipment anchored when the
entanglement potential exists? What movement of which equipment could
catch the safety lines? What work activities are being performed near
the excavation? Is there a reason why the entanglement problem could
not be avoided by using different safety equipment, coordinating work
or modifying work practices? Are there retractable lanyards that are
not adversely affected by mud and wet concrete? Are there ways of
covering the lanyards to protect them from mud and concrete? Is there a
reason why catenary lifeline systems could not be used? Under what
circumstances are guardrails infeasible? Does the diameter of the shaft
have a bearing on the extent to which fall protection is infeasible or
on the degree of hazard present? Under what circumstances is the
installation of a collar on top of a caisson, or simply allowing the
caisson to extend above grade, infeasible?
Issue 10. Whether Body Belts Incorporated Into Full Body Harnesses
Provide Appropriate Employee Protection in a Fall
Interested parties have raised a concern about full body harnesses
that incorporate body belts into the harness system. Their concern is
that, during a fall, these types of body harnesses impose loads on the
user that are similar to those imposed by a body belt, since the belt
portion of the harness transmits the arresting forces directly to the
abdomen. They claim that workers may attach their lanyards to the belt
portion of the harness, thus defeating the advantages of using a
harness instead of a body belt. Under Sec. 1926.502(d), body belts are
not permitted as part of a personal fall arrest system because of their
potential to cause injury to a worker who falls.
The rule currently defines a body harness as ``straps which may be
secured about the employee in a manner that will distribute the fall
arrest forces over at least the thighs, pelvis, waist, chest and
shoulders with means for attaching it to other components of a personal
fall arrest system.'' OSHA solicits comments on full body harnesses
that incorporate body belts. OSHA encourages individuals familiar with
these types of harness systems to comment on the possible benefits or
detriments of their use.
Questions on Body Harnesses
Should OSHA revise its definition of a body harness to prohibit
harnesses that, in effect, incorporate body belts? Does this type of
harness transmit excessive forces to the waist/abdomen area in an
arrested fall when the harness is properly attached?
IV. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of Charles N.
Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, D.C. 20210. It is issued pursuant to section 6(b) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655).
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 1st day of July, 1999.
Charles N. Jeffress,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-17663 Filed 7-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
