[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43452-43513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21112]
[[Page 43451]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Part 1926
Safety Standards for Steel Erection; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 43452]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part l926
[Docket No. S-775]
RIN No. 1218-AA65
Safety Standards for Steel Erection
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S.
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
steelerection@osha-no.osha.gov. If the e-mail contains attached
electronic files, the files must be in WordPerfect 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1,
8.0 or ASCII. When submitting a comment by e-mail, please include your
name and address.
Any information not contained on the disk or in the e-mail (e.g.,
studies, articles) must be submitted in quadruplicate. Specific
comments on the collection of information requirements may also be
submitted to: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn:
OMB Desk Officer for OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316.
Notices of intention to appear at the hearing, and testimony and
documentary evidence which will be introduced into the hearing record,
must be submitted in quadruplicate to: the Docket Officer, Docket S-
775, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20210, (202) 219-7894. The hearing will be held in Washington,
D.C., beginning December 1, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in the Auditorium of the
Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Information and Consumer
Affairs, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3647, 200 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20210, (202) 219-8151.
For an electronic copy of this Federal Register notice, contact the
Labor News Bulletin Board, (202) 219-4784 (callers must pay any toll-
call charges. 300, 1200, 2400, 9600 or 14,400 BAUD; Parity: None; Data
Bits = 8; Stop Bit = 1. Voice phone (202) 219-8831); or OSHA's Webpage
on Internet at http://www.osha.gov/ and http://www.osha-slc.gov/. For
news releases, fact sheets, and other documents, contact OSHA FAX at
(900) 555-3400 at $1.50 per minute.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Congress amended the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(CWHSA) (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) in 1969 by adding a new Section 107 (40
U.S.C. 333) to provide employees in the construction industry with a
safer work environment and to reduce the frequency and severity of
construction accidents and injuries. The amendment, commonly known as
the Construction Safety Act (CSA) [P.L. 91-54; August 9, 1969],
significantly strengthened employee protection by providing for
occupational safety and health standards for employees of the building
trades and construction industry in Federal and Federally-financed or
Federally-assisted construction projects. Accordingly, the Secretary of
Labor issued Safety and Health Regulations for Construction in 29 CFR
Part 1518 (36 FR 7340, April 17, 1971) pursuant to Section 107 of the
Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (the Act) (84 Stat. 1590; 29
U.S.C. 651 et seq.), was enacted by Congress in 1970 and authorized the
Secretary of Labor to adopt established Federal standards issued under
other statutes, including the CSA, as occupational safety and health
standards. Accordingly, the Secretary of Labor adopted the construction
standards which had been issued under the CSA, in accordance with
Section 6(a) of the Act (36 FR 10466, May 29, 1971). The Safety and
Health Regulations for Construction were redesignated as Part 1926 of
29 CFR later in 1971 (36 FR 25232, December 30, 1971). Subpart R of
Part 1926, currently entitled ``Steel Erection,'' incorporating
Secs. 1926.750 through 1926.752, was adopted as an OSHA standard during
this process. The requirements in the existing standard cover flooring,
steel assembly, bolting, plumbing-up and related operations. In 1974 a
revision in the temporary flooring requirement was made pursuant to a
rulemaking conducted under section 6(b) of the Act (39 FR 24361).
Since that time, OSHA has received several requests for
clarification of various provisions, including those pertaining to fall
protection. The Agency began drafting a proposed rule to revise several
provisions of its steel erection standard in 1984 and on several
occasions discussed its intention with its Advisory Committee on
Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). During these discussions, the
fall protection requirements of the standard often aroused controversy.
The discussions with ACCSH led to the development of several draft
notices requesting information or proposing changes to the rule. None
of these draft notices was published, nor was public comment sought,
except through the proceedings of the Advisory Committee.
In 1986, the Agency issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
subpart M (Fall Protection) and announced that it
[[Page 43453]]
intended the proposed rule to apply to all walking/working surfaces
found in construction, alteration, repair (including painting and
decorating), and demolition work, except for five specific areas.
Although none of the specific areas pertained to steel erection, the
Agency noted that ``Additional requirements to have fall protection for
connectors and for workers on derrick and erection floors during steel
erection would remain in subpart R--Steel Erection.''
This statement led to confusion. Many of the commenters to the
subpart M rulemaking noted that they were not sure whether subpart M or
subpart R would govern their activities. In one case, two sets of
comments were provided, one to be used if subpart M applied and the
other if subpart R applied. In the face of this uncertainty, the Agency
decided that it would regulate the fall hazards associated with steel
erection in its planned revision of subpart R.
OSHA announced its intention to regulate the hazards associated
with steel erection, and in particular the fall hazards associated with
steel erection, in a notice published in the Federal Register on
January 26, 1988 (53 FR 2048). In that notice OSHA stated the
following:
The rulemaking record developed to date indicates that the
Agency needs more information in order to develop a revised standard
covering fall protection for employees engaged in steel erection
activities. The comments received to date have convinced the Agency
to develop a separate proposed rule which will provide comprehensive
coverage for fall protection in steel erection. OSHA intends,
therefore, that the consolidation and revision of fall protection
provisions in subpart M do not apply to steel erection and that the
current fall protection requirements of Part 1926 continue to cover
steel erection until the steel erection rulemaking is completed.
Accordingly, in order to maintain coverage under existing fall
protection standards pending completion of the separate steel
erection fall protection rulemaking, OSHA plans to redesignate
existing Secs. 1926.104, 1926.105, 1926.107(b), 1926.107(c),
1926.107(f), 1926.500 (with Appendix A), 1926.501, and 1926.502 into
subpart R when the Agency issues the final rule for the subpart M
rulemaking.
Since that time, the Agency drafted several documents which it
presented to ACCSH for comment. The Agency was also petitioned by
affected parties to institute negotiated rulemaking. The first request
for negotiated rulemaking was submitted to the Agency in 1990. At that
time, it appeared the Agency would soon publish a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in the Federal Register and, therefore, the request was
denied. However, affected parties once again made their concerns known,
and the Agency delayed publication of the NPRM while it made a further,
more comprehensive study of the concerns raised.
OSHA retained an independent consultant to review the fall
protection issues raised by the draft revisions to subpart R, to render
an independent opinion on how to resolve the issues, and to recommend a
course of action. In 1991, the consultant recommended that OSHA address
the issue of fall protection as well as other potential revisions to
subpart R by using the negotiated rulemaking process (Ex. 4-18A).
Based on this recommendation and continued requests for negotiated
rulemaking by affected stakeholders, on December 29, 1992, OSHA
published a Federal Register notice of intent to establish a negotiated
rulemaking committee (57 FR 61860). The notice requested nominations
for membership on the Committee and comments on the appropriateness of
using negotiated rulemaking to develop a steel erection proposed rule.
In addition, the notice described the negotiated rulemaking process and
identified some key issues for negotiation.
In response to the notice of intent, OSHA received more than 225
submissions, including more than 60 nominations for membership on the
Committee and several sets of comments. After an evaluation of the
submissions, it was apparent that an overwhelming majority of
commenters supported this action, and OSHA decided to go forward with
the negotiated rulemaking process. The Agency selected the members of
the Committee from among the nominations.
On May 11, 1994, OSHA announced that it had established the Steel
Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (SENRAC) (59 FR
24389) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5
U.S.C. App. I), the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (NRA) (5 U.S.C.
561 et seq.) and section 7(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 656 (b)) to resolve issues associated with the
development of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Steel Erection.
Appointees to the Committee included representatives from labor,
industry, public interests and government agencies. OSHA was a member
of the committee, representing the Agency's interests.
II. Establishing the Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (SENRAC)
Negotiated rulemaking is a process by which a proposed rule is
developed through negotiation of differing viewpoints by a committee
that is intended to be composed of representatives of all the interests
that will be significantly affected by the rule. The negotiated
rulemaking process is thus fundamentally different from OSHA's usual
development process for proposed rules. Negotiation allows interested
parties to discuss possible approaches to various issues rather than
the Agency asking them to respond to the details of an OSHA draft
proposal. The negotiation process involves a mutual education of the
parties on the reasons for different positions on the issues as well as
on the concerns about the practical impact of various approaches.
Each committee member participates in resolving the interests and
concerns of other members instead of leaving it up to OSHA to bridge
different points of view.
A key principle of negotiated rulemaking is that agreement is
reached by consensus of all the interests. The NRA defines consensus as
unanimous concurrence among the interests represented on a negotiated
rulemaking committee, unless the committee itself unanimously agrees to
use a different definition of consensus.
SENRAC was formed with particular attention to obtaining full and
adequate representation of those interests that may be significantly
affected by the proposed rule. Section 562 of the NRA defines the term
``interest'' as follows:
``interest'' means, with respect to an issue or matter, multiple
parties which have a similar point of view or which are likely to be
affected in a similar manner.
Particular care was taken to identify any unique interests which
were determined to be significantly affected by the proposed rule and
ensure that they were fully represented on the Committee.
The members of the Committee are: Richard Adams--Army Corps of
Engineers, who was later replaced by Donald Pittinger; William W.
Brown--Ben Hur Construction Company; Bart Chadwick--Regional
Administrator, Region VIII, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (since retired); James E. Cole--International
Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers; Stephen D.
Cooper--International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental
Iron Workers; Phillip H. Cordova--El Paso
[[Page 43454]]
Crane & Rigging, Inc.; Perry A. Day--International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers; James
R. Hinson--J. Hinson Network, Inc.; Jim Lapping--Building and
Construction Trades Department (AFL-CIO), replaced by Brad Sant and
later replaced by Sandy Tillett; Richard King--Black & Veatch; John R.
Molovich--United Steelworkers of America; Carol Murkland--Gilbane
Building Company; John J. Murphy--Williams Enterprises of Georgia,
Inc.; Steven L. Rank--Holton & Associates, Ltd.; Ray Rooth--CAL/OSHA;
Alan Simmons--International Association of Bridge, Structural &
Ornamental Iron Workers; William J. Smith--International Union of
Operating Engineers; Ronald Stanevich--National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) later replaced by Tim Pizatella,
Division of Safety Research; C. Rockwell Turner--L.P.R. Construction
Co.; and Eric Waterman--National Erectors Association.
SENRAC was chaired by Philip J. Harter, Esq., a trained
facilitator. The role of the facilitator was to apply proven consensus
building techniques to the OSHA advisory committee setting. This
individual was not involved with the substantive development of the
standard. Rather, the facilitator's role generally included:
(1) Chairing the meetings of the committee in an impartial manner;
(2) Impartially assisting the members of the committee in
conducting discussions and negotiations;
(3) Acting as disclosure officer for committee records under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); and
(4) In accordance with FACA's requirements, keeping minutes of all
committee meetings.
SENRAC consists of 20 members. Although these members represent
particular interests, natural coalitions formed around particular
issues, and certain members were identified as spokespersons for these
coalitions.
Interested parties who were not selected to membership on the
Committee were provided an opportunity to contribute to the negotiated
rulemaking effort in the following ways:
(1) by being placed on the Committee mailing list and submitting
written comments to the Committee as appropriate;
(2) by attending the Committee meetings, which were open to the
public, caucusing with the SENRAC member representing his or her
interest on the Committee, and addressing the Committee (usually
allowed at the end of the discussion of an issue or the end of a
session, as time permitted); and/or
(3) by participating in a workgroup established by the Committee.
Informal workgroups were established by SENRAC to assist the
Committee in ``staffing'' various technical matters (e.g., researching
or preparing summaries of the technical literature or commenting on
particular matters before the Committee) to facilitate Committee
deliberations. They also assisted in drafting regulatory text. The
workgroups were made up of SENRAC members and other parties who had
expertise or a particular interest in the technical matter(s) being
studied.
SENRAC began negotiations in mid-June, 1994, and has met 11 times.
Initial meetings dealt with procedural matters, including schedules,
agendas and the establishment of workgroups. Workgroups addressed major
issues, such as Scope, Fall Protection, Joists, Slippery Surfaces, Pre-
Engineered Metal Buildings, and Cranes. During subsequent meetings, the
foundations for negotiations were established and preliminary
resolutions of issues were reached. Through negotiations at full
Committee meetings and options developed by Committee workgroups, the
Committee reached consensus on a proposed revision to the regulatory
text for subpart R. This preamble addresses that text, which is the
basis for OSHA's proposed rule.
During SENRAC negotiations, the Committee addressed some difficult
issues. Particularly controversial was the relationship between the
fall protection requirements of subpart M (OSHA's standard for Fall
Protection in construction) and such requirements in the steel erection
context. Subpart M was published in the Federal Register on August 9,
1994 (59 FR 40672), and became effective on February 6, 1995.
Initially, that standard applied to steel erection in non-building
structures such as tanks, towers and bridges but not to steel erection
in buildings. On October 7, 1994, five steel erection companies
petitioned OSHA for an administrative stay of final subpart M to the
extent that the standard applied to steel erection activities. The
companies alleged that they had not received fair notice that the
requirements of subpart M would apply to steel erection in non-building
structures such as bridges, tanks and towers and that, in consequence,
they had not had the opportunity to comment on the issue. Subsequently,
OSHA agreed to stay subpart M as it applied to such activities and
announced this decision to SENRAC on December 8, 1994. The Committee
was informed that the Agency had decided to consider fall protection
standards for all steel erection activities in the subpart R rulemaking
as part of the SENRAC process. OSHA also indicated that it intends to
address any aspects of steel erection fall protection not ultimately
addressed by SENRAC by proposing to include them under subpart M or in
a separate regulation, after notice and comment.
On January 26, 1995, OSHA issued a notice in the Federal Register
(60 FR 5131) delaying the application of subpart M to non-building
steel erection activities until August 6, 1995. On August 2, 1995, OSHA
published a follow-up notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 39254)
amending subpart M to indicate that its provisions did not cover steel
erection, and that requirements relating to fall protection for
employees performing steel erection work are included in Sec. 1926.105
and in subpart R. The notice also stated that, until such time as
subparts M and R have been revised, the Agency's enforcement policy on
fall protection during steel erection would be the policy outlined in
Deputy Assistant Secretary James R. Stanley's July 10, 1995, memorandum
to the Office of Field Programs, ``Fall Protection in Steel Erection''
(Ex. 9-13F)(see full discussion of this memo in the fall protection
section below). The notice also noted the Agency's intention to conduct
a supplemental rulemaking in the near future, to provide an opportunity
for public comment on the extension of subpart M coverage to any steel
erection activity that subpart R does not address.
OSHA believes that the proposed subpart R will help to reduce the
significant risk of death and serious injury that has continued to
confront workers engaged in steel erection activities. In addition, the
clarified and revised language of the proposal will help employers and
employees understand the requirements of the steel erection standard
and will improve worker safety by clarifying and consolidating current
requirements into a single set of provisions that will be easier for
employers to understand. OSHA is also proposing changes and additions
to the current rules to provide more protective requirements and to
close gaps in the current rule's coverage of steel erection hazards.
These proposed revisions have been achieved through the SENRAC
negotiations, with active participation from workgroup members such as
the Steel Joist Institute (SJI), American Institute for Steel
Construction (AISC), Steel Erectors Association of America (SEAA),
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), Metal Building Manufacturers
[[Page 43455]]
Association (MBMA), Steel Deck Institute (SDI), National Association of
Miscellaneous, Ornamental and Architectural Products Contractors
(NAMOA), the Institute of the Ironworking Industry (III), the
Ironworkers Employers Associations of Washington, D.C. and Western
Pennsylvania (IWEA), and the Allied Building Metal Industries. These
organizations, although not members of the Committee, were able to
contribute significantly to the negotiations through recommendations
they made at various full Committee and workgroup meetings. This
proposal has also been reviewed by OSHA's Advisory Committee on
Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). ACCSH was kept informed of
SENRAC's progress throughout the negotiated rulemaking process and was
given copies of the draft consensus regulatory text (Exs. 9-147, 9-
148).
In summary, the SENRAC Committee was established by OSHA to
negotiate a draft revision of the steel erection standard to serve as
the basis for a proposed rule. The Committee and its workgroups met
over an 18-month period and recommended a consensus document to OSHA.
OSHA believes that the consensus document reflects the concerted effort
of the entire steel erection community--steel erectors (both union and
non-union); employee representatives; steel fabricators; major
producers of domestic steel; manufacturers of steel joists, steel deck,
steel coatings, pre-engineered metal buildings and safety equipment;
insurance interests; safety consultants; and construction safety
associations--to develop a comprehensive, workable and enforceable
proposed standard for the safe erection of steel. In accordance with
the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 and the Department of Labor's
Negotiated Rulemaking Policy (57 FR 61925), the draft regulatory text
and accompanying rationale presented to OSHA by the SENRAC Committee
constitute the basis for this proposed rule.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), OSHA provides notice
to all affected employers and employees of these proposed revisions to
subpart R, which the Agency believes are necessary to protect
employees. OSHA believes the clarified language of the proposal will
help employers to protect their employees more effectively and to
comply more readily.
III. Pertinent Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C.
Secs. 651 et seq. (``the Act''), is ``to assure so far as possible
every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of
Labor to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health
standards (see 29 U.S.C. Secs. 655(a) (authorizing summary adoption of
existing consensus and federal standards within two years of Act's
enactment), 655(b) (authorizing promulgation of standards pursuant to
notice and comment), 654(b) (requiring employers to comply with OSHA
standards)).
A safety or health standard is a standard ``which requires
conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means,
methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate
to provide safe or healthful employment'' (29 U.S.C. Sec. 652(8)).
A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of Section 652(8) if it substantially reduces or eliminates
significant risk, and is economically feasible, technologically
feasible, and cost effective, and is consistent with prior Agency
action or is a justified departure, is supported by substantial
evidence, and is better able to effectuate the Act's purposes than any
national consensus standard it supersedes. See 58 FR 16612--16616
(March 30, 1993).
OSHA has generally considered, at minimum, a fatality risk of 1/
1000 over a 45-year working lifetime to be a significant health risk.
See the Benzene decision Industrial Union Dep't v. American Petroleum
Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 646 (1980); the Asbestos decision Building and
Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1265 (D.C. Cir.
1988); the Formaldehyde decision International Union, UAW v.
Pendergrass, 878 F.2d 389, 392 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be
expected to be developed. American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. OSHA, 452
U.S. 490, 513 (1981)(``ATMI''); AISI v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C.
Cir. 1991)(``AISI'').
A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass
on the costs of compliance without threatening its long term
profitability or competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n.
55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is cost effective if the
protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available
alternatives that achieve the same level of protection. ATMI, 453 U.S.
at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C.
Cir. 1994) (``LOTO III'').
Section 6(b)(7) authorizes OSHA to include among a standard's
requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing and other
information gathering and transmittal provisions. 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 655(b)(7).
All standards must be highly protective. See 58 FR at 16614-16615;
LOTO III, 37 F.3d at 669. Finally, whenever practical, standards shall
``be expressed in terms of objective criteria and of the performance
desired.'' Id.
IV. Hazards in Steel Erection
Accidents during steel erection continue to cause injuries and
fatalities at construction sites. Based on a review of compliance
problems and public comments over the past several years, OSHA believes
that the current standard, which has been in place with little change
for 25 years, needs a complete revision to provide greater protection
and eliminate ambiguity and confusion. OSHA believes that reorganizing
the standard's requirements into a more logical sequence and providing
more effective protection will help employers to understand better how
to protect their employees from the hazards associated with steel
erection and will thus reduce the incidence of injuries and fatalities
in this workforce.
OSHA tracks fatalities through its Integrated Management
Information System (IMIS), which captures a large percentage of the
fatalities in the steel erection industry; however, detailed
information on the conditions that give rise to steel erection
accidents is less readily available. The best available data are
derived from NIOSH and industry studies and from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) (Ex. 9-39). During SENRAC negotiations, OSHA staff and
a Committee statistical workgroup analyzed accident information derived
from OSHA's IMIS system (Exs. 9-14A and 9-42). Of the data reviewed,
the IMIS fatality/catastrophe reports provided the richest source of
accident descriptions. However, it was frequently difficult for OSHA
and the Committee to determine several critical elements, such as the
precise activity being undertaken at the time of the accident, whether
the victim was a trained ironworker, or the type of structure under
construction or repair.
Nevertheless, OSHA believes that the IMIS reports, combined with
the collective experience of the members of the SENRAC workgroup,
provide a solid basis for identifying the types of hazards that result
in accidents during steel
[[Page 43456]]
erection. An analysis of OSHA fatality/catastrophe data was performed
by the SENRAC Statistical Workgroup which analyzed an eleven-year
period (January 1984 through November 1994) and determined that 323
fatal accidents involved factors that are addressed both by OSHA's
current and proposed steel erection standards [Ex. 9-42, Attachment C].
After categorizing the accidents according to primary contributing
factors, the SENRAC workgroup concluded that the leading initial cause
of accidents was slips (23.8 percent). The next highest categories were
unknown (17.3 percent) and collapse (15.8 percent). Categorizing the
accidents in the IMIS database by the immediate (final) cause of death,
the SENRAC analysis reveals that 284 of the 323 fatalities (87.9
percent) involved falls from various heights where fall protection was
either not provided or not used. Categorized by activity, decking was
associated with the most fatalities (22.9 percent), followed by
connecting (17.0 percent) and bolting (11.5 percent). An OSHA staff
evaluation of these reports for an eight year period (January 1984
through December 1990) revealed that fatalities associated with various
types of accidents were caused by the following factors:
Collapses while landing or placing a load--most were the
result of placing loads on unsecured or unbridged joists.
Collapses while connecting joists or trusses--most were
the result of prematurely disconnecting the crane before the piece was
secure.
Workers struck by objects during miscellaneous
activities--most were the result of walking or working under a load.
Workers struck by objects and then falling--most were the
result of being struck while landing a load or making a connection, by
a tool slipping, or by a piece of decking being blown off a pile when
fall protection was not provided or used.
Improper use or failure of fall protection--most were the
result of employee failure to use available fall protection systems
even though the worker was wearing a belt (and in some cases lifelines
were rigged).
Unsecured or unstable decking--most were the result of
stepping onto or working on unsecured decking that slipped out of place
when fall protection was not provided or used.
Other falls during decking activities--most were the
result of stepping off the metal decking onto insulation (and then
falling to the ground) during roofing operations where fall protection
was not provided or used.
Plumbing, bolting, welding and cutting--most were the
result of the worker not being tied off while at the work station
(whether or not fall protection was provided).
Walking/standing on the beam/joist (i.e., moving point-to-
point)--most were slips or falls where fall protection was not provided
or used.
Based upon these analyses, OSHA has preliminarily determined that
the SENRAC recommendations would, taken together, generally address
those situations that have caused a significant number of ironworker
catastrophes and fatalities in the past.
For the time period examined, the fatality/catastrophe reports
described accidents that involved at least one fatality or 5
hospitalizations. (In April, 1994, the reporting criterion was changed
to 1 fatality or 3 hospitalizations (59 FR 15594).) These reports do
not cover the entire universe of steel erection accidents; for example,
an individual accident that did not result in a fatality would not be
reported in the IMIS reports. Nonetheless, the IMIS data enabled OSHA
to broadly characterize the fatality data in a way that permitted the
estimation of baseline risk for specific types of steel erection
hazards.
For its assessment of baseline risk in steel erection, OSHA used
fatality data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Census of
Fatal Occupational Injuries and distributed the data according to the
committee's categorization of the OSHA IMIS accident data. BLS reports
that over the period 1982-1993, structural metal workers experienced an
average of 40 fatalities per year. OSHA determined that, of these
fatalities, approximately 28 deaths per year were caused by factors
that are addressed by the proposed standard (see the preliminary
economic analysis, Chapter III, summarized below in Section VII).
Furthermore, results from the 1992 BLS injury survey identify 1,836
lost-workday injuries (1,164 ``struck-by'' injuries and 672 ``falls to
lower levels'') whose circumstances would be addressed by provisions in
the proposed standard. With an estimated workforce of 38,980 iron
workers in construction ([BLS, Occupational Employment Statistics
Survey, 1993]; see the preliminary economic analysis), OSHA concludes
that these baseline fatality and injury levels are high and clearly
pose a significant risk to these workers that justifies Agency action.
Therefore, OSHA has undertaken this negotiated rulemaking to reduce
these significant risk levels. OSHA preliminarily concludes that the
proposed standard will substantially reduce this significant risk.
Even though detailed data targeted exclusively at steel erection
accidents are not available, steel erection is known to have a high
rate of serious accidents. Available sources of information on steel
erection injuries and fatalities include a draft report on fatal work-
related falls in structural steel erection (Ex. 9-13E); a draft
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) document
entitled ``Structural Steel Erection: Falls'' (Ex. 9-15); the report of
the SENRAC Statistical Workgroup (Exs. 9-42 and 9-49); a comparison of
non-union and union contractor construction fatalities (Ex. 9-85); and
a report on fatalities in the construction industry in the United
States, 1992 and 1993, by the Center to Protect Workers' Rights (Ex. 9-
119). The Committee urged OSHA to use improved technology to collect
more detailed steel erection fatality inspection data. OSHA agrees with
SENRAC on this issue, because an improved fatality data base will
permit a more in-depth analysis of construction fatalities and provide
information not available at the time of the negotiations on the most
hazardous types of construction and construction activities by
occupation. In response, OSHA has developed and implemented an enhanced
coding system which must be used by OSHA compliance officers when
recording construction fatality investigations for entry into the
Agency's IMIS. This system was implemented nationally on January 1,
1997. The data OSHA is now recording when making fatality
investigations will provide a rich source of detailed information
indicating how and where construction fatalities occur.
Three years after the rule becomes final, OSHA will use the
improved fatality data to evaluate the rule's effectiveness. Based upon
this evaluation, a determination will be made as to whether
modifications to the standard are necessary (see Ex. 9-130).
The following examples from OSHA's IMIS reports of accident
investigations illustrate the types of accidents that occur in steel
erection (Ex. 9-157):
1. April 25, 1990: 1 Fatality and 3 injuries. Four employees were
sitting on steel roof beams. Two employees were bolting beams to
columns and the other two employees were sitting on the beams
connecting roof purlins. A gust of wind caused the columns to topple in
a domino fashion. One of the employees connecting roof purlins fell 25
feet to his death and the other three employees
[[Page 43457]]
fell and were hospitalized. OSHA believes that compliance with the
anchor bolt requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.755(a) could have
prevented this accident by requiring that all columns be anchored by a
minimum of four anchor bolts and that unstable columns be guyed or
braced where deemed necessary by a competent person.
2. July 23, 1984: Fatality. An employee was welding roof decking
adjacent to an unguarded staircase opening. The employee fell through
the opening 57 feet to the sub-level and died of multiple injuries.
OSHA believes that compliance with proposed Sec. 1926.754(e)(2) could
have prevented this accident by requiring proper procedures for cutting
and covering floor and roof openings.
3. October 5, 1988: Fatality. While walking atop structural steel
checking joints and bolts, an employee slipped or misjudged his footing
and fell approximately 20 feet to the concrete floor below, resulting
in his death. OSHA believes that compliance with the fall protection
requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.760(a)(1) could have prevented the
accident by ensuring that the employee was properly protected from fall
hazards.
4. July 24, 1987: Fatality. While bolting-up, an employee's foot
slipped, causing him to fall nearly 24 feet head first to the concrete
below. OSHA believes that compliance with the fall protection
requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.760(a)(1) could have prevented the
accident by ensuring that the employee was properly protected from fall
hazards.
OSHA believes that in this case and the case before, compliance
with the proposed fall protection requirements in Sec. 1926.760(a)(1)
could have prevented these fatalities by requiring that employees on a
walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge more than 15
feet above a lower level be protected from fall hazards.
5. November 12, 1987: Fatality. An employee was connecting X-
bracing at the end of a bar joist. The joist was 40 feet long and
welded at one end. The employee was sitting on the joist connecting the
X-bracing when the joist slipped. The employee rode the joist down 25
feet and died of massive head injuries. OSHA believes that compliance
with existing Sec. 1926.751(c)(3) or the clarified and more
comprehensive provisions of proposed Sec. 1926.757, the open web steel
joist section, and more specifically with paragraph (d)(1), could have
prevented the accident by ensuring that specific erection bridging
requirements were met before the hoisting cable was released from a
joist.
6. April 2, 1987: 1 Fatality, 1 hospitalized injury. Two employees
had unloaded 2 bundles of metal decking, 2 bundles of bridging and 2
bundles of roof frames onto 6 open web steel joists 25 feet above
ground level. The joists were at 5\1/2\ foot centers and welded on the
end to the ``I'' beam. The employees had just unhooked the second
bundle of frames when the joist rolled, causing the employees to fall.
All six joists broke from the welds and collapsed, landing on the
employee. OSHA believes that this accident also could have been
prevented by compliance with the proposed open web steel joist section
of the proposed standard. Specifically, the proposed provisions of
Sec. 1926.757(e) provide criteria to be met before landing loads on
joists. The requirements of current subpart R are not as complete or
comprehensive in this regard.
OSHA believes that the proposed provisions will enhance employee
protections by adding new requirements to close gaps in current
coverage, strengthening many of the existing requirements, and
promoting compliance by clarifying and consolidating current
requirements. For further discussion of accident rates and significant
risk, see Section VII, Preliminary Economic Analysis.
Based on the available information referenced in OSHA's preliminary
economic analysis and other record evidence, OSHA finds that structural
metal workers are faced with a significant risk of serious injury or
death that can be reduced substantially by the revisions contained in
this proposal. The Agency has estimated that, each year, approximately
38,980 workers in the United States suffer 1,836 serious (i.e., lost-
workday) steel erection injuries. In addition, an estimated 28 steel
erection workers die every year because of preventable hazardous
workplace conditions. OSHA's analysis has estimated that, of the 28
annual steel erection fatalities, 26 (93 percent) will be averted by
compliance with the proposed standard. Additionally, of the 1,836 lost-
workday steel erection injuries occurring annually, OSHA's analysis
estimates that 1,151 (63 percent) will be averted by compliance with
the proposed standard. Therefore, OSHA preliminarily finds it both
necessary and appropriate to proceed with rulemaking for steel erection
activities.
V. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard
The following discussion summarizes and explains each provision in
the proposal and the substantive changes proposed to be made to the
provisions of OSHA's existing steel erection standard.
Section 1926.750 Scope and application
The existing standard does not contain a scope and application
section. OSHA is proposing to add this new section to clarify that the
standard would apply to employers engaged in the erection, alteration
and/or repair of steel in single and multi-story buildings, bridges and
other structures where steel erection occurs as well as to identify
some of the specific activities that may be included in steel erection.
Paragraph (a) Scope. This proposed paragraph states the purpose of
the subpart, which is to protect employees from the hazards associated
with steel erection in the construction, alteration and/or repair of
single and multi-story buildings, bridges, and other structures where
steel erection occurs. The fact that the existing standard does not
clearly address scope has caused much debate in the past over what
structures are covered by subpart R. This paragraph would also clarify
that subpart R does not apply to electrical transmission towers,
communication and broadcast towers, or tanks. These structures are
covered by provisions in other subparts of Part 1926.
Paragraph (b) Application. In this paragraph, OSHA lists the steel
erection activities that may be covered by subpart R.
When SENRAC began negotiations on subpart R, the scope and
application of subpart R was anticipated to be a major issue for
deliberation. At the first meeting, the Committee formed a workgroup to
determine what the proposed scope of subpart R should be. The Committee
wanted to state clearly that this proposed steel erection standard
would apply to more than multi-story buildings. The workgroup
recommended, and the Committee agreed, that steel erection activities
should include hoisting, connecting, welding, bolting, and rigging
structural steel, steel joists and metal buildings. The Committee also
decided that steel erection activities should include the installation
of metal deck, siding systems, miscellaneous metals, ornamental iron
and similar materials as well as moving point-to-point while performing
these activities. OSHA is proposing to include these activities among
those considered to be steel erection activities, as recommended by the
Committee.
In an attempt to clarify what structures and activities could be
considered steel erection, the scope and application paragraph includes
an
[[Page 43458]]
extensive list of structures and activities as developed by SENRAC (see
notes to paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.750). The notes
are an attempt to ensure that employers performing the listed
activities will be aware that they could potentially be covered by the
proposed steel erection standard.
SENRAC intended the notes to enhance compliance by listing
structures where steel erection could occur since many of the
structures listed do not always involve steel erection. Likewise, the
steel erection activities listed include examples of construction
activities that are sometimes involved in steel erection but may not
always be conducted by the steel erector. Simply because an employee is
working on a listed structure or is performing a listed activity does
not necessarily mean that the employee is engaged in steel erection.
Thus, there is no presumption that every listed item constitutes a
steel erection activity or operation. To determine whether a given
activity on a particular structure does indeed constitute steel
erection, the employer first must determine that steel erection is
actually being performed and that the activities being performed are
covered by this subpart. This determination would be based on the
following criteria: (1) Whether the work falls within the definition of
steel erection found in proposed Sec. 1926.751; and (2) Whether the
structure being erected and the activities being performed fall within
the scope and application paragraphs found in proposed Sec. 1926.750.
In other words, in order to be covered by subpart R, as proposed, work
would have to fit within the definition of steel erection, the scope of
the proposed standard, and the application of the proposed standard.
The Committee discussed at length the differences between
construction and maintenance because the construction industry performs
millions of manhours per year of ``industrial maintenance'' work. The
definition of construction contained in the Davis-Bacon Act is:
Construction work means work for construction, alteration, and/
or repair, including painting and decorating.
OSHA has interpreted this definition to include alteration, repair,
renovation, rehabilitation and remodeling of existing facilities or
structure.
After clarifying that work is defined based on the nature of the
work being performed rather than on the job title of the worker
performing it, SENRAC agreed that the scope of proposed subpart R
should be governed by the definition of construction work contained in
Sec. 1910.12(b), Sec. 1926.13 and Sec. 1926.32(g).
SENRAC debated extensively the detailed lists of structures and
activities. The Committee decided that these lists should be placed in
the standard itself in paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively, because
they stated the broad range of structures and activities that might be
covered by subpart R. The lists are intended to enhance compliance by
listing structures where steel erection could occur. OSHA is proposing
these lists for comment from interested parties. Specifically, are
these lists necessary? Do they clarify the extent of steel erection
activities? Will they introduce confusion by suggesting that all steel
erection activities and structures are included in these lists or,
alternatively, that any listed activity performed on a listed structure
necessarily constitutes steel erection? Because of their size, would
they be more effective as an appendix to the rule or in compliance
materials?
OSHA is proposing that the scope of subpart R exclude electrical
transmission towers, communication and broadcast towers, and tanks from
coverage. The Committee concluded that tower erection is a specialized
form of steel erection and that electrical transmission towers are
regulated under subpart V of 29 CFR Part 1926. In discussing potential
exclusions from the scope of the proposed standard, the Committee as a
whole expressed uncertainty about the extent to which these towers were
currently covered by OSHA standards. OSHA provided a memo to the
Committee (Ex. 9-53) describing the current coverage of towers in OSHA
standards. Based on that information and the tower erection industry's
reasons for exclusion from coverage by subpart R (Ex. 9-127), the
Committee agreed that it would be appropriate to exclude electrical
transmission, communication, and broadcast towers from the proposed
scope. The Committee also believes that tanks should not be included in
the scope of subpart R since tank construction is also, based on its
use of cylindrical construction techniques, a specialized industry. In
addition, the tank industry has clearly stated its reasons for not
being covered by subpart R (Ex. 9-32F). Since tanks have never been
covered by subpart R, OSHA is proposing to exclude them from the scope
of revised subpart R, as well, and the Committee is in agreement with
this approach. In the case of water towers, OSHA intends subpart R to
cover the steel structure upon which the water tank is supported but
not the water tank itself, as recommended by the Committee. OSHA
specifically solicits comments on the appropriateness of these
exclusions from the scope of the proposed standard.
Section 1926.751 Definitions
The current standard does not contain a definitions section. Since
the proposal is more comprehensive than the existing standard and
refers to many technical concepts, terms and materials, a definition
section is being proposed. The proposed definition section lists and
defines all major terms used in the proposed standard to assist
employers in understanding the proposed provisions and thus facilitate
compliance.
Anchored bridging. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean that
the steel joist bridging is connected to a bridging terminus point.
This definition was recommended by the Steel Joist Institute (SJI),
accepted by the Committee and is being proposed by OSHA.
Bolted diagonal bridging. OSHA is proposing to define this term to
mean diagonal bridging which is bolted to a steel joist or joists. This
definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup, was accepted by the
Committee, and is being proposed by OSHA.
Bridging clip. OSHA is proposing that this term be defined as a
device that is attached to the steel joist to allow the bolting of the
bridging to the steel joist. This definition was recommended by SJI and
accepted by the Committee.
Bridging terminus point. This term would be defined to mean a wall,
beam, tandem joists (with all bridging installed and a horizontal truss
in the plane of the top chord) or other element at an end or
intermediate point(s) of a line of bridging that provides an anchor
point for the steel joist bridging. This definition was recommended by
SJI, accepted by the Committee, and is being proposed by OSHA.
Choker. OSHA would define this term to mean a wire rope or
synthetic fiber rigging assembly that is used to attach a load to a
hoisting device. This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup
and accepted by the Committee.
Clipped connection. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean the
connection material on the end of a structural member intended for use
in a double connection which has a notch at the bottom and/or top to
allow the bolt(s) of the first member placed on the opposite side of
the central member to remain in place. The notch(es) fits around the
nut or bolt head of the opposing member to allow the second member to
be bolted up without
[[Page 43459]]
removing the bolt(s) holding the first member. This definition was
developed by a workgroup of the Committee and accepted by SENRAC.
Cold formed joist. OSHA defines this term as an open web joist
fabricated with cold formed steel components. This definition was
recommended by SJI, was accepted by the Committee, and is being
proposed by OSHA.
Cold forming. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean the
process of using press brakes, rolls, or other methods to shape steel
into desired cross sections at room temperature. This definition was
recommended by the Steel Deck Institute, was accepted by the Committee,
and is being proposed by the Agency.
Competent person. This term is defined in Sec. 1926.32(f) as one
who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the
surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or
dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt
corrective measures to eliminate them. Because of the frequent use of
the term in this proposal, the Committee urged OSHA to repeat this
definition in subpart R even though the definition appears in
Sec. 1926.32 and applies to all of the standards contained in 29 CFR
Part 1926, and OSHA agrees with the Committee's recommendation. The
Committee reasoned that an employer performing steel erection should be
able to locate the competent person definition in subpart R instead of
having to search for it elsewhere in Part 1926.
Composite joists. OSHA defines this term to mean steel joists
designed to act in composite action with concrete floor and (or)
concrete roof slabs. Typically, a portion of the top chord of the joist
(or a lug or similar device attached to the top chord of the joist) is
embedded in the concrete slab. This definition was developed by a
SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the Committee.
Connector. OSHA would define this term to mean an employee who,
working with hoisting equipment, is placing and connecting structural
members and/or components. After lengthy discussion on how to define
what a connector is and what tasks a connector performs, the Committee
decided to define as narrowly as possible the activities that a
connector performs in light of the connector-specific proposed fall
protection provisions in Sec. 1926.760, which will be discussed later
in the preamble. OSHA requests comment on this definition.
Construction load for joist erection. This term would be defined to
mean any load other than the weight of the employee(s), the joists and
the bridging bundle. This definition was recommended by SJI, accepted
by the Committee, and is being proposed by OSHA.
Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ). This term would be defined by OSHA
to mean an area in which certain work (e.g., initial installation and
placement of metal deck) may take place without the use of guardrail
systems, personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems provided
that alternative procedures (e.g., controlled access, worker training,
use of control lines or equivalent) are implemented. Controlled decking
zones are discussed in proposed Sec. 1926.760(c). OSHA requests comment
on the necessity of defining a CDZ since all of the requirements for a
CDZ are in proposed Sec. 1926.760(c). If it is necessary to define a
CDZ, is this an appropriate definition?
Controlled load lowering. OSHA would define this term to mean
lowering a load by means of a mechanical hoist drum device that allows
a hoisted load to be lowered with maximum control using the gear train
or hydraulic components of the hoist mechanism. Controlled load
lowering requires the use of the hoist drive motor to lower the load.
This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the
Committee. Controlled load lowering is an essential component of the
multiple lift rigging procedure and the hoisting of personnel platforms
addressed in proposed Sec. 1926.753.
Controlling contractor. OSHA would define this term to mean a prime
contractor, general contractor, construction manager or any other legal
entity at the site who has, by contract with other parties, the overall
responsibility for the project, its planning, quality and completion
and is intended to describe an entity in addition to the steel erector
who is responsible for hazards that result from poor performance, pre-
planning, or communication. Based on its analysis of actual steel
erection fatalities, catastrophes and collapses, the Committee agreed
that many hazardous situations could have been avoided if, for example,
concrete foundations had been properly cured, anchor bolts that were
replaced had been properly repaired, or cranes had been appropriately
placed to avoid overhead exposure. All of these primarily fall within
the responsibility of the controlling contractor. In several of the
proposed revisions, therefore, OSHA is proposing, based on the
Committee's recommendation, that the controlling contractor be held
responsible for communicating with the steel erector to prevent
accidents from happening during certain activities; see, for example,
Sec. 1926.752(a), (b) and (c) (Approval to begin steel erection, site
layout and overhead protection, respectively); Sec. 1926.755(b)(3)
(Repair, replacement or field modification of anchor bolts);
Sec. 1926.759(b) (Falling object protection); and Sec. 1926.760(e)
(Fall protection). OSHA solicits comments from interested parties on
the appropriateness of this approach to ensuring accountability for
adequate planning and coordination.
Critical lift. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean a lift
that (1) exceeds 75% of the rated capacity of the crane or derrick, or
(2) requires the use of more than one crane or derrick. This definition
was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the Committee.
Decking hole. OSHA would define this term to mean a gap or void
more than 2 inches (5.1 cm) in its least dimension and less than 12
inches (30.5 cm) in its greatest dimension in a floor, roof or other
walking/working surface. Pre-engineered holes in cellular decking are
not included in this definition. This definition was developed by a
SENRAC workgroup to be industry specific and was accepted by the
Committee. The workgroup borrowed part of this definition from the
subpart M definition of ``hole.'' The subpart M definition was
modified, however, to limit the size of a hole to more than 2 inches in
its least dimension and less than 12 inches in its greatest dimension
to be compatible with the definition of an opening (defined later). The
proposed definition of decking hole and the proposed definition of
opening differ from the subpart M definitions in that subpart M uses
the term ``hole'' to describe all holes and openings in floors, roofs
and other walking/working surfaces and uses the term ``opening'' to
apply only to holes and openings in walls. By custom and practice, the
common usage of these same terms in steel erection refers to different
situations and hazards. In steel erection, a hole is a commonly used
term that means a small gap or void that presents a tripping hazard or
a falling object hazard and an opening is a larger gap or void in a
walking/working surface that presents a fall hazard to the employee.
Therefore, to be more industry specific, OSHA is proposing to define
``decking hole'' and ``opening'' based on the size of the gap or void
in a floor, roof or other walking/working surface only. This proposal
contains requirements that treat ``decking holes'' and ``openings''
differently, which necessitates having
[[Page 43460]]
two separate definitions based on the size of the gap or void.
Derrick floor. This term, which was developed by a SENRAC workgroup
and accepted by the Committee, would be defined by OSHA to mean that
elevated floor of a building or structure that has been designated to
receive hoisted pieces of steel prior to their final placement.
Double connection. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean an
attachment method where the connection point is intended for two pieces
of steel which share common bolts on either side of a central piece.
This definition was developed by the Committee to address the serious
collapse hazard involved in making this complex connection. Double
connections are discussed in proposed Sec. 1926.756(c).
Erection bridging. OSHA would define this term to mean the bolted
diagonal bridging that must be installed prior to releasing the
hoisting cables from the steel joists. This definition was recommended
by SJI and accepted by the Committee and the term is found in proposed
Sec. 1926.757, Open Web Steel Joists.
Fall restraint (Positioning device) system. This term would be
defined by OSHA to mean a body belt or body harness used to prevent an
employee from free falling more than 24 inches (61 cm) and where self
rescue can be assured. Such a system consists of an anchorage,
connectors, a body belt or harness and may include a lanyard,
deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combination of these. This
definition was developed by the Committee, and the term is used in
proposed Sec. 1926.760, Fall Protection. The criteria for ``positioning
device systems'' found in Sec. 1926.502(e) would apply to these types
of fall restraint systems used in steel erection.
Girt (in pre-engineered metal buildings). This term would be
defined by OSHA to mean a ``Z'' or ``C'' shaped member formed from
sheet steel spanning between primary framing and supporting wall
material. This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup, accepted
by the Committee, and the term is used in proposed Sec. 1926.758, Pre-
engineered Metal Buildings.
Headache ball. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean a weighted
hook that is used to attach loads to the hoist load line of the crane.
This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup, accepted by the
Committee, and is used in proposed Sec. 1926.753, Hoisting and Rigging.
Hoisting equipment. This term would be defined to mean commercially
manufactured lifting equipment designed to lift and position a load of
known weight to an erection location at some known elevation and
horizontal distance from the equipment's center of rotation. ``Hoisting
equipment'' includes but is not limited to cranes, derricks, tower
cranes, barge-mounted derricks or cranes, gin poles and gantry hoist
systems. The Committee developed a definition for hoisting equipment
that would include all equipment that is used in steel erection to lift
loads to a specified location. The intent was to ensure that this
equipment is not strictly limited to cranes. The definition was also
crafted to avoid a situation where a steel erector might elect to
characterize employees who are not true connectors, e.g., detailers, as
connectors by providing them with a ``come-a-long'' to meet the
definition of connector. Thus, a ``come-a-long'' would not be included
in the definition of hoisting equipment because a ``come-a-long'' is a
mechanical device, usually consisting of a chain or cable attached at
each end, that is used to facilitate movement of materials through
leverage rather than true hoisting equipment.
Leading edge. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean the
unprotected side and edge of a floor, roof, or formwork for a floor or
other walking/working surface (such as deck) which changes location as
additional floor, roof, decking or formwork sections are placed, formed
or constructed. This definition is based on the subpart M definition of
``leading edge'' but was enhanced by the Committee which added
``unprotected side and'' before ``edge'' to clarify that all
unprotected sides and edges would be defined in subpart R as leading
edges.
Metal deck. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean a
commercially manufactured, structural grade, cold rolled metal panel
formed into a series of parallel ribs; for this subpart, this would
include metal floor and roof decks, standing seam metal roofs, other
metal roof systems and other products such as bar gratings, checker
plate, expanded metal panels, and similar products. After installation
and proper fastening, these decking materials serve a combination of
functions including, but not limited to: a structural element designed
in combination with the structure to resist, distribute and transfer
loads, stiffen the structure and provide a diaphragm action; a walking/
working surface; a form for concrete slabs; a support for roofing
systems; and a finished floor or roof. This definition was developed by
a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the Committee. This workgroup
believes that, for the purposes of steel erection, rather than
referring to several similar building materials associated with a
particular hazard, a generic term should be defined and then be used
consistently in the standard. Since the materials listed in this
definition are all similarly installed and eventually become walking/
working surfaces, the workgroup believes that a single term would
provide both greater clarity and facilitate compliance. In developing
this definition, the workgroup relied on the Steel Deck Institute (SDI)
``Manual of Construction with Steel Deck,'' in addition to its own
collective expertise.
Multiple lift rigging. OSHA would define this term to mean a
rigging assembly manufactured by wire rope rigging suppliers that
facilitates the attachment of up to five independent loads to the hoist
rigging of a crane. This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup
and accepted by the Committee.
Opening. OSHA would define this term to mean a gap or void 12
inches (30.5 cm) or more in its least dimension in a floor, roof or
other walking/working surface. For the purposes of this subpart,
skylights and smoke domes that do not meet the strength requirements
for covered openings in Sec. 1926.760(d)(1) would be regarded as
openings. This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup to
prevent workers from sitting or walking on covers that are insufficient
to support their weight. The last sentence of the definition was added
to ensure that skylights and smoke domes would not be considered
covered if they do not meet the strength requirements for covered
openings in Sec. 1926.760(d)(1) and therefore must be protected by
other means. This definition differs from the definition in subpart M
of this part as discussed earlier in the definition of ``decking
hole.''
Permanent floor. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean a
structurally completed floor at any level or elevation (including slab
on grade). A floor would be considered a permanent floor when all the
work contained on the structural contract documents has been completed
for that floor. Concrete poured on metal deck and grating or floor
plate applied to structural members would be considered permanent
floors. This definition was developed by the Committee to promote
clarity.
Personal fall arrest system. OSHA would define this term to mean a
system used to arrest an employee in a fall from a working level; a
personal fall arrest system consists of an anchorage, connectors, and a
body harness and may
[[Page 43461]]
include a lanyard, deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable
combination of these. The Committee recommended that this definition be
identical to the definition used in subpart M of this part.
Pre-engineered metal building. This term would be defined by OSHA
to mean a field-assembled building system consisting of framing, roof
and wall coverings, and generally made of steel. Typically, in a pre-
engineered metal building, many of these components are cold-formed
shapes. These individual parts are fabricated in one or more
manufacturing facilities and shipped to the job site for assembly into
the final structure. Engineering design of the system is normally the
responsibility of the pre-engineered metal building manufacturer. This
definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the
Committee.
Project structural engineer of record. This term, which was
developed by the Committee and is used throughout the proposed
standard, would be defined by OSHA to mean the registered, licensed
professional responsible for the design of structural steel framing and
whose seal appears on the structural contract documents.
Purlin (in pre-engineered metal buildings). OSHA proposes to define
this term to mean a ``Z'' or ``C'' shaped member formed from sheet
steel spanning between primary framing and supporting roof material.
This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the
Committee.
Qualified person. This term, which is also defined in
Sec. 1926.32(m), would be defined in the proposed standard to mean one
who, by possession of a recognized degree, certificate, or professional
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training, and experience, has
successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems
relating to the subject matter, the work, or the project. As with the
definition of competent person, because of the frequent use of the term
in this proposal, the Committee urged OSHA to repeat this definition in
subpart R even though the definition already exists in Sec. 1926.32 and
applies to all of the standards contained in 29 CFR Part 1926 because
repeating it would enable an employer performing steel erection to
locate the qualified person definition in subpart R instead of having
to search for it somewhere else in Part 1926.
Safety deck attachment. OSHA is proposing to define this term to
mean an initial attachment that is used to secure an initially placed
sheet of decking to keep proper alignment and bearing with structural
support members. The term originally used in the controlled decking
zone (CDZ) working draft was ``safety deck welding'' and ``tack
welds.'' Committee members pointed out that there were ways to attach
the decking other than welding, e.g., mechanical fastening. Since the
intent is to safely ``attach'' the newly placed decking panels, the
proposed rule uses the broader language recommended by the Committee.
Seat. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean a structural
attachment mounted to a structural member beneath a connection point,
designed to support an incoming member that is to be connected to the
first member. This term, which was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and
accepted by the Committee, is used in the double connection section,
Sec. 1926.756(c).
Shear connector. OSHA is proposing to define this term to include
headed steel studs, steel bars, steel lugs, and similar devices which
are attached to a structural member for the purpose of achieving
composite action with concrete, i.e., strengthening the top flange of
the beam by interacting with the concrete to achieve a higher strength.
This definition was developed by the Committee.
Steel erection. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean the
erection of steel buildings, bridges and other structures, including
the installation of steel flooring and roofing members and all planking
and decking used during the process of erection. This definition was
developed by the Committee, and OSHA requests comments on the
appropriateness of this definition.
Steel joist. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean an open web,
secondary load-carrying member of 144 feet (43.9 m) or less suitable
for the support of floors and roofs. This term does not include
structural steel trusses or cold-formed joists. This definition was
recommended by SJI and accepted by the Committee.
Steel joist girder. OSHA would define this term to mean an open
web, primary load-carrying member, designed by the manufacturer,
suitable for the support of floors and roofs. This does not include
structural steel trusses. This definition was recommended by SJI and
accepted by the Committee.
Steel truss. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean an open web
member designed of structural steel components by the project
structural engineer of record. For the purposes of this subpart, a
steel truss would be considered equivalent to a solid web structural
member. This definition was recommended by SJI and accepted by the
Committee.
Unprotected sides and edges. OSHA proposes to define this term to
mean any side or edge (except at entrances to points of access) of a
walking/working surface, e.g., floor, roof, ramp or runway, where there
is no wall or guardrail system at least 39 inches (1.0 m) high. This
definition is identical to the corresponding definition in subpart M of
this part.
Section 1926.752 Site Layout, Site-specific Erection Plan and
Construction Sequence
After a review of accident reports involving collapses, the
Committee reached the conclusion that many of these accidents could
have been averted had adequate pre-erection communication and planning
occurred. This section of the proposed rule sets forth OSHA's
requirements for proper communication between the controlling
contractor and the steel erector prior to the beginning of the steel
erection operation and proper pre-planning by the steel erector to
minimize overhead exposure during hoisting operations; Appendix A,
which is referred to in this section, would also provide guidelines for
employers who elect to develop a site-specific erection plan. OSHA's
current standard does not contain provisions similar to those being
proposed in this section.
Paragraph (a) Approval to begin steel erection.
The Committee recognized that under current practices in the
industry, erection decisions are often made in the field when the steel
arrives. The Committee believes that pre-planning and coordination are
currently not occurring to the extent they should be.
OSHA agrees that lack of adequate planning and coordination
contributes to accidents and is proposing, in paragraph (a)(1), that
the controlling contractor ensure that the concrete in footings, piers,
or walls, or the mortar in masonry piers and walls has achieved a
minimum of 75% of its design compressive strength prior to the
imposition of any structural steel load or has achieved a strength that
is sufficient to support the loads imposed. This proposed requirement
agrees with a recommendation by the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) and is similar to the OSHA requirement for concrete
construction found in Sec. 1926.703(e)(ii), which requires that
formwork not be removed from cast-in-place concrete ``* * * until the
concrete has been properly tested with an appropriate American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard
[[Page 43462]]
test method designed to indicate the concrete compressive strength, and
the test results indicate that the concrete has gained sufficient
strength to support its weight and superimposed loads.'' Since the
footings, piers and walls intended to be covered by this proposed
section will be supporting the steel structure being erected, OSHA, as
well as the Committee, wishes to ensure that this information is
provided to the steel erector before the steel is placed on the
concrete.
Paragraph (a)(2) cross-references Sec. 1926.755(b) and would
require that any repairs, replacements, and field modifications be
performed in accordance with the anchor bolt requirements contained in
Sec. 1926.755(b). As in the case of proposed paragraph (a)(1), OSHA,
along with the Committee, wishes to ensure that the steel erector is
informed of any repair, replacement, or modification to the anchor
bolts prior to the placement of steel.
Paragraph (b) of this section sets out the site conditions that
would have to be provided and maintained by the controlling contractor
in order for the steel erector to move around the site and perform
necessary operations in a safe manner.
Paragraph (b)(1) would require that the controlling contractor
provide and maintain adequate access roads into and through the site
for the safe delivery and movement of derricks, cranes, trucks, other
necessary equipment, and the material to be erected as well as means
and methods for pedestrian and vehicular control. Compliance with this
provision could be achieved by developing access roads and clearly
demonstrated pedestrian areas, and maintaining these throughout the
life of the project.
Paragraph (b)(2) would require that the controlling contractor also
provide and maintain a firm, properly graded, drained area, readily
accessible to the work and with adequate space for the safe storage of
materials and the safe operation of the erector's equipment. The
provisions in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) are necessary to ensure that
a site is prepared for the safe commencement of steel erection at a
site. The Committee determined and OSHA agrees that the responsibility
to provide and maintain site conditions lies primarily with the
controlling contractor, who is responsible for the overall project and
is the employer in the best position to minimize the hazards associated
with improper site layout and conditions. The provisions in proposed
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) were derived from the AISC code of
standard practice for steel buildings and bridges (Ex. 9-36).
Proposed paragraph (c) addresses the hazards associated with
overhead loads. Specifically, these hazards include failure of the
lifting device, which would create a crushing hazard, and items falling
from the load, which creates a struck by hazard. Given the nature of
the loads used in steel erection, either of these events could result
in serious injury or death.
Paragraph (c) would require that all hoisting operations in steel
erection be pre-planned to ensure that no employee is required to be
exposed to overhead hazards and that this pre-planning be done in
accordance with Sec. 1926.753(b), which contains criteria for working
under loads, and Sec. 1926.759, which contains requirements for falling
object protection. (Although the specific requirements of proposed
Sec. 1926.753(b) and Sec. 1926.759 are discussed later in the preamble,
OSHA believes that including a cross-reference to these overhead
protection requirements along with the other requirements that deal
with site preparation and pre-planning would enhance safety and promote
compliance.)
As a result of site-specific considerations, paragraph (d) would
permit employers to elect, due to conditions specific to the site, to
provide employee protection by means other than those specified in
Sec. 1926.753(a)(5), Sec. 1926.757(a)(3), or Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i), if
they develop a site-specific erection plan that specifies alternative
means and methods to be used. The site-specific erection plan would
have to be developed by a qualified person, and the plan must be
available to the employees at the site. During initial discussions, the
Committee considered a requirement that would require every steel
erection employer to develop a site-specific erection plan in writing
for every project but decided that such a requirement would be
unnecessarily paperwork-intensive, especially for small businesses.
OSHA is providing, in Appendix A, a guideline for establishing the
components of a site-specific erection plan, as recommended by the
Committee. This appendix will assist employers in developing a site-
specific erection plan. A site-specific erection plan will be easier to
complete once the erector has developed a model plan. Some site-
specific conditions that might lead an employer to rely on an
alternative rather than the requirements specified in paragraphs
Sec. 1926.753(a)(5), Sec. 1926.757(a)(3), and Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i),
and examples of possible alternative methods, are addressed in the
discussion of these paragraphs later in this preamble.
Section 1926.753 Hoisting and Rigging
An essential element of steel erection is the rigging and hoisting
of structural steel members and materials. Several hazards are
associated with these operations. This section proposes requirements
for hoisting and rigging operations during steel erection activities.
Paragraph (a) General.
Paragraph (a)(1) would require a pre-shift visual inspection of
cranes to be used for steel erection. Paragraph (a)(1)(i) would require
that, in addition to meeting the requirements of Sec. 1926.550, cranes
being used in steel erection activities be visually inspected prior to
each shift by a competent person; this inspection must include
observation of the equipment during operation to detect any
deficiencies.
The current requirements of Sec. 1926.550 require that all crawler,
truck or locomotive cranes in use meet the applicable requirements for
design, inspection, construction, testing, maintenance and operation
prescribed in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard
B30.5-1968, Safety Code for Crawler, Locomotive and Truck Cranes (Ex.
9-114). In addition to the requirements of Sec. 1926.550, OSHA has
preliminarily concluded, and the Committee agrees, that a more frequent
inspection is needed for cranes being used for steel erection. An
inspection prior to each shift is necessary to provide an added measure
of protection because the proposed rule would permit certain
specialized and potentially hazardous types of hoisting operations.
These hoisting operations include the use of cranes to hoist employees
on a personnel platform (Sec. 1926.753(a)(4)); to perform multiple
lifts (Sec. 1926.753(c)); and to suspend loads over employees
(Sec. 1926.753(b)). Since these operations are inherently dangerous, it
is particularly critical for the hoisting equipment to be in proper
working condition, which means that a complete visual inspection must
be performed before each shift by a competent person, e.g., the
operator or oiler of the hoisting equipment being used or, on a large
project, the master mechanic who checks each crane. This pre-shift
visual inspection is anticipated to take between 10 and 20 minutes. At
a minimum, the inspection would include the items listed in paragraphs
(a)(i)(A) through (L); namely, inspection of (A) all control mechanisms
for maladjustment; (B) control and drive mechanisms for excessive wear
of
[[Page 43463]]
components and contamination by lubricants, water or other foreign
matter; (C) safety devices, including, but not limited to, boom angle
indicators, boom stops, boom kick-out devices, anti-two block devices,
and load moment indicators where required; (D) air, hydraulic, and
other pressurized lines for deterioration or leakage, particularly
those which flex in normal operation; (E) hooks and latches for
deformation, chemical damage, cracks, or wear; (F) wire rope reeving
for compliance with hoisting equipment manufacturer's specifications;
(G) electrical apparatus for malfunctioning, signs of excessive
deterioration, dirt, or moisture accumulation; (H) hydraulic system for
proper fluid level; (I) tires for proper inflation and condition; (J)
ground conditions around the hoisting equipment for proper support,
including ground settling under and around outriggers, ground water
accumulation or other similar conditions; (K) the hoisting equipment
for level position; and (L) the hoisting equipment for level position
after each move and setup.
These are the inspection criteria listed in the ANSI B30.5-1968
standard; this standard is referenced in the current OSHA crane
requirements of Sec. 1926.550. These criteria are also included in the
updated ANSI B30.5-1994, Mobile and Locomotive Cranes standard (Ex. 9-
113), as a guideline for items which should be included in a pre-shift
visual inspection. Items (A) through (I) are essentially the same as
the requirements contained in the ANSI B30.5-1994 standard. The
Committee recommended using the B30.5-1994 standard as the basis of
reference since it reflects the most up-to-date industry practices;
OSHA agrees with this recommendation. In the B30.5-1994 standard, items
(a)(1)(i)(A) through (I) must be inspected during frequent inspections
which, according to that standard, are assumed to take place at daily
to monthly intervals, although items (A) and (D) are specifically
recommended for daily inspection by that standard. The Committee
considered whether the items in (A) through (L) should be inspected
daily rather than pre-shift. However, the Committee noted that if a
crane or other piece of hoisting equipment is not used for several
days, it is only necessary to inspect that equipment before the shift
on which it is to be used. As recommended by the Committee, OSHA is
proposing that equipment need not be inspected if it is not to be used
that day. Items (J), (K) and (L) were added by the Committee to provide
additional safety during the critical period when the hoisting
equipment is being set up. Item (J) is important when hoisting
equipment is set up to ensure that all ground conditions in the area of
the hoisting equipment are adequate to provide proper support for the
hoisting equipment. Item (K) would simply require that the operator
check a site glass, carpenter's level or the leveling mechanism
contained on the hoisting equipment. Item (L) would ensure that, if the
hoisting equipment is moved during a shift, it would be checked for
level after setup. OSHA requests comment on whether, since items (A)
through (K) are pre-shift inspections and item (L) is actually an
inspection that takes place during the shift, item (L) should be placed
elsewhere in paragraph (a).
As indicated above, the Committee intended these pre-shift
inspections to reflect the current safe practices of the industry while
at the same time imposing as little additional burden on the employer
as possible. OSHA agrees with SENRAC's determination that a visual
inspection is sufficient to accomplish these intentions, together with
such movement of the crane as may be necessary to conduct the visual
inspection. For example, to visually inspect the boom angle indicators
the crane must be moved to determine that the indicators are
functioning properly. Also, the anti-two blocking device can be
visually inspected only by raising the headache ball to the crown block
to ensure that the device automatically cuts off the power to the
hoisting equipment. The ANSI B30.5 language, ``[Inspect] tires for
recommended inflation pressure,'' was interpreted by the Committee to
mean that a tire pressure gauge should be used to determine inflation
pressure. However, the SENRAC Committee believes that the tires need
only to be visually inspected for proper inflation as well as for
overall condition and that no tire pressure gauge is needed. The
proposal, therefore, calls for a ``visual inspection of tires for
proper inflation and condition.''
Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would require that, after the pre-shift
inspection has been completed and a deficiency has been identified, the
competent person is to determine immediately whether the deficiency
constitutes a hazard. This paragraph is essentially the same as the
requirement in ANSI B30.5-1994. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) proposes to
require that, if the competent person determines that the deficiency
constitutes a hazard, the hoisting equipment be removed from service
until the deficiency has been corrected. The Committee felt and OSHA
concurs that it is necessary not only to determine that there is a
deficiency but to ensure that the hoisting equipment is taken out of
service until corrective actions are taken.
Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would require that the employer keep a record
of the inspection, including the date of the inspection; the signature
of the person who inspected the hoisting equipment; and a serial number
or other identifier for the hoisting equipment inspected. This
certification record can be a check sheet or log book in which the
operator or other inspector places a check mark next to the appropriate
item on the list after visually checking it and then signs and dates
the sheet or book. A crane operator's log book would be sufficient (Ex.
9-112).
Paragraph (a)(1)(v) would require that equipment operators be
responsible for those operations under their direct control. Whenever
there is any doubt as to the safety of the hoisting operation, the
operator would have the authority to stop and to refuse to continue
until safety has been assured. Since the operator is normally the most
knowledgeable person about the equipment being used, OSHA agrees that
the operator should have control over shutting down the equipment if it
is believed to pose a safety concern. This requirement is identical to
the parallel requirement in the ANSI B30.5-1968 standard for operating
practices and is currently required since Sec. 1926.550(b)(2)
incorporates the ANSI B30.5-1968 standard by reference. The Committee
decided that the B30.5-1968 requirement assigning responsibility for
the safe operation of the hoisting equipment to the operator provides a
greater degree of safety than the ANSI B30.5-1994 requirement, which
places authority with the supervisor. A letter from a professional
engineering firm to the secretary of the ASME B30 committee (Exhibit 9-
133) addresses this issue as follows:
* * * Control of a heavy-lifting operation solely under the
direction of a supervisor or any other person who may be less
qualified than he, is not prudent. The crane operator has
instrumentation in the crane to base his action upon, and should be
the ultimate person to make decisions about the capacity and safety
of both the machine and lifting operation * * *
A qualified crane operator can make decisions about handling a
crane load. A supervisor may or may not have qualifications in safe
crane operation. Safe crane operation belongs in the domain of
qualified operators, not managers.
Paragraph (a)(2) would require that, prior to each shift, a
qualified rigger inspect the rigging in accordance with
[[Page 43464]]
Sec. 1926.251 of this part. OSHA accepts the Committee's conclusion
that it is not necessary to define the term ``qualified rigger.'' A
qualified rigger is thus simply a ``qualified person'' who is
performing the inspection of the rigging equipment. Rigging would be
inspected according to the requirements in Sec. 1926.251 of this part,
Rigging Equipment for Material Handling. To promote ease of compliance,
the proposal provides a cross reference to that section.
Paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) address the issue of transporting
employees using hoisting equipment. Paragraph (a)(3) would prohibit the
direct use of the headache ball, hook or load to transport personnel
except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(v)(4) of this section. These
practices are widely recognized to be unsafe since they expose the
employee to hazards of falling off the load or, in a case where the
load falls, falling with the load.
Paragraph (a)(4) of the proposal would allow the use of cranes and
derricks to hoist employees on a personnel platform (e.g., man basket)
when work under this subpart is being conducted, even though the
requirements of Sec. 1926.550(g)(2), Crane or Derrick Suspended
Personnel Platforms, prohibit the use of a crane or derrick to hoist
employees on a personnel platform unless structural design or worksite
conditions make conventional means more hazardous or infeasible. In
steel erection, however, the work station moves progressively as pieces
of structural steel are connected to each other. This means that
elevators cannot be installed until much of the structure has been
completed. Transporting ironworkers to a workstation elevated hundreds
of feet in the air by hoisting a personnel platform with a crane
eliminates the hazards associated with worker fatigue that can occur
from climbing or walking up. The Committee also believes that many
steel erection activities (particularly repetitive activities performed
at different locations, such as bolting-up, that require a great deal
of climbing up and down) can be performed much more safely and
efficiently, and with greatly reduced exposure to hazards, when done
from a personnel platform than from scaffolding. The time to perform
the activity is only a fraction of the time to erect and dismantle the
scaffolding that would be required to do the job safely. Exposures to
fall hazards and other hazards associated with erection and dismantling
of scaffolds for short term, repetitive activities are eliminated by
the use of a personnel platform. The Committee further noted that, when
cranes or lifts are used to hoist a personnel platform, employees
engaged in steel erection are still protected by the other requirements
of Sec. 1926.550(g). These include hoisting work practices, such as
performing the lift in a slow, cautious and controlled manner; holding
pre-lift meetings; conducting trial lifts; requiring a safety factor of
ten; and the use of engineering controls, such as anti-two blocking
protection and controlled lowering capability. OSHA agrees that these
measures increase the safety of employees being hoisted on a personnel
platform; OSHA seeks comment from interested parties on the issue of
hoisting employees as a regular practice in steel erection.
Paragraph (a)(5) would prohibit safety latches on hooks from being
deactivated or made inoperable except: when a qualified rigger has
determined that the hoisting and placing of purlins and single joists
can be performed more safely by doing so; or when equivalent protection
is provided in a site-specific erection plan. Some activities in steel
erection create a situation where it is actually safer to hoist members
by deactivating the safety latch, e.g., when it eliminates the need for
workers to climb up or onto unstable structural members, such as single
columns or single bar joists, to unhook the member. The proposal would
allow the employer to defeat or tie-back the safety latch in two
situations: first, if a qualified rigger (during hoisting and placing
of purlins and single joists) determines that deactivating the safety
latch presents a lesser hazard than leaving it on, or second, if it
provides equivalent protection and is incorporated as a safe practice
for particular lifts in a site-specific erection plan. This would
eliminate abuse of the technique and ensure that, when it is performed,
the necessary precautions are taken. OSHA solicits information on the
appropriateness of this approach, particularly with regard to the
protection provided to the workers involved in such lifts.
Paragraph (b) Working under loads. The proposed requirements of
paragraph (b) were patterned after requirements in Sec. 5002 of the
California Code of Regulations (Ex. 9-24D1) that regulate overhead
loads for occasional unavoidable exposure.
Paragraph (b)(1) would require that routes for suspended loads be
pre-planned to ensure that no employee is required to work directly
below a suspended load, with exceptions for certain employees.
Normally, hoisting operations can be performed from one location with a
clear travel path and no overhead passes. OSHA understands, however,
that overhead passes cannot be eliminated entirely due to the
complexity of modern construction, which requires that many activities
take place concurrently. On many building sites, for example, existing
buildings, structures, streets, overhead lines and so forth make it
possible to hoist construction materials from one or two storage areas.
As a result, loads must be moved over the same work areas throughout
the course of the job. In addition, on some large projects, such as the
construction of power plants, many hoisting operations take place
simultaneously. In such situations, cranes must be located throughout
the site to access every part of the project. Scheduling the work to
avoid moving loads over occupied work areas is often not feasible.
Although the proposed requirement allows loads to be moved overhead, it
requires the employer to minimize such exposure to the extent possible.
Employees engaged in the initial connection of steel and employees
necessary for hooking or unhooking the load are the only employees
allowed to work directly below a suspended load, because they must do
so to accomplish their jobs. This provision is intended to limit the
number of employees exposed to the hazard of falling overhead loads.
OSHA has allowed employees to work under overhead loads in certain
other, narrowly limited, work situations. For example, a similar
provision is found in the OSHA construction standards in subpart Q of
this Part, Concrete and Masonry Construction. Section 1926.704(e) of
that standard provides:
No employee shall be permitted under precast concrete members
being lifted or tilted into position except those employees required
for the erection of those members.
Similarly, the lift-slab section, Sec. 1926.705(k)(1), allows some
employees in certain operations to work under a suspended load; in this
case, the operation involves lifting the slabs into place by the jacks:
No employee, except those essential to the jacking operation,
shall be permitted in the building/structure while any jacking
operation is taking place unless the building/structure has been
reinforced sufficiently to ensure its integrity during erection.
When employees engaged in steel erection must work under a
suspended load, such exposure must be governed by the criteria in
paragraph (b)(2). These criteria require, first, that materials being
hoisted be rigged to prevent unintentional displacement. In addition,
safety hooks with self-closing latches or their equivalent must be used
to prevent components from slipping out of the hook; this precaution
eliminates the
[[Page 43465]]
chance of components disengaging from the hook and causing the load to
fall. An equivalent device could be a hook with another type of closing
device, i.e., a hook with a spring-loaded gate or another type of
safety hook that would provide the same level of safety as a safety
hook with a self-closing latch. Finally, the loads must be rigged by a
qualified rigger.
Paragraph (c) Multiple lift rigging procedure.
This section proposes specific performance and work practice
requirements to be met when a steel erector chooses to lift multiple
pieces of steel at one time as an alternative to single lifting of
individual structural members. This procedure, also known as
``christmas treeing'' or ``tandem loading,'' is not addressed in OSHA's
existing steel erection standard. Although the hazards associated with
the lifting of tandem loads are substantial, the Committee believes
that the practice can be made safe if the means and methods set forth
in this paragraph are strictly observed. In drawing this conclusion,
the Committee considered the information described in the following
paragraphs.
Floor beams currently in use are comparatively light and may not be
strong enough to support a bundle of structural steel safely. Thus, the
steel must be picked up from the ground. Picking up single beams one at
a time is not always practical, and tandem loads significantly increase
efficiency. Some safety benefits are associated with this procedure,
including a reduction in the length of time connectors and others are
exposed to the hazards posed by overhead loads because fewer swings are
required, a reduction in the time connectors must spend out on the iron
because tandem loading allows them to complete their tasks more
quickly, and reduced stress on the crane operator because fewer
mechanical operations are required.
An OSHA letter dated September 9, 1993, from the Director of the
Office of Construction and Engineering to the Regional Administrator of
Region 1 describes some of the benefits of christmas treeing:
Christmas treeing could indeed be productive and efficient on
projects when erecting floor or roof filler beams, all of the same
length and weight with similar details at each end of the beams. In
large industrial projects where the location of the crane is much
farther away from the bay under erection, christmas treeing could
also prove to be efficient. Further, the practice reduces the total
number of swings the crane makes in each project, thus reducing the
risk of exposing the workers located in the vicinity of the crane or
in the path of travel of the load (Ex. 9-13G, p. 2).
Paragraph (c)(1) would provide the criteria that must be met for a
multiple lift to be permitted at all under this rule. A multiple lift
rigging assembly, as defined in the definition section, must be
utilized. By definition, the assembly must have been manufactured by a
wire rope rigging supplier. Since this is a specialized type of lift,
the rigging assembly must have been designed specifically for the
particular use in a multiple lift and meet the specifics of the
definition. A multiple lift may not involve hoisting more than five (5)
members during the lift. Limiting the number of members hoisted is
essential to safety, and the Committee has determined that five members
is the maximum number that can be hoisted safely, taking into account
the necessity of controlling both the load and the empty rigging. In
addition, this limit on the number of members recognizes that a typical
bay, consisting of up to five members, could be filled with a single
lift. Too many members in a lift may create a string that is too
awkward to control or allow too much empty rigging to dangle loose,
creating a hazard to employees.
In addition, only structural members may be lifted during a
multiple lift. Other items, such as bundles of decking, do not lend
themselves to the multiple lift procedure. A typical multiple lift
member would be a wide flange beam section between 10 and 30 feet long,
typically weighing less than 1,800 pounds. Employees engaged in a
multiple lift operation must be trained in these procedures in
accordance with Sec. 1926.761(c)(1), which contains specific training
requirements for employees engaged in multiple lifts. Due to the
specialized nature of multiple lifts and the knowledge necessary to
perform them safely, this training requirement is necessary to ensure
that employees are properly trained in all aspects of multiple lift
procedures.
Paragraph (c)(2) describes how the components of the multiple lift
rigging assembly are to be designed and assembled. The employer must
ensure that each multiple lift rigging assembly is designed and
assembled with a maximum capacity for the total assembly and for each
individual attachment point. This capacity, certified by the
manufacturer or qualified rigger, would be based on the manufacturer's
specifications and would have a 5 to 1 safety factor for all
components. Since multiple lift rigging is special rigging used only
for the purpose of performing a multiple lift rigging procedure (MLRP),
the rigging would be certified by the qualified rigger who assembles or
the manufacturer who provides the entire assembly to ensure that the
main line is capable of supporting the whole load and each hook is
capable of supporting the individual members. The appropriate rigging
assembly to be used is the lightest one that will support the load.
Typically, one assembly is manufactured and certified for the heaviest
anticipated multiple lift on the job, and this rigging is then used for
all the MLRPs.
To ensure that a MLRP does not overload the hoisting equipment, the
Committee recommended that OSHA propose a provision in paragraph (c)(3)
that would prohibit the total load of the MLRP from exceeding either
the rated capacity of the hoisting equipment as specified in the
hoisting equipment load charts or the rated capacity of the rigging as
specified in the rigging rating chart. Several crane manufacturers have
recognized that MLRP is becoming an industry practice and have accepted
the use of their cranes for this purpose provided that the crane is
utilized in a manner consistent with the safe practices defined in the
operator's manual and crane capacity chart (Ex.9-30). Paragraph (c)(3)
proposes these provisions.
Paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) address safe rigging for the multiple
lift. Paragraph (c)(4) would require that the multiple lift rigging
assembly be rigged with the members attached at their center of gravity
and be kept reasonably level, be rigged from the top down, and have a
distance of at least 7 feet (2.1 m) between the members. In practice,
these procedures mean that the choker attached to the last structural
member of the group to be connected would be the one attached on the
rigging assembly closest to the headache ball. The next to last member
to be connected would be attached to the next lower hook on the rigging
assembly and so on. As each member is attached, it would be lifted
approximately two feet off the ground to verify the location of the
center of gravity and to allow the choker to be checked for proper
connection. Adjustments to choker location would be made during this
trial lift procedure. The choker length would then be selected to
ensure that the vertical distance between the bottom flange of the
higher beam and the top flange of the next lower beam is never less
than 7 feet. Thus, when the connector has made the initial end
connections of the lower beam and moves to the center of each beam to
remove the choker, there
[[Page 43466]]
will be sufficient clearance to prevent contacting the upper suspended
beam. Furthermore, although the OSHA letter referred to earlier (Ex. 9-
13G) suggested that the beam spacing could be eight or nine feet, the
Committee determined, and OSHA agrees, that seven feet is more
appropriate since, in addition to the necessary clearance just
mentioned, a typical connector could easily reach up and grab the
member at seven feet but might have some trouble doing so if the
spacing were greater. OSHA requests comment on whether spacing greater
than 7 feet would constitute a hazard.
Once the members are ready to be set, paragraph (c)(5) would
require that the members be set from the bottom up. Even though this is
the only practical way that the members can be set, the inclusion of
this proposed requirement promotes clarity.
Paragraph (c)(6) sets forth the proposed requirements for lowering
the load. Like the hoisting of personnel platforms, multiple lifts must
employ controlled load lowering when lowering loads into position for
the connectors to set the members. OSHA agrees with the Committee's
recommendation that such a device is essential to prevent potential
accidents if the crane operator's foot should slip off the brake, the
brake fails, or the load slips through the brake. When the load is over
the connectors and is being lowered into place, the operator must have
maximum control over the load. This proposed requirement would have
prevented the July 20, 1990, fatality in Austin, Texas, referred to in
Ex. 9-13G (p. 4).
Several members of the Committee stated that the use of a MLRP
reduces total employee exposure to suspended load hazards as well as to
the hazards associated with crane supported loads traveling
horizontally. An MLRP is treated as an engineered lift and accordingly
receives the full attention of the entire raising gang. The lifts are
made in a more controlled fashion due to the special rigging and
physical size of the assembled load. In addition, cranes used for
multiple lifts must have controlled load lowering devices.
A Committee workgroup was formed to develop the MLRP section of the
proposed regulatory text. This workgroup noted several additional
benefits of MLRPs. For example, the increased weight of the load
hoisted using an MLRP results in reduced swing, boom, and hoist speeds,
which increases the amount of control the operator has over the lift.
The workgroup also stated that crane operators report that the swing
operation has the greatest potential for operator error and loss of
load control, and therefore that reducing the number of swings enhances
safety. The workgroup thus believes that the reduced number and speed
of swing operations associated with MLRPs will increase safety, and
that lift precision will also be increased because MLRPs require that
controlled load lowering devices be used on cranes making such lifts.
When the operator is working in the blind (where the connectors cannot
be seen), according to the workgroup, reducing the number of swing
cycles is particularly important because it minimizes the opportunity
for a communication error, which could cause an accident. Furthermore,
the workgroup stated that the total suspended load time and the
frequency of loads passing overhead are reduced for all non-erection
personnel on the job when an MLRP is being performed. This is
particularly important, according to the workgroup, because these
workers normally are occupied with other tasks and often do not pay
attention to suspended loads that may be passing overhead. This group
of employees includes those working under canopies and partially
completed floor systems who cannot see hoisted material passing
overhead but could be injured if a load were dropped.
In addition, when single pieces are hoisted, the emphasis is often
on speed. The lift is hoisted, swung and boomed at maximum crane speed
in an effort to maximize production. Under these circumstances, the
Committee felt that single piece hoisting increases the potential for
problems in the hoist sequence and in the final placement of each
member and additionally contributes to operator fatigue.
According to the workgroup, a great safety benefit of multiple
lifting is that the manipulation of the members at the point of
connection limits the movement of the hoist hook, in most cases, to an
area less than 10 feet in diameter and additionally requires that such
movement be done at a slow speed and with maximum control. The hazard
that connectors consider the most serious, that of a high speed
incoming beam, is thus minimized using the MLRP process.
Section 1926.754 Structural Steel Assembly
This section sets forth the proposed requirements for the assembly
of structural steel.
Paragraph (a) would require that structural stability be maintained
at all times during the erection process. This would be a general
requirement for any type of steel structure. Since structural stability
is essential to the successful erection of steel structures, this
proposed section is intended to prevent collapse due to lack of
stability, a major cause of fatalities in this industry.
Paragraph (b) proposes additional requirements specifically for
multi-story structures. Paragraph (b)(1) would require that permanent
floors be installed as the erection of structural members progresses
and that there be not more than eight stories between the erection
floor and the upper-most permanent floor, except where the structural
integrity is maintained as a result of the design. This paragraph is
identical to existing Sec. 1926.750(a)(1) in OSHA's steel erection
standard.
Paragraph (b)(2) would prohibit having more than four floors or 48
feet (14.6 m), whichever is less, of unfinished bolting or welding
above the foundation or uppermost permanently secured floor, except
where the structural integrity is maintained as a result of the design.
This paragraph is essentially the same as existing Sec. 1926.750(a)(2),
except for the addition pertaining to situations where structural
integrity is maintained as a result of the design. The Committee
recommended an exception similar to that in paragraph (b)(1) to allow
for flexibility in design.
Paragraph (b)(3) would require that a fully planked or decked floor
or nets be maintained within 2 stories or 30 feet (9.1 m), whichever is
less, directly under any erection work being performed. This is
essentially the same provision as existing Sec. 1926.750(b)(2)(i),
except that the proposed revision adds the option of installing nets in
addition to the planked or decked floor options. Paragraph (b) thus
retains many of the requirements of OSHA's existing steel erection
rule.
Paragraph (c) Walking/working surfaces. This paragraph sets forth
proposed requirements to control the slipping/tripping hazards
encountered when working on steel structures. The Committee pointed out
that the hazards posed by shear connectors need to be addressed in any
revision of subpart R. Shear connectors are commonly found in bridges
and in other types of steel erection. When attachments, like shear
connectors, are shop-welded to the top flange of beams, the resulting
projections can create a significant tripping hazard. Field
installation of these attachments can significantly reduce exposure to
this hazard. Any costs imposed by field installation of the attachments
is likely to be more than offset by the increased productivity and
safety for employees who walk on the top flange of the structural
steel. It is much safer to walk on a beam that is not
[[Page 43467]]
studded with these shear connectors or otherwise covered with a
temporary working surface. The installation of these shear connectors
needs to be performed on a beam in a manner that allows the installer
to maintain a clear walking surface.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would prohibit the attachment of shear
connectors (such as headed steel studs, steel bars or steel lugs),
reinforcing bars, deformed anchors or threaded studs to the top flanges
of beams, joists or beam attachments so that they project vertically
from or horizontally across the top flange of the member until after
the decking, or other walking/working surface, has been installed.
Additionally, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would require that when shear
connectors are utilized in the construction of composite floors, roofs
and bridge decks, employees lay out and install the shear connectors
after the decking has been installed, using the deck as a working
platform. This paragraph would also prohibit the installation of shear
connectors from within a controlled decking zone (CDZ), as specified in
Sec. 1926.760(c)(8).
SENRAC reviewed the issue of slippery surfaces caused by painted or
coated steel. The Committee found that a major cause of falls in the
steel erection industry is the presence of slippery walking, working
and climbing surfaces in steel erection operations when fall protection
is not used. The problem initially arises from the application of
protective coatings on structural steel used, for example, in the
construction of mills, chemical plants and other structures exposed to
highly corrosive materials as well as in the construction of stadiums
or other structures exposed to varying weather conditions. It is
usually impractical to leave the steel uncoated and then to paint the
entire structure in the field after erection. Unfortunately, steel
coated with paints or protective coatings can be extremely slippery.
When there is moisture, snow, or ice on coated steel, the hazard is
increased. Related to this is the issue of the slipperiness of metal
decking.
The problem of slipperiness created by coated steel has been
discussed by industry and union safety committees for more than two
decades. In the late 1970's, a study was conducted by the National
Bureau of Standards. This study, according to a SENRAC workgroup,
reached no definite conclusions and proposed no solution (Ex. 9-10). At
the urging of labor and management during the late 1980's, a NIOSH
sponsored study entitled, ``Correlation of Subjective Slipperiness
Judgments with Quantitative COF Measurements For Structural Steel,''
was conducted by the University of Oklahoma's Institute for Safety &
Ergonomics Studies (Ex. 9-10). This study looked into the effects that
protective coatings have on the slipperiness of structural steel. Once
again, according to the SENRAC workgroup, the data did not provide a
sufficient basis for determining adequate means for controlling or
eliminating the slippery surfaces on painted structural steel members.
Slipperiness of painted surfaces has been a problem not only in the
United States but also in Canada. In the Province of Alberta the
problem has been addressed by requiring the use of an anti-skid
coating. Although use of this coating involves an added cost, this cost
is not significant, according to those involved (Ex. 9-10).
A SENRAC workgroup considered all the information available to it
and recommended that SENRAC adopt a performance standard that would
mandate a minimum 0.5 static coefficient of friction (COF) for all
working, walking and climbing surfaces when they arrive on the job
site. The workgroup noted that the slippery surface issue was
originally limited to slippery paint on structural members but had been
expanded to include metal decking.
This recommendation of the SENRAC workgroup was questioned by some
members of the industry, including the Steel Deck Institute (SDI)
(Ex.9-87) and the Metal Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA) (Ex.
9-129). The main concern expressed by these groups was how an employer
would know that it was in compliance, and, specifically, how surfaces
would be tested to determine that this COF had been achieved and what
instrument would be used to make this determination. An expert on slip
prevention made a presentation to the Committee on how to measure the
COF of a slippery surface.
The expert reviewed the primary methods for testing the
slipperiness of surfaces. The first instrument was described as a drag
meter. A major limitation of this device is that it will not work on
dirty or wet surfaces. Thus, testing wet and dirty surface conditions
which actually occur on job sites is impossible using this device. A
second instrument was an articulated strut device. This device is
currently being tested by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM). A third device examined was a pendulum-like device.
It is limited in that it requires a level floor for proper measurement.
Lastly, the expert described a measuring device that he has developed
that measures not COF but slip resistance. He noted that this
instrument has been modified and is available as a portable unit. He
described two major advantages to this device: it can test wet surfaces
and it can be used in the field to test surfaces as they are actually
walked on.
Following this presentation and after lengthy discussions on the
slippery surface issue, the Committee concluded that conclusive studies
and documented information on the subject of slippery surfaces in steel
erection are not available. To obtain more information, the Committee
agreed that a study should be conducted by the expert to test these
slippery surfaces. This study, commissioned by SENRAC, was conducted in
May of 1995 under the guidance of the SENRAC workgroup. In a final
report of the study to SENRAC (Ex. 9-64), the expert summarized the
methodology and findings. Seven surfaces were tested under both wet and
dry conditions using two different instruments. In addition to these
mechanical tests, five ironworkers ranked how slippery these surfaces
felt while walking on them. The two results were compared. A minimum
standard for slip resistance was set forth in the report.
The study was presented to SENRAC and suggested the following
tentative draft regulatory text for discussion based on the
recommendation of the study: ``all painted, coated or otherwise visibly
treated skeletal structural steel members that are walking/working
surfaces shall have a finish that has a slip index of .75 or higher as
measured with an English XL Slip-Resistance tester or a slip index of
.60 or higher as measured with a Brungraber, Mark II Slip Tester and
would have to be tested in accordance with certain test procedures set
out in an appendix.'' The Committee determined, based on information
obtained from and presentations given by industry groups at SENRAC
meetings, that the draft language was not acceptable. The industry
groups providing information included the Steel Deck Institute (Ex. 9-
73), the Metal Building Manufacturers Association (Ex. 9-74), the Metal
Construction Association (Ex. 9-75), Bethlehem Steel (Exs. 9-106 and 9-
110), the National Coil Coaters Association (Ex. 9-108), American Iron
and Steel Institute (Ex. 1-109), and the American Institute of Steel
Construction (Ex. 9-128). The Committee thus concluded that it could
not determine a minimum value for slip resistance or COF, given all the
variables to be
[[Page 43468]]
considered, nor could it agree on an acceptable testing method.
The Committee next decided to separate the issues of slippery
surfaces on metal decking and on structural steel. Furthermore, based
on perceived differences in the feasibility of compliance, there was
general agreement that a requirement for structural steel could be
proposed while one for metal decking should not be proposed at this
time.
The Committee, consequently, recommended that OSHA propose
paragraph (c)(3) to prohibit workers from walking the top surface of
any structural steel member which has been finish coated with paint or
similar material unless documentation or certification, based on an
appropriate ASTM standard test method, is provided stating that the
finished coat has not decreased the COF from that of the original steel
before it was finish-coated. This documentation or certification must
be available at the site and to the steel erector. Rather than define a
minimum requirement for the COF, the Committee decided to ensure that
the product on which the workers are walking/working is no more
slippery than bare, uncoated steel, which is considered by the
Committee to be safe to walk/work on, even when wet. OSHA seeks
comments and additional information on this point and on the
availability of methods to increase the safety of workers in this
situation and to measure the slipperiness of such surfaces. There are
currently two ASTM standardized test methods for determining the COF of
wet surfaces, thus enabling the painted or coated surface to be tested
for possible certification that the COF has not decreased (see Appendix
B).
With regard to the issue of the slipperiness of metal decking, OSHA
is reserving paragraph (c)(2) to allow additional time to study the
slippery surface aspects of metal decking and identify a solution to
the problem. A coalition of steel-producing and steel-related
organizations has indicated its intention to gather data and prepare
comments with respect to paragraph (c)(2). The coalition intends to
identify the principal factors contributing to slip and fall injuries
in steel erection, and devise feasible and effective approaches to
reduce those risks (Ex. 9-151). OSHA invites additional comments and
information on walking/working surfaces and the slippery aspects of
metal decking from other interested parties.
Paragraph (d) Plumbing-up. Paragraph (d)(1) would require that
connections of the equipment used in plumbing up be properly secured.
This is identical to existing Sec. 1926.752(d)(1) of OSHA's steel
erection standard. Paragraph (d)(2) would require that plumbing-up
equipment be removed only with the approval of a competent person. This
is essentially the same as existing Sec. 1926.752(d)(4), except that
the word ``guys'' is changed to ``equipment'' and ``under the
supervision'' is changed to ``with the approval.'' In addition,
Committee members noted that, with respect to open web steel joists,
the stabilizer plate requirement of proposed Sec. 1926.757(a)(4) will
greatly facilitate the plumbing-up of structures. It should be noted
that several SENRAC members have raised an issue (issue #3 in section
VI, Other Issues) regarding the adequacy of this performance language.
Paragraph (e) Decking. This paragraph sets forth the proposed
requirements to protect employees during decking operations, including
the installation of metal deck (metal deck is defined in the definition
section of this standard). The Committee recognized that improper
installation of decking can cause accidents. Analyses of the fatality/
catastrophe reports in OSHA's IMIS system by SENRAC and OSHA staff
(Exs. 9-14A, 9-42 and 9-49) indicate that falls related to decking when
fall protection is not used account for a large percentage of steel
erection related fatalities. The proposed requirements contained in
paragraph (e) attempt to address many of the hazards which cause
decking accidents.
Paragraph (e)(1) deals with some of the common hazards associated
with hoisting, landing and placing of deck bundles. Many of the
proposed requirements of this paragraph are adapted from the Steel Deck
Institute Manual of Construction With Steel Deck (Ex. 9-34A).
Paragraph (e)(1)(i) would prohibit the use of bundle packaging and
strapping for hoisting unless specifically designed for that purpose.
Bundle straps usually are applied at the factory and are intended to
keep the bundle together until it is placed for erection and the sheets
are ready to be spread. Decking is bundled differently; some
manufacturers design the strapping to be used as a lifting device.
However, hoisting a bundle by straps that are not designed for lifting
is extremely dangerous. The bundle straps can break apart or loosen,
creating a falling object hazard or, if a structural member is hit by
the bundle or its contents, a potential collapse hazard.
Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) would require that, if loose items such as
dunnage, flashing, or other materials are placed on top of deck bundles
which are being hoisted, such items must be secured to the bundles.
Sometimes, to expedite unloading and hoisting, items such as dunnage or
flashing are placed on the decking bundle to save time. Dunnage, for
example, will be sent up with the bundle to help support it on the
structure and to protect the decking which has already been installed.
This proposal would prevent hoisting loose items or ``piggy backing''
unless the items are secured to prevent them from falling off the
bundle in the event that it catches on the structure and tilts.
Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) would require that the landing of bundles of
decking on joists be conducted in accordance with proposed
Sec. 1926.757(e)(4). This requirement is a cross-reference to the joist
section of the proposed standard. Paragraph (e)(4) of that section sets
out proposed criteria for landing decking on joists and will be
discussed later in the preamble.
Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) also addresses the landing of bundles. Under
this proposed requirement, bundles would be landed on framing members
that provide sufficient support for unbanding the bundles. The bundles
would have to be set in such a manner that the decking can be unbanded
without losing the support of the structure. If the blocking should
move while the bundle is being unbanded, the bundle would be required
to have enough support to prevent it from tilting and falling into
``the hole.'' The analysis of the fatality/catastrophe reports produced
from OSHA's IMIS system (Exs. 9-14A, 9-42 and 9-49) identified the
improper landing of bundles of decking as a significant factor in
decking accidents because it may cause a collapse of the support
members and/or bundle. Proposed paragraphs (e)(1)(iii) and (iv) are
intended to eliminate these hazards by providing direction for properly
landing decking bundles.
Paragraph (e)(1)(v) would require decking to be secured against
displacement after the end of the shift or when environmental or
jobsite conditions warrant. This requirement would prevent decking from
being left unsecured between shifts or overnight and would prevent
decking from becoming dislodged from the structure or bundle because of
environmental conditions such as high wind. A gust of wind may cause
individual sheets to peel off an unsecured bundle of decking and fly
through the air. Wind can also move a sheet of loose decking and create
a hazard where an employee inadvertently steps onto a loose piece of
decking, believing it to be secured.
Paragraph (e)(2) Roof and floor openings. This paragraph proposes
steel
[[Page 43469]]
erection procedures for installing metal deck at roof and floor
openings to prevent, among other things, the hazard of employee falls
through deck openings. The Committee found such falls to be a major
cause of decking accidents.
Paragraph (e)(2)(i) would require that, where structural design and
constructibility allow, framed deck openings have structural members
turned down to allow continuous deck installation. Requiring framed
deck openings to be turned down allows continuous decking to be
performed without having to cut the deck around the opening. This
procedure generally applies to small openings rather than larger
openings, such as elevator or mechanical shaft openings; it may not be
appropriate to cut the decking around larger openings at a later time.
Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) would require that roof and floor openings be
covered during the decking process so that uncovered openings do not
create potential fall hazards. If the design of the structure does not
allow for covering of the roof and floor openings, they must be
protected in accordance with proposed Sec. 1926.760(a)(2). Openings for
elevator shafts and stairs are typically too large to cover and would
usually be protected with a guardrail. To decrease even further the
possibility of an employee falling through a deck opening, proposed
paragraph (e)(2)(iii) would require that decking holes and openings not
be cut until necessary for the construction process. Once cut, however,
openings would have to be protected immediately in accordance with
Sec. 1926.760(d), which sets forth the criteria for covering roof and
floor openings, or they would have to be otherwise permanently filled
(i.e., filled with the equipment or structure intended for the opening,
at which time the opening would no longer be a fall hazard).
Paragraph (e)(3) would require that wire mesh, exterior plywood, or
the equivalent, be installed around columns where planks or decking do
not fit tightly. Gauge metal, typically cut out to the profile of the
column, is commonly used for this purpose and would be considered an
equivalent material. This provision is identical to existing
Sec. 1926.752(h), except that the proposed provision adds ``or
decking'' to make clear that the requirement to cover open areas around
columns applies during decking operations both to prevent falls and to
prevent items from falling through these openings to lower levels.
Paragraph (e)(4) would require that decking be laid tightly and
secured to prevent accidental movement or displacement. This is
essentially the same as existing Sec. 1926.752(f) of OSHA's steel
erection standard. The analysis of the fatality/catastrophe reports of
data in OSHA's IMIS system (Exs. 9-14A, 9-42 and 9-49) established that
stepping onto or working on unsecured decking is a factor in decking
accidents.
Paragraph (e)(5)(i) would require that a derrick floor be fully
decked and/or planked and the steel member connections be completed so
as to support the intended floor loading. Paragraph (e)(5)(ii) would
require that temporary loads on a derrick floor be distributed over the
underlying support members to prevent local (spot) overloading of the
deck material. These provisions contain essentially the same
requirements as those in existing Sec. 1926.750(b)(1)(i). OSHA is
clarifying and updating the existing requirement, but the basic concept
of the provision would be unchanged. This provision would apply mainly
to multi-story structures and is intended to ensure that the derrick or
erection floor has been installed with all required bolts and that
final decking has been completed before the floor is loaded and the
sequence of constructing subsequent levels begins. This level, which
then becomes the working level for the erection of floors above, may
need to support a derrick and the steel members required for the
erection of those levels. Such temporary loads would have to be
distributed evenly over the derrick floor to ensure stability.
Section 1926.755 Anchor Bolts
This section addresses the hazards associated with column stability
and, specifically, the proper use of anchor bolts to ensure column
stability. The Committee concluded that inadequate anchor bolt
installation could be a factor in causing structure collapses. One
participant, a connector by trade, addressed the Committee and asserted
that collapses due to poor footings and anchor bolts are currently the
primary cause of connector accidents (Ex. 6-3, p. 4). The Committee was
in general agreement; OSHA solicits comments and additional information
on the relative importance of these and other causes of structural
collapse and the extent to which they result in falls during steel
erection activities.
This section sets out parameters for properly installing and, when
necessary, modifying anchor bolts. Paragraph (a) proposes general
requirements for ensuring erection stability. Paragraph (a)(1) would
require that all columns be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts.
Additionally, as discussed below, this paragraph would require that
column anchor bolt assemblies, including the welding of the column to
the base plate, be designed to resist a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric
load located 18 inches (.46 m) from the column face in each direction
at the top of the column shaft. The Committee listened to some
presenters who were of the opinion that there may be some types of
columns that may require only two anchor bolts. Also, it was contended
by some participants that space limitations or structural
considerations may limit the size of the base plate or the bearing
surface (particularly on a masonry wall) so that it is not wide enough
to allow the placement of four anchor bolts. The Committee recommended,
however, that OSHA propose to require a minimum of four anchor bolts
for all columns, for the reasons discussed above. In some instances,
installing two anchor bolts at the column base might create a stable
structure, but this would not be the case until after all of the
horizontal beams have been installed and the frame has been completed.
Until the frame has been completed, using two bolts could cause a hinge
effect that could tip the column. Requiring all column anchorages to
have four bolts eliminates the possibility of creating this hinge
effect.
Additionally, since a connector with a tool belt must climb the
column, which creates an eccentric load on the column, proper anchor
bolt installation is doubly necessary. Anchor bolt assemblies would
have to be designed to resist a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric load
located 18 inches (.46 cm) from the column face to prevent the column
from toppling over with a worker on it. Based on a SENRAC workgroup
determination, 300 pounds (136.2 kg) represents the maximum weight of
an ironworker with a tool belt. Eighteen (18) inches (.46 cm) off the
face of the column is the center of gravity for an ironworker climbing
a column.
Paragraph (a)(2) addresses the setting of columns and would require
that columns be set on level finished floors, pre-grouted leveling
plates, leveling nuts, or shim packs which are adequate to transfer the
construction loads. This proposed requirement is intended to ensure
that the column sits on a level surface. Placing a column on a surface
that is not level could allow the column to pivot and pull out the
anchor bolts, creating a collapse hazard.
Paragraph (a)(3) would require that unstable columns be evaluated
by a competent person and be guyed or braced where deemed necessary. If
it is determined, for example, that the
[[Page 43470]]
anchor bolts could potentially be pulled out under field conditions,
the competent person can elect to guy or brace the column.
Paragraph (b) Repair, replacement or field modification. This
paragraph addresses the situation where the steel erector may be
working after another contractor who has repaired, replaced or modified
an anchor bolt. The steel erector often cannot visually tell when an
anchor bolt has been repaired and thus will not be aware of the repair
unless notified that a repair has been made. If an anchor bolt has been
improperly repaired, replaced or modified, it could lead to a collapse.
The intent of this proposed paragraph is to ensure that the erector has
the opportunity to make sure that any work on anchor bolts has been
adequately performed.
Paragraph (b)(1) would prohibit the repair, replacement or field
modification of anchor bolts without the approval of the project
structural engineer of record. This would ensure that any change to the
original anchor bolt is performed in a manner consistent with original
specifications.
Paragraph (b)(2) would require that any such approval by the
project structural engineer of record also indicate any requirements
for special column guying or bracing as a result of the repair,
replacement or modification. If the project structural engineer of
record has approved the repair, replacement, or field modification,
guying or bracing may be required as a precaution.
Paragraph (b)(3) would require that, prior to the erection of a
column, the controlling contractor provide written notification to the
steel erector if there has been any repair, replacement or modification
of the anchor bolts for that column. This proposed requirement, working
in conjunction with proposed Sec. 1926.752(a)(2), completes the
communication loop. Generally, the steel erector does not have contact
with the project structural engineer of record and would rely on the
controlling contractor to convey any notification from the project
structural engineer of record. This form of communication between the
controlling contractor and steel erector is already a common jobsite
practice.
Section 1926.756 Beams and Columns
This section sets forth proposed requirements for connections of
beams and columns to ensure stability of the steel structure during the
erection process. Recognizing that inappropriate or inadequate
connections of beams and columns is inherently hazardous and can lead
to collapse and worker fatalities, the Committee recommended, and OSHA
proposes, a combination of performance and specification requirements
to address these hazards.
Paragraph (a) General. This paragraph would require that, during
the final placing of solid web structural members, the load not be
released from the hoisting line until the members are secured with at
least two bolts per connection, drawn up wrench-tight, or the
equivalent as specified by the project structural engineer of record.
This is identical to existing Sec. 1926.751(a) of OSHA's steel erection
standard, except that ``or the equivalent as specified by the project
structural engineer of record'' has been added to allow for alternative
types of connections such as welding, or, in the case of heavy members,
allowance for more than two bolts.
Paragraph (b) Diagonal bracing. Paragraph (b) would allow solid web
structural members used as diagonal bracing to be secured by a single
bolt per connection, drawn up wrench-tight or the equivalent as
specified by the project structural engineer of record. In many cases,
solid web structural members such as channels or beams are used as
diagonal bracing or wind bracing. These members technically fall under
paragraph (a) above; however, since they are used in a different
application, i.e., as bracing to be welded at a later time, a one-bolt
connection is sufficient. These members play a different role in
erection stability since they are designed to provide stability for the
final completed structure and are not used as walking/working surfaces.
Compliance with this provision would provide safe connections for these
members.
Paragraph (c) Double connections at columns and/or at beam webs
over a column. ``Double connections'' are an essential method for
connecting structural steel members in some design concepts. However,
these connections can pose significant hazards while erecting
structural steel. When a double connection at a column is not properly
executed, the resulting failure can lead to the immediate collapse of
the entire structure, endangering the connector and every other worker
on or around the structure. At one of the SENRAC meetings, several
types of double connections were demonstrated with the use of scale
model structural web members, together with a discussion of why they
are hazardous and how they can be made safely. Proposed paragraph (c)
would require that, when two structural members on opposite sides of a
column web, or a beam web over a column, share common connection holes,
at least one bolt with its wrench-tight nut must remain connected to
the first member unless a shop-attached or field-bolted seat or similar
connection device is present to secure the second member and prevent
the column from being displaced. When seats are provided, the
connection between the seat and the structural member that it supports
must be bolted together before the nuts are removed for the double
connection.
A double connection, by definition, is one where more than two
pieces of steel are bolted together using the same (common) bolts. This
can occur where two beams are bolted to opposite sides of a column web
or to the opposite sides of a beam or girder. OSHA's current steel
erection standard does not address this practice. When utilizing a
double connection in field erection procedures, a beam is first bolted
to another beam or column. Later in the erection sequence, another beam
or other member is added to the opposite side of the existing
connection, using the same holes and the same bolts to ``make up'' the
third piece in the connection. This is the situation where the practice
of double connections becomes a safety concern: the nuts must be
removed from the initially placed connection bolts and these bolts are
then backed out to the point where they barely grip the first two
pieces of steel, so that the third piece can be lined up with the
existing holes. Then the same bolts are pushed back through all the
holes and the nuts are tightened on the bolts to secure the three
pieces of steel together. This maneuver is extremely dangerous for the
connector because of the tenuous grip of the loosened bolts and the
possibility that the connector's spud wrench, which is used to align
the incoming piece, may slip. If at any time during the process, the
carrying member (i.e., the central member to which the other two
members are being attached) reacts to residual stresses developed
through welding and/or misaligned connections at lower elevations, the
carrying member can move suddenly, causing the bolts or the spud wrench
to become dislodged. The incoming third member can also cause problems
if it bumps up against the fitting or wrench end. Additionally, crane
operators, wind, building movements and the connector straining to make
a tough connection impose stresses that can lead to disengagement of
the connection.
Several methods for performing double connections safely were
discussed by the Committee. For example, a seat lug could be inserted
on one side of a column, below the
[[Page 43471]]
connection point. When the first beam is placed, two bolts could be
inserted downward into the seat lug. This would leave the other side of
the column web clear so that the new beam could be positioned without
disconnecting the beam on which the connector sits. In another method,
an extra set of holes on one side of the connection could be added to
secure the first beam installed. This would require that the connection
plate on the end of the first beam be enlarged so that two additional
holes could be placed just below the double connection point. Bolts
could be placed in these two holes to secure the beam to the column.
Even though these two bolts would go through the web of the column,
they would be located below the area where the second beam would be
aligned. This again would not require the connector to disconnect the
first beam to allow for the second beam to be positioned. This is the
configuration used for a double connection situation in Canada, called
the ``clipped end plate connection'' (Ex. 9-27).
As mentioned earlier, double connections are essential in steel
erection and cannot be eliminated; they can, however, be performed
safely. The proposed requirements address hazards that exist whenever
there are double connections which present a danger of structural
collapse. It should be noted that double connections of filler beams in
the webs of girders are not considered to be an unsafe situation and
are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (c). This is because
once the bay is ``boxed,'' all filler beams are trapped between the
girders. The connector sits on the girder while making the double
connection and has no exposure to collapse of the individual members.
In these cases there is no reason to require bolts to remain in the
connection or seats or other devices to restrain the first member while
the second is being erected. The seat or similar device requirement of
this paragraph is also addressed in the corresponding requirement in
the latest American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A10.13-1989,
Steel Erection-Safety Requirements standard (Ex. 9-35), which provides
that ``when double connections are involved, the structural detailer
and fabricator shall be consulted concerning the provisions for a seat
lug or flange length extension on one of the beams, and a corresponding
bolt hole in the web of the column floor or beam.'' The ANSI
requirement does not, however, explicitly require a seat or similar
device as proposed paragraph (c) would.
Paragraph (d) Column splices. This paragraph would require that
each column splice be designed to resist a 300 pound (136.2 kg)
eccentric load located 18 inches (.46 m) from the column face in each
direction at the top of the column shaft. This is similar to the
proposed strength requirement for anchor bolts in Sec. 1926.755(a)(1).
In the same manner as anchor bolts, a column splice must be designed to
allow for a worker to climb the column to perform work. These splices
are joints that are temporarily fastened until the final welding or
bolting is performed, and they must be sufficient to support the worker
without folding over.
Paragraph (e) Perimeter columns. This paragraph would require that
perimeter columns extend a minimum of 48 inches (1.2 m) above the
finished floor to permit installation of perimeter cables, prior to
erection of the next tier except where structural design and
constructibility do not allow.
Paragraph (f) Perimeter safety cables. Paragraph (f)(1) would
require that perimeter safety cables be installed during the structural
steel assembly of multi-story structures. Paragraph (f)(2) would
require that the perimeter safety cables consist of \1/2\-inch wire
rope or equivalent and be installed at 42-45 inches above the finished
floor and at the midpoint between the finished floor and the top cable.
Paragraph (f)(3) would require that where structural design and
constructibility allow, holes or other devices be provided by the
fabricator/supplier in, or attached to, perimeter columns at a height
of 42 to 45 inches above the finished floor and at the midpoint between
the finished floor and the top cable to permit installation of
perimeter cables.
Proposed paragraphs (e) and (f) update and clarify the existing
requirement in Sec. 1926.750(b)(1)(iii) of OSHA's steel erection
standard. They clarify that the columns need to extend far enough above
the floor decking to facilitate the installation of perimeter cable.
The perimeter cable must be installed at a height of 42 to 45 inches
above the finished floor and at the midpoint between that cable and the
finished floor level. These safety cables provide fall protection at
the perimeter of the structure and are to be installed as soon as the
deck has been installed to provide protection to subsequent detail
crews. These perimeter safety cables are not intended to be used as
lifelines or as attachment points for fall protection systems but
rather as a guardrail system. The holes or other devices necessary to
accommodate the safety cables would have to be provided by the
fabricator of the columns prior to installation to enable the cables to
be installed readily in the field after the columns have been erected.
The AISC raised concerns regarding the impact of paragraph (f) on steel
fabricators. The AISC is concerned that this provision will create
liability for the fabricator, confuse existing contractual
relationships, and create new feasibility and materials handling
problems (Ex. 9-151). However, both SENRAC and OSHA believe that the
enhanced safety afforded by this provision is necessary and the Agency
seeks comment on this issue.
The proposed requirements in paragraph (e) and (f) do allow for
cases where the design of a structure would not allow either for the
columns to extend 48 inches (1.2 m) above the finished floor or for the
holes or other devices to be provided by the fabricator. Proposed
Appendix F provides a guideline to assist employers in complying with
these paragraphs.
Section 1926.757 Open Web Steel Joists
Some of the most serious risks facing the ironworker are
encountered during the erection of open web steel joists. A limited
analysis of ironworker fatalities from January 1984 to December 1990,
discussed in Section IV--Hazards in Steel Erection, indicated that, of
the approximately 40 fatalities caused by collapse, more than half were
related to the erection of steel joists (Ex. 9-14A). Although the
existing OSHA steel erection standard addresses these hazards in a
limited manner, this proposed section utilizes a combination of
specification and performance requirements that will provide more
comprehensive protection to workers engaged in these activities. SENRAC
developed these proposed requirements in cooperation with the Steel
Joist Institute (SJI) and many of its member companies.
Paragraph (a) General. Paragraph (a) addresses the erection of
steel joists in general. Paragraph (a)(1) would provide that where
steel joists or steel joist girders are utilized and columns are not
framed in at least two directions with solid web structural steel
members, the steel joist or steel joist girder must be field-bolted at
or near columns to provide lateral stability to the column during
erection. This proposed paragraph refines the existing steel erection
standard provision, Sec. 1926.751(c)(1), which is otherwise identical
to the proposed requirement, by adding the words ``solid web'' before
``structural steel members'' and expanding ``bar joist'' to ``steel
joists or steel joist girders.'' These additions are necessary
clarification in light of technological advances in the industry.
[[Page 43472]]
Specifically, the existing language was developed at a time when the
only structural steel involved in steel framing was solid web members.
In the mid 1970's, the steel joist industry developed the steel joist
girder to be used as a primary member in steel framing to support steel
joists. Bolting these connections is considered preferable to other
methods of connection because bolting provides the greatest safety
while requiring the least amount of time and equipment.
Several other provisions in this proposed paragraph refer to
special requirements for connections at the column. Paragraph (a)(2)
would require that steel joists at or near the column that span 60 feet
or less be designed with sufficient lateral stiffness that, when bolted
at both ends, and with the bottom chord restrained at each end with the
required column stabilizer plate (required by paragraph (a)(4) of this
section), the joist does not need erection bridging to prevent it from
rotating when an employee goes out onto it to release the hoisting
cable. The existing rule prohibits placing any load on joists until
erection bridging has been installed. However, since the joist at the
column is the first joist in place, there is no place to attach
erection bridging and, consequently, the joist itself must possess
sufficient lateral stiffness to allow the erection process to progress
safely.
The next provision, paragraph (a)(3), addresses a longer steel
joist at the same position. The Committee preliminarily determined, and
OSHA is proposing, that steel joists that span more than 60 feet
located at columns must be set in tandem, i.e., two steel joists must
be attached together, usually with bolted diagonal erection bridging,
to ensure stability. These joists are commonly used in larger open
structures such as warehouses, gymnasiums and arenas. This proposed
provision would allow the use of alternate means of erection of such
long span steel joists, provided that the alternative is designed by a
qualified person to ensure equivalent stability and is included in the
site-specific erection plan.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) also refer to connections at
the column. Paragraph (a)(4) is a specification for the column that
would require a stabilizer plate to extend at least 3 inches (76 mm)
below the bottom chord of the steel joist or steel joist girder. The
plate would be required to have a \13/16\ inch (21 mm) hole placed in
it to provide an attachment point for guying or plumbing cables.
Paragraph (a)(5) works in conjunction with paragraph (a)(4) and would
require that the bottom chords of both the primary steel joist girders
and the secondary steel joists at columns be stabilized to prevent
rotation.
The foregoing provisions will result in a more stable primary
structure upon which to erect steel joists. In addition, a stabilizer
plate provides a ready attachment point for more efficient guying. The
sequence of guying is essential to safety. These proposed requirements
allow the erector more easily to guy the structure to prevent collapse
as the steel is set in place. Moreover, compliance with these
provisions should help to satisfy the stability requirements of
paragraph (a)(6). Paragraph (a)(6) would prohibit the placement of
steel joists on any support structure unless it has been stabilized.
Again, this is essentially identical to the existing requirement found
in Sec. 1926.751(c)(3) of OSHA's steel erection standard.
Proposed paragraph (a)(7) addresses the hazard that arises when a
steel joist or joists are placed on the structure and then left
unattended and unattached. An example of a situation addressed by this
paragraph involves lighter steel joists, under 40 feet in length, that
would not require erection bridging under this section. A common
practice in erecting these lighter joists, which can be set in place by
hand, is to have a crane set the columns, steel joist girders, or solid
web primary members as well as the boltable joists required by OSHA at
the columns, thus boxing the bays. The crane would then place a bundle
of filler joists at an end or, more likely, at the center of the bay,
and then move on to the next bay. Because cranes are among the more
costly pieces of equipment on a steel erection job, minimizing crane
time at the site is cost effective. This provision would require that,
when steel joists are landed on structures, they be secured to prevent
unintentional displacement prior to installation, i.e., the bundles
must remain intact until the time comes for them to be set. This
proposed paragraph would also prevent those ironworkers who are shaking
out the filler joists from getting too far ahead of those workers
welding the joists, a practice that leaves too many joists placed but
unattached (paragraph (b)(3) of this proposed section, discussed below,
requires that at least one end of each steel joist be attached
immediately upon placement in its final erection position and before
additional joists are placed). A final example of a situation addressed
by this paragraph would be when the exact dimensions of a piece of
mechanical equipment to be installed in the decking is not known. A
common practice, when this occurs, is to leave a joist unattached until
the dimension is known. This paragraph requires such a joist to be
secured (probably to the support structure or an attached joist)
pending its attachment.
The Committee spent considerable time debating the appropriateness
of requiring that certain joists be fabricated with bolt holes at the
ends to allow for field bolting to the structure. As recommended by
SENRAC, OSHA is proposing paragraph (a)(8), which would require that,
when individual steel joists are being connected to steel structures in
bays of 40 feet or more, these joists be fabricated to allow for field
bolting.
This provision is necessary because certain joists that are thin
and flexible can be difficult to install because of their sweep.
Bolting these types of joists first allows straightening of the joist,
thus returning its camber and eliminating torque. Additionally, after
bolting, welding can be more easily accomplished. Note that this
provision would not require these joists to be bolted as paragraph
(a)(1) would require of the joist at the column. (Attachment
requirements and the exceptions to this paragraph are discussed in
connection with paragraph (b) below.) Instead, proposed paragraph
(a)(8) would require that the joists arrive at the jobsite with holes
pre-existing, thereby providing steel erectors with the option either
of bolting or welding the joists. In practice, not requiring the joists
to be fabricated in this manner would require the steel erector to
drill holes in the joists in those cases where bolting is preferable.
Just as the joist at the column is a special risk situation, long steel
joists that are placed in bays of 40 feet or more have a greater
tendency to twist or rotate, which creates hazards for the workers
installing them.
SENRAC discussed a number of hazardous situations for which bolting
joists is a safer method of attachment than welding. For example,
SENRAC noted that bolting is safer whenever unattached joists could be
displaced by wind or construction activity, by the movement of
employees, by trailing welding leads, by accidental impact against the
supporting structure by a crane or other equipment, or by harmonic
motion or vibration. In addition, the vision and balance of an employee
working at elevation can be impaired while wearing a welding hood,
which may make bolting a safer approach in this situation. Further,
joists can roll and pop welds due to the movement of an erector on the
joist or the stresses caused by removing the sweep; if the weld breaks,
the joist fails and may cause a structural collapse. Finally, there are
special hazards
[[Page 43473]]
associated with welding that are not associated with bolting, such as
electrical and fire hazards.
Both bolting and welding provide connections of equivalent
strength, and both involve some risk. The Steel Joist Institute (SJI)
asserted that welding joist ends is its recommended manner of
attachment and that welding eliminates the weakening that holes in the
supporting member can cause. After reviewing all relevant options, the
Committee concluded that steel erectors should have the option of
attaching joists either by bolting or welding. When conditions for
welding are adverse, however, proposed paragraph (a)(8) would allow the
steel erector to bolt the joists, thus avoiding many of the hazards
mentioned above.
As noted, questions were raised about this proposed requirement.
SJI and others questioned whether it is possible to bolt a joist to a
masonry or similar support structure. However, the proposal clearly
states that the provision allowing bolting would apply only when the
joist is to be attached to a steel support structure, usually a solid
web beam or a steel joist girder. Additional concerns were raised about
the cost and feasibility of putting holes in the steel joists and
support members (see Ex. 6-8, p. 7), but SENRAC believes that the
safety and other advantages of permitting bolting are clearly more
important than the disadvantages of this technique.
The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) pointed out
that, to put the holes in the supporting beams, the fabricator of the
beams must know the exact location the joist will occupy before the
member can be designed and fabricated. This information is frequently
not available at the time the supporting beams are being fabricated,
however, because of the relationship between the joist spacing and the
availability of the building's mechanical equipment design. If the
design information is not available to the fabricator, this could delay
the fabrication of the steel and, possibly, the project.
On the other hand, the Committee believes that requiring holes for
bolting to be in place will promote better pre-erection planning and
communication between all parties to the design and erection process,
and may even lead to standardization of HVAC specifications, thus
promoting better and safer construction sequencing. As the chairman of
the SENRAC steel joist workgroup stated:
Prior to sizing a structural member for supporting mechanical
equipment, the structural engineer of record or design engineer must
know the exact operating weight and physical footprint of the unit
that will be imposed onto the structure. This type of information is
critical in the sizing of the foundations, primary and secondary
structural members (Ex. 9-142).
SENRAC was convinced that, under the present system of fast-track
construction, the owner, the construction manager and the general
contractors are not giving sufficient attention to the selection of
mechanical equipment to be installed, despite the fact that this
information is available prior to construction (the lead time required
for mechanical equipment is ten times greater than the time required to
design and fabricate the steel for the structure) (Ex. 9-142).
Therefore, the weight and size of the mechanical equipment is known
long before fabrication or erection. In addition, standardizing the
requirement for bolting the structure will help the industry adopt a
standard ``curb'' sized to fit the structure, as well as promote better
information exchange and forward planning. Currently the lack of
importance assigned to the transmission of this critical information
down the line is causing portions of the structure to be constructed
out of sequence, increasing the fall hazard and risk of collapse.
Another issue was raised by workgroup members concerning the
situation where joists and supporting structural members arrive at the
jobsite with the holes that allow field bolting in place, but the steel
erector elects to weld instead of bolt them. These workgroup members
were concerned that this situation would mean that the project
structural engineer of record (SER) must make a determination to fill
such holes with bolts. Conversely, when the joists have been bolted,
the workgroup wondered whether the SER would still require the joists
to be welded to the support structure. An additional concern raised is
the structural impact the holes may have on the supporting steel
member, i.e., the solid web beam or the steel joist girder. In the case
of beams, the issue is whether, because of the holes, the size of the
steel member would have to be increased. In the case of steel joist
girders, the issue is whether re-engineering would be required, perhaps
even to the point of welding an additional steel plate on the top chord
to accommodate the bolting of the joists. OSHA raises all of these
issues and solicits comment on them. As mentioned above, the Committee
determined that the benefits of providing the option of bolting
remained compelling and recommended that OSHA propose paragraph (a)(8).
Paragraph (a)(9) addresses the hazard posed by bridging joists
before an adequate terminus point has been established. Bridging is not
truly bridging until a terminus point is created. ``Bridging,'' an
operation integral to steel joist construction, refers to the steel
elements that are attached between the joists (from joist to joist) to
provide stability. ``Erection bridging'' is defined as ``* * * the
bolted diagonal bridging that is required to be installed prior to
releasing the hoisting cables from the steel joists.'' ``Horizontal
bridging,'' usually angle iron, is attached to the top and bottom
chords of the steel joists by welding. There are several provisions in
this section that would require bridging to be anchored. This means, by
definition, that the steel joist bridging must be connected to a
bridging terminus point. The term, ``bridging terminus point,'' is also
defined in the proposed rule:
Bridging terminus point means a wall, beam, tandem joists (with
all bridging installed and a horizontal truss in the plane of the
top chord) or other element at an end or intermediate point(s) of a
line of bridging that provides an anchor point for the steel joist
bridging.
Paragraph (a)(9) would simply require that a terminus point be
established prior to installing the bridging in order to allow the
bridging to be anchored. OSHA is aware that steel erection is a
progressive process that requires one piece to be erected before the
subsequent piece can be attached to it. This provision would require
pre-planning to determine the particular location of the terminus point
for the attachment of bridging. To assist in developing terminus
points, SJI has developed several illustrative drawings that are found
in non-mandatory Appendix C. In addition, paragraph (c)(3) of this
section, discussed further below, deals with the problem of an erection
sequence where the permanent bridging terminus points are not yet in
existence at the time the joists and bridging are erected.
Paragraph (a)(10) would prohibit the use of steel joists and steel
joist girders as anchorage points for a fall arrest system unless
written direction allowing such use is obtained from a qualified
person. Allowing those joists and girders that have specifically been
approved for use as fall arrest system anchorage points by a qualified
person recognizes both that performance criteria and manufacturer's
specifications are not currently available regarding the adequacy of
steel joists to meet the requirements of proposed
[[Page 43474]]
Sec. 1926.760(a)(2) but that some steel joists and steel joist girders
are adequate to meet these load requirements. This paragraph would
allow steel joists and steel joist girders to be used as anchorage
points for personal fall arrest systems in those situations where a
qualified person has stated, in writing, that such use is appropriate.
Paragraph (a)(11) addresses the potential for failure that can
occur when a steel joist is modified from its original manufactured
state. The Committee and SJI agreed that field modifications have had
disastrous consequences in the past. To ensure against recurrences of
this type, OSHA proposes to prohibit such modification without the
prior approval of the project structural engineer of record.
Paragraph (b) Attachments of steel joists and steel joist girders.
SJI greatly assisted the Committee in the development of this proposal
by creating Tables A and B, which relate the attachment and bridging
requirements of paragraphs (b) and (d) to the actual performance of
particular joists. SJI arranged for Dr. Theodore Galambos, Professor of
Civil Engineering at the University of Minnesota, to:
* * * Mathematically develop a table of theoretical safe and
stable lengths for all K Series Joists. The stable joist length was
defined as the maximum span at which a laterally unsupported steel
joist will safely support a 300 pound load placed on the top chord
at the mid span of the joist (Ex. 9-19, p. 6).
Dr. Galambos developed joist stability spans using the following
criteria: (1) the joists, which had top angles placed back to back with
no space between the down standing legs of the chord angles, were free
to rotate, i.e., were not attached; (2) the width of the bearing shoes
of the joist was not made part of the equation; (3) there was no
external lateral support; and (4) a 300-pound load was placed on the
top chord of the joist at mid-span. A 300-pound load was chosen as
representative of the weight of an average ironworker and his
equipment, including a safety factor. Following a review of these
results, SJI, through its members, field tested a representative
sampling of the joists to verify the study. The joists were field
tested by placing each joist on supports spaced to obtain the correct
joist span plus 2\1/2\ inches of bearing length on the support member.
The test load was applied in 25 pound increments by placing individual
25 pound steel plates on top of the top chord at mid-span of the joist.
The load was applied until a total static load of 300 pounds was
obtained. The results closely paralleled those predicted by Dr.
Galambos' mathematical model. In addition, the field testing added
another criterion: that one end of the joist would be attached, which
increased the stability and helped SJI with its attachment
recommendations (Ex. 9-19).
Based on the results of this stability study, SJI developed two
tables that were adopted in part by the Committee. Table A, Erection
Bridging for Short Span Joists, includes the lighter, K-Series joists,
which run up to 60 feet in length. The K-Series open web steel joists,
having joist depths from 8 inches through 30 inches, are primarily used
to provide structural support for floors and roofs of buildings.
Although light in weight, they possess a high strength to weight ratio
(Ex. 9-141). Although Table A contains all the joists in the K-Series,
Table B contains only those joists in the LH-Series that are 60 feet or
less, even though the series spans through 96 feet. These joists are
used for the direct support of floor or roof slabs or decks between
walls, beams, and main structural members, and their depths range from
18 inches to 48 inches. Although the tables do not address the ``Deep
Longspan,'' or DLH-Series, other paragraphs in this section provide
specific requirements for attaching these joists. The DLH-Series joists
can run up to 144 feet and have depths from 52 inches through 72 inches
(Ex. 9-19). SJI limited the tables to 60 feet for two reasons: 1) the
K-Series only goes to 60 feet, and 2) over 60 feet, the LH-Series are
manufactured for the use of diagonal, bolted bridging only. Horizontal
bridging, according to SJI specifications, can be used only with joists
of 60 feet or less.
The attachment of all three series of joists is addressed in
paragraph (b) of this section. The hazard addressed in that paragraph
is the inadequate attachment of joists that could affect the stability
of the joist and thus the safety of the employee erecting the joist.
Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) would specify the minimum attachment
specifications for the lighter and the heavier joists, respectively. At
a minimum, the K-Series would have to be attached with either two \1/
8\'' (3 mm) fillet welds 1 inch (25 mm) long, or with two \1/2\'' (13
mm) bolts. In addition, the Committee built in alternative performance
language by adding the phrase ``or the equivalent'' to allow for
attachment by any other means that provides at least equivalent
connection strength. Similarly, at a minimum, the LH-Series and DLH-
Series would have to be attached with either two \1/4\'' (6 mm) fillet
welds 2 inches (51 mm) long, or with two \3/4\'' (19 mm) bolts. Again,
OSHA is proposing alternative performance language, ``or the
equivalent,'' for the reasons discussed above (Ex. 9-56).
Paragraph (b)(3) addresses the hazards associated with the
following improper erection sequence: landing joists on the support
structure; spreading them out unattached to their final position; and
then attaching them. This procedure creates the potential for worker
injury because joists handled in this manner may fall or the structure
may collapse. To eliminate these hazards, this paragraph would require,
with one exception discussed in paragraph (b)(4) below, that each steel
joist be attached, at least at one end, immediately upon placement in
its final erection position, before any additional joists are placed.
Paragraph (b)(4) is an exception to both the proposed (b)(3)
``attachment upon final placement'' requirement, and the proposed
paragraph (a)(8) ``all joists over 40 feet must be boltable''
requirement. Paragraph (b)(4) addresses the situation where steel
joists have been pre-assembled into panels prior to placement on the
support structure. Pre-assembly usually involves the installation of
diagonal and horizontal bridging to form a platform at ground level,
which eliminates fall hazards associated with attaching bridging at
elevated work stations. Placing joists on the support structure in this
manner eliminates the single joist instability concerns and other
hazards that led the Committee to recommend, and OSHA to propose,
paragraph (a)(8) (see discussion above). Furthermore, because of the
inherent stability of these pre-assembled panels, this paragraph would
require only that the four corners of the panel be attached to the
support structure before releasing the hoisting cables. The attachment
can be either bolted or welded.
Additionally, the pre-assembled panel exception to paragraph (a)(8)
allows for alternative joist erection methods such as a hybrid form of
steel erection involving steel/wood-panelized roof structures, where
wooden decking (dimensional wood and plywood) is attached to a single
steel joist and the resulting panels are set on the support structure
(Exs. 9-94, 9-95). Again, by placing joists on the support structure in
this manner, the instability concerns and other hazards associated with
attaching single joists, which led OSHA to propose paragraph (a)(8),
are avoided (see discussion above).
Paragraph (c) Erection of steel joists. Paragraph (c)(1) would
require that at least one end of each steel joist be attached to the
support structure before
[[Page 43475]]
the weight of an employee is placed on the steel joist.
Paragraph (c)(2) addresses steel joists that span 40 feet (12.2 m)
or less and that do not require erection bridging as required by Tables
A and B. OSHA's existing steel erection requirements,
Sec. 1926.751(c)(2) and (c)(3), regarding steel joists and bridging,
only address members 40 feet or longer:
(c)(2) Where longspan joists or trusses 40 feet or longer, are
used, a center row of bolted bridging shall be installed to provide
lateral stability during construction prior to slacking of hoisting
line.
(c)(3) No load shall be placed on open web steel joists until
these security requirements are met.
In the last 25 years, many new and different open web steel joists
have been manufactured. In developing Tables A and B, SJI demonstrated
that there are dozens of joists that span less than 40 feet that
require erection bridging to maintain stability during erection. As to
joists that do not require erection bridging in accordance with these
tables, OSHA is proposing in paragraph (c)(2) that only one employee be
allowed on the joist until all permanent (horizontal) bridging is
installed and anchored.
Based on the Committee's recognition of the inherent danger of
employees working on unstable joists, OSHA is proposing in paragraph
(c)(3) that no employee be allowed on steel joists other than those
addressed in paragraph (c)(2) unless the requirements of paragraph (d)
of this section are met.
Proposed paragraph (c)(4) addresses the situation where the
erection sequence calls for joists to be erected before the permanent
bridging terminus points have been established. This situation commonly
occurs in a single story structure that has masonry or architectural
precast walls installed after the steel is partially or fully erected.
Complying with proposed paragraph (c)(4) would involve pre-planning and
the addition of temporary bridging terminus points to provide stability
and prevent structure collapse in this situation.
Paragraph (d) Erection bridging. Paragraph (d) sets forth proposed
erection bridging requirements for the safe erection of steel joists.
Paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3) address steel joists that span 60
feet or less, over 60 feet through 100 feet and over 100 feet through
144 feet, respectively. Although, at first glance, these provisions
appear similar, they reflect substantive differences that are based on
engineering principles as well as the collective experience of SENRAC
members. Since all of the other provisions of paragraph (d) apply
across the board to all open web steel joists, breaking out these
different requirements will promote ease of compliance.
Paragraph (d)(1) refers to the joists that span less than 40 feet
when the tables indicate the need for erection bridging of such joists,
and to all joists in bays of 40 feet through 60 feet. Although the SJI
has determined that there are certain joists with spans from 40 through
60 feet that do not require erection bridging, the Committee determined
that a center row of bridging should nevertheless be required to ensure
stability. OSHA is accordingly proposing paragraph (d)(1). The Agency
believes, because this practice is already required by OSHA's current
steel erection standard, that it is already standard industry practice.
Second, the loads imposed in the SJI tests were static loads, but the
load imposed by an employee would be a dynamic load. Although SJI
asserted that an erector ``cooning'' the joist would have a stabilizing
effect on the joist, the Committee nonetheless concluded that, in bays
of 40 feet through 60 feet, the row of erection bridging nearest the
midspan of the steel joist should be bolted diagonal bridging
(paragraph (d)(1)(i)); further, the Committee believes that the
hoisting cables should not be released until after the installation of
this bridging (paragraph (d)(1)(ii)). Additionally, only one employee
would be allowed on these spans until all other bridging is installed
and anchored (paragraph (d)(1)(iii)). Anchored bridging means that the
steel joist bridging is connected to a bridging terminus point.
Horizontal bridging would have to be welded or attached to each joist
to be considered anchored. It is unnecessary to address anchoring for
bolted diagonal bridging because, by the very nature of its connection
in the erection sequence, the anchorage will have already been
accomplished. However, as mentioned above in the discussion of
paragraph (a)(9) of this section, a terminus point is required to be
established before any bridging is installed.
Paragraph (d)(2) addresses heavier joists that span over 60 through
100 feet. Here, two rows of erection bridging would be required to be
placed nearest the one-third points of the steel joists (paragraph
(d)(2)(i)). Again, the hoisting cables would not be released until all
the bolted diagonal erection bridging is installed (paragraph
(d)(2)(ii)). Since these are heavier members and since two rows of
bridging must be installed in the erection sequence, only two employees
would be allowed on these joists until all other bridging is installed
and anchored (paragraph (d)(2)(iii)).
Paragraph (d)(3) addresses even heavier joists that span over 100
through 144 feet. Here, all bridging is considered erection bridging
and must be bolted diagonal bridging (paragraph (d)(3)(i)). Although
all of the bridging addressed in paragraph (d)(2) above is bolted
diagonal bridging, only the two rows nearest the third points are
considered erection bridging. In the case of the largest open web steel
joists, with depths up to 72 inches, all the bridging would have to be
installed before the hoisting cables can be released (paragraph
(d)(3)(ii)). Again, the reason for requiring bolting is that, in
setting an individual steel joist, bolting is the safest and quickest
way of securing the joist with the least equipment. According to
proposed paragraph (d)(3)(iii), only two employees would be allowed on
the spans until all the bridging is installed. In this case, since all
the bridging is bolted diagonal bridging, using the term ``anchored''
would be superfluous because, as stated above, by the very nature of
its connection in the erection sequence, anchoring will already have
been accomplished. Additionally, a bolted diagonal bridging requirement
would not apply to the attachment of the diagonal bridging to other
than steel joists.
Proposed paragraph (d)(4) reflects the Committee's agreement that
open web steel members that span over 144 feet are not considered
joists but rather structural trusses. The erection methods for such
members are more appropriately treated in the section on solid web
structural members found in proposed Sec. 1926.756, Beams and Columns,
since they are larger, heavier members. Paragraph (d)(4) would limit
what would be considered steel joists since steel trusses are heavy
duty members, custom made and designed by a structural engineer, and
usually made of structural shapes. The definition for ``steel truss''
is as follows:
Steel truss means an open web member designed of structural
steel components by the project structural engineer of record. For
the purposes of this subpart it is considered equivalent to a solid
web structural member.
Although the term is not used in the body of this subpart, it is
referred to in the definition of steel joists. The Committee believes
that explaining what does not constitute a steel joist is important for
clarity and in order to determine which erection provisions apply.
Paragraph (d)(5) addresses the situation where a joist is bottom
chord bearing (i.e., attached to the primary
[[Page 43476]]
structure by the bottom chord of the joist) and would require erection
bridging; or is forty feet or less and would not require erection
bridging per Tables A and B. When a joist is top chord bearing, which
is the usual application, the center of gravity of the joist is below
the bearing surface of the support structure--a factor that helps to
keep the joist stable. In a bottom bearing situation, however, the
center of gravity is above the bearing surface of the support
structure--a factor that increases the tendency of the joist to roll
over. Under these circumstances, this paragraph would require an
additional row of bolted diagonal bridging near each support where the
bottom chord receives support. Typically this would require two rows of
bridging. It is not uncommon, however, for a one story building, such
as a convenience store that has a high glass front and a lower ceiling
in the rear, to have steel joists which are bottom bearing in the front
and top bearing in the back. Under this scenario, only one set of
bolted diagonal bridging would be required. Consistent with the other
requirements for erection bridging in this paragraph, this erection
bridging would have to be installed prior to the release of the
hoisting cables.
Paragraph (d)(6) proposes specifications and work practices for the
placement and attachment of bolted diagonal erection bridging required
by this proposed section. Paragraph (d)(6)(i) would require that this
bridging be indicated on the erection drawing. The Committee discussed
alternative indicators for the proper placement of the bridging and
concluded that the erection drawing should be the exclusive placement
indicator (Ex. 6-7, p. 11). Paragraph (d)(6)(ii) would require that the
erection drawing be the exclusive indicator of the proper placement of
this bridging.
Paragraph (d)(6)(iii) is intended to make the attachment of
erection bridging less difficult and safer to accomplish. This work is
performed at an elevated work station and frequently involves awkward
bending and reaching. This provision would require that shop-installed
bridging clips or their functional equivalents be provided with the
steel joists. In addition, the proposal defines a ``bridging clip'' as
a device that is attached to the steel joist to allow the bolting of
the bridging to the steel joist. Attachments that are the functional
equivalent of bridging clips would be allowed by this paragraph to
provide flexibility and to allow for technological innovation should a
different type of attachment be developed.
Paragraph (d)(6)(iv) addresses a hazard that is similar to that
encountered with a double connection, discussed earlier. It would
provide that where two pieces of bridging are attached to the steel
joist by a common bolt, the nut that secures the first piece of
bridging shall not be removed from the bolt for the attachment of the
second. This is a work practice that is similar to a ``clipped
connection'' (see definition section).
Paragraph (d)(6)(v) addresses a ``cooning'' problem rather than a
tripping hazard since cooning involves straddling the top chord while
walking on the bottom chord. Nonetheless, this provision works in
conjunction with proposed Sec. 1926.754(c)(1) and would require that
bridging attachments not protrude above the top chord of the steel
joist. This, of course, would apply both to bridging clips and their
functional equivalents.
Paragraph (e) Landing and placing loads. Paragraph (e) addresses
the hazards encountered in steel erection when landing and placing
loads. Although work practice provisions found in Sec. 1926.754(e)
regarding the hoisting, landing and placing of deck bundles in general
have already been discussed, this paragraph addresses these hazards
specifically with regard to landing and placing loads on steel joists.
SJI stressed that accidents occur ``when loads are placed on unsecured/
unbridged joists'' (Ex. 6-8, p. 8). In addition, in the decking
subgroup's analysis of the data workgroup's fatality and catastrophe
reports, approximately 16 percent of the floor and roof deck fatalities
were associated with collapses due to improper loading on steel joists
(Ex. 9-49, p. 4).
Proposed paragraph (e)(1) of this section would apply to any
employer who places a load on steel joists during steel erection. This
paragraph would require that the load is adequately distributed so that
the carrying capacity of any steel joist is not exceeded. The remainder
of proposed paragraph (e) sets forth specific conditions that the
employer must meet in addition to the general performance criteria in
paragraph (e)(1).
Paragraph (e)(2) proposes general requirements that would have to
be met before landing a construction load on steel joists, although an
exception is allowed in paragraph (e)(4) for bundles of decking.
Paragraph (e)(2) would prohibit placement of any construction loads on
steel joists until all bridging is installed and anchored and all joist
bearing ends are attached in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section (paragraph (b) contains attachment requirements for steel
joists). A ``construction load for joist erection'' means any load
other than the weight of the employee(s), the joists and the bridging
bundle. Bundles of decking constitute a construction load under this
definition. Under certain conditions, however, decking can be placed
safely on the steel joists before all the bridging is installed and
anchored. These conditions form the basis for the exceptions in
paragraph (e)(4), which is discussed below.
Although a bridging bundle is not considered a construction load,
it nevertheless must be landed and placed on the steel joists in a safe
manner that maintains stability. Proposed paragraph (e)(3) provides for
the safe and stable placement of bridging on steel joists. Usually,
this bridging will be 20 foot horizontal bridging because bolted
diagonal bridging is too short to extend over 3 joists. In developing
this proposed requirement, the Committee, following consultation with
SJI in workgroup meetings, decided to limit the weight of the bundle to
1,000 pounds because the bridging would be placed on the joists before
they have been fully stabilized. One thousand (1,000) pounds would
allow the joist erector to safely place the necessary bridging on the
joists. To facilitate compliance with this requirement, the SJI has
agreed to establish a new industry practice of bundling bridging into
1,000 pound units. Placement of the bundle is also important. This
paragraph would therefore require that the bundle of joist bridging be
placed over a minimum of 3 steel joists secured on at least one end.
Under these circumstances, the stability of the load would be further
enhanced if the load is placed near the support member. Therefore, this
provision would require that the edge of the bridging bundle be
positioned within 1 foot of the secured end. A clearance of at least
one foot is necessary for material handling purposes and to provide
access to the steel joist's attachment point. This last proposed
requirement is practically identical to the proposed requirement for
the placement of construction loads found in paragraph (e)(5) of this
section.
Paragraph (e)(4) proposes special conditions to be met before a
bundle of decking is placed on steel joists that do not yet have all
bridging installed. Decking bundles are the most common construction
loads imposed on steel joists. Although it is safe to place
construction loads on steel joists when all the bearing ends have been
attached and all the bridging is in place, there are certain commonly
encountered situations where all the bridging in the
[[Page 43477]]
bay and all the bearing ends of the steel joists in the bay do not have
to be fully installed and attached to land a bundle of decking safely.
There are six conditions that would have to be met before an exception
from paragraph (e)(2) is warranted.
Paragraph (e)(4)(i) would require the employer to determine, based
on information from a qualified person, that the structure or portion
of the structure is capable of safely supporting the load of decking.
This determination would have to be documented in a site-specific
erection plan available at the construction site (see proposed
Sec. 1926.753(d)).
Under paragraph (e)(4)(ii), the bundle of decking would have to be
placed over a minimum of 3 joists to distribute the load. Since most
decking comes in 20 foot lengths and the standard distance between
joists is 5 feet, typically the load will be supported by 4 joists.
Paragraph (e)(4)(iii) would require that those steel joists
actually supporting the bundle of decking have both ends attached to
the support structure (the attachments would have to be in accordance
with the requirements contained in paragraph (b) of this section).
At least one row of bridging would have to be attached and
anchored, according to proposed paragraph (e)(4)(iv). The qualified
person would determine the type of bridging, erection bridging or
horizontal bridging, to satisfy this proposed requirement. To assist
the qualified person in making this decision, paragraph (e)(4)(v) would
provide a load limit of 4000 pounds (1816 kg) for the total weight of
the bundle of decking. The Steel Deck Institute (SDI) has indicated
that, in the future, manufacturers will deliver decking in bundles that
will accommodate this load limit.
Finally, paragraph (e)(4)(vi) would require that the edge of the
bundle be placed within a foot (0.30 m) of the bearing surface of the
joist. This is the same requirement that applies to all loads in
proposed paragraph (e)(5) of this section. Collapses could occur if any
one of the six conditions in paragraph (e)(4) is not met. Therefore, to
qualify for an exception, this paragraph would require that a site-
specific erection plan be developed that indicates that these bundles
of 4000 pounds or less will be placed over 3 or more joists that have
been attached at both ends and have at least one completely installed
and anchored row of bridging. Additionally, the edge of the bundle of
decking must be placed within 1 foot of the bearing surface of the
joist end for the exception to apply.
Paragraph (e)(5) addresses the proper placement of all construction
loads (not just decking) on steel joists. As indicated above in the
discussion of paragraph (e)(3), stability of the load is enhanced by
placing the load near the support member. Therefore, this proposed
provision would require that the edge of the construction load be
positioned within 1 foot of the secured end. At least a one foot
clearance is necessary for material handling purposes and for access to
the steel joist's attachment point to the support structure.
Section 1926.758 Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings
During SENRAC's deliberations on the prerequisites for anchor
bolts, beams, columns and open web steel joists, the Committee
discussed many anomalies that appeared to be associated with pre-
engineered metal buildings. The Committee was advised by the Metal
Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA) that over 50 percent of the
industrial buildings in steel erection are pre-engineered. This type of
building frequently has lighter, cold formed members such as girts,
eave struts and purlins (see definitions). Larger members in this type
of construction are called rigid frames, a term not used in
conventional steel erection. There are a large number of small
specialized steel erectors who exclusively perform pre-engineered metal
building erection. In light of these considerations and in an effort to
facilitate compliance with this subpart, SENRAC developed a separate
section for pre-engineered metal buildings.
This section sets forth proposed requirements to erect pre-
engineered metal buildings safely. Pre-engineered metal buildings are
defined in the definition section of this proposal. Pre-engineered
metal buildings include structures ranging from small sheds to larger
structures such as warehouses, gymnasiums, churches, airplane hangars
and arenas.
Pre-engineered metal buildings use different types of steel members
and a different erection process than typical steel erection. Many
contractors erect pre-engineered metal buildings exclusively. An
overwhelming majority of these erectors are small employers. The
erection of pre-engineered metal structures presents certain unique
hazards that are not addressed specifically by OSHA's existing steel
erection standard. With the help and support of the MBMA and two other
major manufacturers, the Committee developed and recommended to OSHA a
section devoted to this industry. Although some of the hazards are
similar to general steel erection, other hazards, such as those
associated with anchor bolts, construction loads and double
connections, are different.
Most of the proposed requirements in this section are similar to
those in other sections of this document. Where a conflict arises
between a provision in the pre-engineered metal building section and
that of another section of subpart R, to the extent that the work being
performed is pre-engineered metal building work, the more specific pre-
engineered metal building section would apply. This section, however,
should not be interpreted to mean that the other provisions of subpart
R do not apply to pre-engineered metal buildings where appropriate.
OSHA requests comment and information on whether there are other
hazards involved in the erection of pre-engineered metal buildings that
are addressed elsewhere in this subpart but not in proposed
Sec. 1926.758. If so, should provisions be added to Sec. 1926.758 to
address those hazards? Additionally, should a cross-reference be made
to Sec. 1926.760 (fall protection) and Sec. 1926.761 (training) since
these sections apply to all steel erection?
Paragraph (a) states that the erection of pre-engineered metal
buildings may not begin until the site layout has been completed in
accordance with proposed Sec. 1926.752(b), site layout, site-specific
erection plan and construction sequence. The requirements in that
section would apply to pre-engineered metal buildings as they do to
other types of steel erection.
Like proposed Sec. 1926.755(a)(1), paragraph (b) would require that
all columns be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts. This
requirement is necessary to ensure stability.
The proposed requirement in paragraph (c) is unique to the erection
of pre-engineered metal buildings because rigid frames are found only
in this type of structure. This paragraph would require that rigid
frames have 50 percent of their bolts or the number of bolts specified
by the manufacturer (whichever is greater) installed and tightened on
both sides of the web adjacent to each flange before the hoisting
equipment is released. Like proposed Sec. 1926.756(a), this provision
would require an adequate number of bolts to ensure stability before
the hoist line is released. Rigid frames are fully continuous frames
that provide the main structural support for a pre-engineered metal
building. They provide the support that is typically provided by
columns and beams in conventional steel erection. Due to
[[Page 43478]]
design and load requirements, connections in rigid frames occupy a
greater area and require more than two bolts upon initial connection.
The remaining bolts are used to attach other members to the structure
and provide stability against wind loading. To require these
connections to be bolted only with two bolts would not be adequate in
many cases to prevent a collapse hazard.
Paragraph (d) also pertains to stability and would prohibit
construction loads from being placed on any structural steel framework
unless such framework has been safely bolted, welded or otherwise
adequately secured. Without proper bolting or welding to provide
stability, a construction load could cause a collapse of the structure.
Paragraph (e) pertains to double connections in pre-engineered
metal buildings. When girts or eave struts share common connection
holes, a double connection hazard exists. As with proposed
Sec. 1926.756(c), a seat or similar connection would prevent one member
from becoming displaced during the double connection activity. In girt
and eave strut to frame connections where girts or eave struts share
common connection holes, two provisions apply. Paragraph (e)(1) would
require that at least one bolt with its wrench-tight nut remain in
place for the connection of the second member unless a field-attached
seat or similar connection device is present to secure the first member
so that the girt or eave strut is always secured against displacement.
Paragraph (e)(2) maintains that the seat or similar connection device
must be provided by the manufacturer of the girt or eave strut so that
it is designed properly for the intended use. Because this form of
double connection is unique to pre-engineered metal building
construction and might not be considered a double connection under a
literal reading of proposed Sec. 1926.756(c), this provision
specifically addresses girt and eave strut to frame connections.
Proposed paragraph (f) would require that both ends of all steel
joists or cold-formed joists be fully bolted and/or welded to the
support structure before releasing the hoisting cables, allowing the
weight of an employee on the joists, or allowing any construction loads
on the joists. These proposed requirements are similar to those
proposed in Sec. 1926.757 for joists. However, due to the uniqueness of
pre-engineered metal building erection and the design factors of the
members, the key elements of joist erection that apply to these
structures are proposed to apply more stringently in paragraph (f).
Paragraph (g) would prohibit the use of purlins and girts as
anchorage points for a fall arrest system unless written direction to
do so is obtained from a qualified person. Generally, purlins and girts
are lightweight members designed to support the final structure. They
may not have been designed to resist the force of a fall arrest system.
If, however, a qualified person determines that the purlin or girt is
of sufficient strength to support a fall arrest system, it may be used
for that purpose. The qualified person would be required to provide
written documentation of this determination. This proposed requirement
is identical to the one for steel joists in proposed
Sec. 1926.757(a)(10).
Proposed paragraph (h) would prohibit purlins from being used as a
walking/working surface except when installing safety systems. All
permanent bridging must be in place, and fall protection must be
provided to the employee installing the safety system and walking or
working on the surface. Purlins are ``Z'' or ``C'' shaped lightweight
members, generally less than \1/8\'' thick, 2''-4'' wide on the top and
up to 40 feet long. They are not designed to be walked on and, because
of their shape, are likely to roll over when used as a walking/working
surface if not properly braced.
Paragraph (i) addresses the placement of construction loads on pre-
engineered metal buildings to prevent collapse due to improper loading
of the structure. This proposed paragraph would require that
construction loads be placed within a zone that is not more than 8 feet
(2.5 m) from the centerline of the primary support member. Unlike
conventional decking, pre-engineered metal building decking bundles are
lighter, and the sheets in the bundle are staggered. This staggering
means that the bundles must be set so that the end of one bundle
overlaps another bundle since the lengths of the sheets vary. The zone
needs to be big enough to allow for the lapping while still having the
support of the structure. An 8 foot (2.5 m) zone allows enough room to
meet these objectives.
Section 1926.759 Falling Object Protection
This proposed section sets forth the requirements for providing
employees with protection from falling objects. A real and everyday
hazard is posed to steel erection employees by loose items that have
been placed aloft and that can fall and strike employees working below.
Paragraph (a) would require that all materials, equipment, and
tools that are not in use while aloft be secured against accidental
displacement. This proposed requirement would expand on the existing
requirement in Sec. 1926.752(a) which addresses bolts, drift pins and
rivets. The Committee felt that the requirement should apply to any
item that could become displaced, fall to a lower level and possibly
injure a worker.
The intent of paragraph (b) is that, when it is necessary to have
other work performed below on-going steel erection activities, proper
overhead protection be provided to those workers to prevent injuries
from falling objects. If this protection is not provided, work by other
trades would not be permitted below steel erection work. The
controlling contractor's responsibility would be to ensure that job
conditions do not increase the exposure of employees to overhead
hazards because of accelerated project schedules or other jobsite
conditions. Additionally, this paragraph is referenced in proposed
Sec. 1926.752(c), which requires pre-planning to ensure that proper
overhead protection is afforded to all employees during hoisting
operations.
Section 1926.760 Fall Protection
Section 1926.760 addresses fall protection and would establish 15
feet as the fall distance triggering the proposed requirement for fall
protection, with two exceptions: connectors working at heights between
15 and 30 feet and workers engaged in decking in a controlled decking
zone at a height between 15 and 30 feet.
Subpart M, OSHA's fall protection standard for construction in
general, was promulgated by OSHA on August 9, 1994 (59 FR 40672), and
specifically excludes steel erection from its scope (see paragraph
Sec. 1926.500(a)(2)(iii)). Subpart M sets the general trigger height
for fall protection in construction at 6 feet. The questions that
SENRAC needed to address in determining the appropriate trigger height
for fall protection in steel erection included: Should the trigger
height for fall protection in steel erection be different from that in
other construction operations? If so, why? Is it possible to protect
workers engaged in steel erection for the entire time that they are
exposed to fall hazards? If not, why not?
In answer to these questions, SENRAC pointed out that steel
erection differs from general construction in several respects.
Typically, in steel erection, the working surface is constantly being
created as vertical columns are erected at various heights. Columns are
connected with solid web beams or steel joists and joist girders to
form an open
[[Page 43479]]
bay. In a multi-story building, the columns are usually two stories
high. These structural members are set by connectors in conjunction
with a hoisting unit--typically a crane. The first bay to be erected is
part of the first tier or story; the bay of the second tier or story is
formed. Initially the columns are attached to anchor bolts at the
foundation. Usually, the next procedure is for the connector to install
the header beams at the first level. Each floor is typically 12.5 to 15
feet in height. After an exterior bay is formed (``boxing the bay''),
the filler beams or joists are placed in the bay. The connector then
ascends the column to the next level, where the exterior members are
connected to form a bay, and so on. In connecting the filler beams of a
bay, the connector uses two bolts.
In making these initial connections, the connector is exposed to
fall hazards as a result of several factors. One such factor involves
the structure itself. Poor foundations and inadequate or ill-repaired
anchor bolts (Ex. 6-3, p. 4) can fail, causing the column/structure to
collapse and the connector to fall. The proposal first addresses this
source of collapse to prevent failure in Sec. 1926.755, ``anchor
bolts'' and Sec. 1926.757(a)(4), ``stabilizer plates,'' discussed
earlier. Another factor is that both the connector and the structure
are exposed to being struck by incoming steel. The proposal seeks to
``engineer out'' the risk of falling in this situation by addressing
the proper hoisting and rigging of the steel members to eliminate or
minimize this hazard (see discussion in Sec. 1926.753).
The unique nature of the work itself also exposes the connector to
the risk of falling. In particular, the making of double connections at
columns (or at beam webs over a column) puts the connector at risk of
falling due to a structural collapse. OSHA is proposing a combination
of engineering controls and work practices to deal with this hazard.
Sec. 1926.756(c) would require a seat or similar device that must be
secured prior to releasing the earlier connections. This prevents the
column from falling away and eliminates the collapse hazard. Based on
the data examined by the Committee's statistical workgroup (Ex. 9-42),
SENRAC concluded that in steel erection work, relatively few worker
falls occur at heights between 6 feet and 15 feet. Connections at these
heights can be performed from ladders, scaffolds or personnel work
platforms. The Committee, nevertheless, fully considered the use of
personal fall arrest systems for heights between 6 and 15 feet.
Several fall protection manufacturers participated in discussions
of this issue. Of major concern was the relationship between the total
fall distance of available personal fall arrest systems (and how they
are used) and the trigger height for fall protection that needed to be
established for the steel erection proposal. As was presented to the
Committee by one fall protection equipment manufacturer, there are many
variables that collectively need consideration in understanding fall
protection. Personal fall arrest systems must first limit the force on
the body and second limit the total fall distance. The best description
of total fall distance offered to the Committee is that total fall
distance is the sum of free fall distance, deceleration distance,
harness effects and vertical elongation of parts of the personal fall
arrest system. Through further definition of these terms and how they
interact, the total fall distance or amount of clearance needed can be
determined.
Excluding anchorage connectors, there are 4 types of personal fall
arrest systems commonly used by workers in full body harnesses
including: (1) shock absorbing lanyards; (2) self-retracting lifelines;
(3) rope grabs with vertical lifelines; and (4) shock absorbing
lanyards with rope grabs and vertical lifelines. Lanyards having
different lengths and which are allowed by the user to have more or
less slack can result in a wide variation of free fall distance. The
three common types of anchorage connectors were described to the
Committee and include: (1) horizontally mobile and vertically rigid
(e.g., a trolley connected to a flange of a structural beam); (2)
horizontally fixed and vertically rigid (e.g., an eyebolt, choker or
clamp connected to a structural beam, column or truss); and (3)
horizontally mobile and vertically flexible (e.g., a horizontal
lifeline suspended between two structural columns or between
stanchions, attached to a structural beam, designed to support the
lifeline). Each type contains various combinations of rigidity versus
flexibility, both vertically and horizontally. Depending on how one
configures the personal fall arrest system, the total fall distance can
range from 3-23 feet and from 4-10.5 feet depending on the combination
of equipment utilized (Exs. 6-10 and 9-77).
The same fall protection equipment manufacturer indicated that the
lowest point of the body of a worker performing steel erection should
be at least 12.5 feet above the nearest obstacle in the potential fall
path when the worker is properly using a rigidly anchored personal fall
arrest system of the shock absorbing lanyard type or self-retracting
lifeline type. Another participant indicated that, in a worst case
scenario and with no overhead anchorage point (which is a common
situation in steel erection), 15.5 feet was the lowest height that a
steel erection worker could be protected. SENRAC acknowledged, however,
that workers in some cases could be protected at lower heights but only
at the expense of serious constraints to mobility (especially with
respect to connectors working with incoming steel), which, in turn,
could increase the hazards (Ex. 6-11, p. 5).
In light of these considerations, the following requirements are
proposed.
Paragraph (a) General Requirements. Paragraph (a) proposes the
primary fall protection trigger height for steel erection activities
(with certain exceptions), describes what constitutes fall protection
in these circumstances, and provides specifications for alternative
protection. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would set the primary fall
protection trigger height for most employees engaged in steel erection.
Each employee covered by this subpart who is on a walking/working
surface with an unprotected side or edge more than 15 feet above a
lower level would have to be protected from fall hazards.
OSHA's existing fall protection requirements for steel erection are
found in three different provisions. Section 1926.750(b)(1)(ii) of the
existing steel erection standard reads as follows:
(ii) On buildings or structures not adaptable to temporary
floors, and where scaffolds are not used, safety nets shall be
installed and maintained whenever the potential fall distance
exceeds two stories or 25 feet. The nets shall be hung with
sufficient clearance to prevent contacts with the surface of the
structures below.
In addition, Sec. 1926.750(b)(2)(i) of the existing steel erection
standard addresses falls to the interior and reads as follows:
(2)(i) Where skeleton steel erection is being done, a tightly
planked and substantial floor shall be maintained within two stories
or 30 feet, whichever is less, below and directly under that portion
of each tier of beams on which any work is being performed, except
when gathering and stacking temporary floor planks on a lower floor,
in preparation for transferring such planks for use on an upper
floor. Where such a floor is not practicable, paragraph (b)(1)(ii)
of this section applies.
With regard to non-building steel erection (e.g., bridges, conveyor
systems, etc.), exterior fall hazards on tiered buildings, and both
interior and exterior fall hazards on non-tiered buildings (e.g.,
warehouses,
[[Page 43480]]
gymnasiums, etc.), Sec. 1926.105(a) of subpart E, Personal Protective
and Life Saving Equipment, applies and reads as follows:
(a) Safety nets shall be provided when workplaces are more than
25 feet above the ground or water surface, or other surfaces where
the use of ladders, scaffolds, catch platforms, temporary floors,
safety lines, or safety belts is impractical.
In an attempt to clarify these requirements, OSHA issued a
memorandum on February 22, 1994 (Ex. 9-13F). That memo established the
following enforcement policy for section 1926.750:
Citations shall not be issued to employers engaged in steel
erection activities (such as, but not limited to, initial
connecting, decking, welding, and bolting) during the construction
of skeleton steel buildings if those employers are in compliance
with the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.750(b)(2) for falls to the
inside of the structure and with 29 CFR 1926.105(a) for falls to the
outside of the structure. By the same token, citations shall be
issued to every employer not in compliance with those standards.
(For the purposes of this document, ``buildings'' means tiered
buildings and non-tiered buildings).
With respect to fall hazards in other steel erection activities,
such as in bridge and tower erection, 29 CFR 1926.105(a) shall be
used where the fall hazard is 25 feet or more.
In 1995, OSHA further clarified its policy with respect to tiered,
as opposed to non-tiered, buildings. In non-tiered buildings, the fall
protection requirements in Sec. 1926.105(a) apply to steel erection
activities over 25 feet.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would require fall protection for most
employees covered by this subpart at heights 10 to 15 feet lower than
is required by OSHA's existing requirements. The exception for those
employees covered by paragraph (a)(3), as discussed below, also
provides protection at lower heights than does the existing standard.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would specify the fall protection systems
required by this section. Such fall protection systems shall consist of
perimeter safety cable systems, guardrail systems, safety net systems,
or personal fall arrest or fall restraint (positioning device) systems.
In addition, guardrail systems, safety net systems, and personal fall
arrest or fall restraint systems must conform to the criteria set forth
in Sec. 1926.502 of this part (fall restraint systems would also be
required to conform to the criteria for positioning device systems in
Sec. 1926.502). Section 1926.502 contains OSHA's general construction
requirements for fall protection systems. Unlike general construction,
however, steel erection fall protection also includes perimeter safety
cable systems; use of these systems has long been an industry practice
and is required by Sec. 1926.750(b)(1)(iii) of OSHA's existing steel
erection standard. It is OSHA's intent that the existing requirement
for the installation of a perimeter safety cable system be maintained
in this proposal. As mentioned in the discussion above on proposed
Sec. 1926.756, Appendix F of this proposal provides non-mandatory
guidance regarding the installation of these perimeter safety cable
systems.
The exception to the proposed general requirement that fall
protection be provided at heights above 15 feet (paragraph (a)(1)) is
addressed in paragraph (a)(3). According to this proposed requirement,
connectors and employees working in controlled decking zones would have
to be protected from fall hazards in accordance with paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section, as discussed below.
Paragraph (b) Connectors. Proposed paragraph (b) addresses the
need to protect connectors from falls, to train them in the hazards
associated with connecting, and to provide them with fall protection
equipment. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would require that each connector
be protected from fall hazards of more than two stories or 30 feet (9.1
m) above a lower level, whichever is less. Protection at this height is
currently required by OSHA's existing steel erection standard for all
employees engaged in steel erection.
In addition, proposed paragraph (b)(2) requires that each
connector, as defined, complete connector training in accordance with
Sec. 1926.761. Such training must be specific to connecting and cover
the recognition of hazards, and the establishment, access, safe
connecting techniques and work practices required by proposed
Sec. 1926.756(c) and Sec. 1926.760(b).
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require that connectors be provided
with a personal fall arrest or fall restraint (positioning device)
system, i.e., be wearing the equipment and be provided with the means
to tie-off at heights over 15 and up to 30 feet above a lower level. In
the alternative, the connector could be provided with other equally
effective means of protection from fall hazards in accordance with
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, which would usually mean protection
by the use of nets. The definition of these systems, discussed earlier,
makes it clear that a personal fall arrest or fall restraint
(positioning device) system would include an anchorage.
The ability to tie-off and the provision of fall protection
represent a central component of the SENRAC consensus. Paragraph (b)(3)
should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the connector must be
tied-off at heights in the range between 15 feet and 30 feet. The
Committee's consensus agreement was only that the connectors be given
the means to tie-off at any time the connector chooses to do so. In
addition, an anchorage of some sort must always be available: this
could be stanchions with a catenary lifeline, or simply a lifeline
attached to the primary beam or joist girder; a ``beamer'' (a portable
anchorage that rolls along the upper or lower flange of the beam) or a
nylon web strap anchor; or any other form of anchor that meets the
requirements of Sec. 1926.502 of this part. The Committee believes that
under certain conditions, the connector is at greater risk if he/she is
tied-off. For example, in the event of structural collapse, a tied-off
connector could be forced to ride the structure to the ground. The
Committee believes that the connector is in the best position to
determine when to tie-off, and so the connector must have the ability
to choose to tie-off.
A concern was raised as to whether such a provision would affect a
connector's rights under workers' compensation laws. For example, in
some jurisdictions, failure to tie-off may be construed as ``employee
misconduct''. The proposal would allow the connector the choice of when
not to ``tie-off'' in order to avoid a potentially greater hazard.
However, states determine eligibility requirements for state workers'
compensation benefits.
This exception applies only to connectors actively engaged in the
placement of structural members and/or components working with hoisting
equipment. Regardless of job title, when an employee has finished the
``connecting'' phase and is performing other steel erection activities
(such as detailing, bolting-up and decking), the employee would no
longer be considered a ``connector'' for the purposes of the exception
to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and would have to be protected from
fall hazards in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) or paragraph (c) of
this section.
Paragraph (c) Controlled decking zone (CDZ). Paragraph (c)
addresses the other exception to providing fall protection above 15
feet permitted by this proposal. This provision would allow a
controlled decking zone to be established in that area of the structure
over 15 and up to 30 feet above a lower level where metal deck is
initially being installed and forms the leading edge of
[[Page 43481]]
a work area. The Committee developed a combination of specification and
work practice requirements to protect employees engaged in decking
activities if an employer elects to establish a controlled decking zone
rather than provide fall protection as otherwise required by this
section.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require that each employee working
at the leading edge in a CDZ be protected from fall hazards of more
than two stories or 30 feet, whichever is less. Many decking operations
do not lend themselves to the establishment of CDZs. For example,
single story, high bay warehouse structures and pre-engineered metal
buildings require decking operations that commonly take place more than
30 feet above lower levels. The exception would not apply in these
situations.
An important aspect of a CDZ is controlled access. Based on the
reviews of OSHA fatality data (Exs. 9-14, 9-49), some fatalities
attributed to decking operations were experienced by employees not
engaged in leading edge work. Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would limit
access to the CDZ exclusively to those employees who are actually
engaged in and trained in the hazards involved in leading edge work.
Paragraph (c)(3) addresses the physical limits of a CDZ. The
employer would be required to designate the boundaries of a CDZ and
clearly mark them. Control lines would commonly be used for marking the
boundaries, but the performance language of the proposed requirement
also allows for the equivalent, e.g., a perimeter wall. Control lines
are not defined in this proposal. OSHA requests comment on whether a
definition of ``control lines'' is necessary or whether Appendix D
provides adequate description, since it sets the criteria for control
lines or, in the alternative, should Appendix D be incorporated into
the provisions of Sec. 1926.760(c)?
The intent of the proposed requirement is to limit access to the
zone and to limit the overall size of the CDZ. Assuming a typical bay
to be 40 feet in its greatest dimension, the Committee recommended and
OSHA proposes that the CDZ not be greater than two bays plus ten feet
back from the leading edge into a fully installed deck area to allow
for staging. Because some bays could be larger, a specified distance
criteria based on the typical bay of 40 feet or 90 feet in each
direction is proposed. Additional guidelines for assistance in using
control lines to demarcate CDZs are found in non-mandatory Appendix D.
Proposed paragraph (c)(4) would require that each employee working
in a CDZ have completed CDZ training in accordance with the training
section of this subpart. Such training would cover recognition of the
hazards associated with work in a controlled decking zone and the
establishment, access, safe installation techniques and work practices
required by proposed Sec. 1926.754(e) and Sec. 1926.760(c).
Paragraph (c)(5) addresses the specific hazard that results when
full support is not achieved in the placement of metal deck. For
example, in steel joist construction, metal deck sheets are typically
20 feet or longer and may span more than 4 joists that are typically
spaced 5 feet apart. A hazard is created if the deck is placed so that
only three joists are supporting the sheet and the deck ends are
unsupported. A worker not using fall protection and stepping on the
unsupported end of a deck sheet so placed is exposed to a potentially
fatal fall hazard. This paragraph, therefore, would require that during
initial placement, deck sheets be placed so as to ensure that the
structural members provide the support as designed.
Paragraph (c)(6) addresses the hazard presented to deckers when too
much decking is left unsecured. The installation of metal deck requires
it to be placed on the structural members, unsecured, at control marks
to allow for proper alignment. As a result of the physical dynamics of
the bundle during shipping, metal deck may have different widths. For
example, in a typical bundle of decking, the bottom sheet can be wider
than the top sheet by an inch or more. Due to these variations, field
adjustment of the decking is necessary to fit the bay at the control
marks. The proposal would limit the area of unsecured deck to 3000
square feet (914.4 m\2\) to restrict the exposure of employees engaged
in the placement of these deck sheets. Given the dimensions of a
typical bay (a typical bay is approximately 900 S.F.), 3000 square feet
was determined to be an appropriate limit that would allow for the
decking to be placed and alignment to be performed prior to tack
welding. This limit would thus greatly reduce the hazards associated
with large areas of decking being left unattached and unattended.
Proposed paragraph (c)(7) addresses the hazard in leading edge work
that arises when an employee turns his/her back to the leading edge
while attaching deck sheets. After the decking has been adjusted to fit
the bay, a safety deck attachment (see definition section) must be
performed with at least two attachments per panel. When such
attachments are performed on the laps (although to do so is not
required), there would be four attachments per panel. Safety deck
attachments are usually done by tack welding the panel but can also be
achieved with a mechanical attachment, such as self-drilling screws or
pneumatic fasteners. The proposed provision would require that such
attachments be made from the leading edge back to the control line to
protect the employee from inadvertently stepping off the leading edge.
Paragraph (c)(8) would prohibit final deck attachments and
installation of shear connectors in the CDZ. These activities are not
leading edge work and would not be permitted in a CDZ. Employees
performing this work can be readily protected from falls by the use of
conventional fall protection, e.g., guardrails.
Paragraph (d) Covering roof and floor openings. Paragraph (d)
addresses proper covering of roof and floor openings, which is required
by proposed Sec. 1926.754(e)(2), during steel erection to prevent
employees from falling through them. Paragraph (d)(1) would require
that coverings of roof and floor openings be capable of supporting,
without failure, the greater of either 30 pounds per square foot for
roofs and 50 pounds per square foot for floors or twice the weight of
employees, equipment and materials that may be imposed on the cover at
any one time. The pounds per square foot specifications are based on
the strength requirements for steel roof and floor decks in the SDI
Manual of Construction with Steel Deck (Ex. 9-34A). The performance
language is based on subpart M criteria for covers (Sec. 1926.502(i)).
This would allow for adequate protection for employees who may walk on,
or for any equipment that may be placed on, a floor or roof covering.
Paragraph (d)(2) would require that all covers be secured when
installed so as to prevent accidental displacement by the wind,
equipment or employees. Requiring that all covers be secured against
displacement eliminates the fall hazard. Additionally, paragraph (d)(3)
would require that all covers be painted with high visibility paint or
be marked with the word ``HOLE'' or ``COVER'' to provide warning of the
hazard so as to prevent an employee from inadvertently removing the
cover.
Paragraph (d)(4) would provide that smoke domes or skylight
fixtures which have been installed are not considered covers for the
purposes of this section unless the strength requirements of paragraph
(d)(1) above are met. A
[[Page 43482]]
common cause of falls is employees leaning or sitting on skylights or
smoke domes which will not support their weight. These structures may
not be capable of supporting the load and may give way, causing a fall.
Consequently, unless they have adequate strength, these structures
cannot be relied upon to protect employees from falls. OSHA invites
comment on whether these skylights and smoke domes would be more
appropriately treated in Sec. 1926.754(e)(2), which addresses roof and
floor openings, and in particular permanently filling openings, rather
than in this section, Sec. 1926.760(d), which addresses covers for roof
and floor openings.
Paragraph (e) Custody of fall protection. Proposed paragraph (e)
addresses fall protection, usually perimeter safety cables, initially
installed and maintained by the steel erector but remaining on the site
after steel erection has been completed. If no provision for the proper
maintenance of such fall protection is made, the equipment could fall
into disrepair and no longer function properly. Employees of
contractors arriving later might rely on this potentially dangerous
fall protection, creating a false sense of security in these workers.
Paragraph (e) would require that fall protection provided by the steel
erector not be left in an area to be used by other trades after the
steel erection activity has been completed unless the controlling
contractor or its authorized representative has directed the steel
erector to leave the fall protection in place and has inspected and
accepted control and responsibility of the fall protection prior to
authorizing persons other than steel erectors to work in the area. This
proposed requirement is consistent with the AISC Code of Standard
Practice (Ex. 9-36, p. 15) which states:
When safety protection provided by the erector is left remaining
in an area to be used by other trades after the steel erection
activity is completed, the owner shall be responsible for accepting
and maintaining this protection, assuring that it is adequate for
the protection of all other affected trades, assuring that it
complies with all applicable safety regulations when being used by
other trades, indemnifying the erector from any damages incurred as
a result of the safety protection's use by other trades, removing
the safety equipment when no longer required and returning it to the
erector in the same condition as it was received.
Section 1926.761 Training.
The OSHA steel erection proposal has many new requirements
involving more widespread use of personal fall protection equipment and
special procedures for making multiple lifts, for decking activities in
controlled decking zones and for connecting. Early in the development
of these new requirements, the Committee recognized the need for a
separate training section. The requirements proposed in Sec. 1926.761
would supplement OSHA's general training and education requirements for
construction contained in Sec. 1926.21.
Proposed Sec. 1926.761(a) would require that instruction on fall
hazards and other specified hazards associated with steel erection
activities and appropriate corrective actions be provided to employees
by a qualified person.
A ``qualified person,'' as defined in existing Sec. 1926.32 and
restated in the definition section of this proposal, means one who, by
possession of a recognized degree, certificate, or professional
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training, and experience, has
successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems
relating to the subject matter, the work, or the project.
Proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) specify particular training that
would have to be provided by the employer to employees who are exposed
to the specified steel erection hazards. Paragraph (b) would require
that the employer provide a training program for all employees exposed
to fall hazards. The program would have to include training and
instruction in the recognition and identification of fall hazards in
the work area; the use and operation of perimeter safety cable systems,
guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems, fall restraint
(positioning device) systems, safety net systems, controlled decking
zones and other protection to be used; the correct procedures for
erecting, maintaining, disassembling, and inspecting the fall
protection systems to be used; the procedures to be followed to prevent
falls to lower levels and through or into holes and openings in
walking/working surfaces and walls; and the fall protection
requirements of Sec. 1926.760.
In addition to fall hazards, the Committee identified certain
activities that would require specialized training due to the hazardous
nature of the activities. Accordingly, paragraph (c) requires such
training for employees engaged in multiple lift rigging procedures
(MLRP), connecting activities and work in controlled decking zones.
Paragraph (c)(1) proposes additional training for employees
performing MLRPs. This training would include instruction in the
hazards associated with multiple lifts and the proper procedures and
equipment to perform multiple lifts safely, as proposed in
Sec. 1926.753(c).
Paragraph (c)(2) would require the employer to ensure that each
connector has been provided training in the hazards associated with
connecting, and in the establishment, access, proper connecting
techniques and work practices proposed in Sec. 1926.760(b) (fall
protection) and Sec. 1926.756(c) (double connections).
Paragraph (c)(3) would require additional training for controlled
decking zone employees. The training must cover the hazards associated
with work within a controlled decking zone, and the establishment,
access, proper installation techniques and work practices required by
Sec. 1926.760(c) (fall protection) and Sec. 1926.754(e) (decking
operations).
This proposed section has been drafted to allow the employer a
reasonable degree of flexibility in developing a training program and
conducting training. OSHA recognizes that there are differences in the
techniques that will be successful with different employees. Therefore,
the proposed section does not limit the employer by specifying the
manner in which the training must be conducted. Similarly, the specific
content of the training course has only been generally addressed
because different topics must be taught to address the variations
associated with different steel erection activities and to cover
hazards specific to each workplace.
The employer may choose the training provider. This could include
contracting with an outside professional training company to train
employees or developing and conducting the training program itself. In
either case, the employer can choose the provider, method and frequency
of training that are appropriate for the employees being trained. In
addition, each employee must have been provided training prior to
hazard exposure.
Appendices to Proposed Subpart R
The following appendices neither create additional obligations nor
eliminate obligations otherwise contained in the standard. They are
intended to provide useful, explanatory material and information to
employers and employees who wish to use it as an aid to understanding
and complying with the standard.
Appendix A to Subpart R--Guidelines for Establishing the Components of
a Site-Specific Erection Plan (Non-Mandatory)
As explained in the discussion for the proposed section governing
site-specific
[[Page 43483]]
erection plans, this appendix was developed by SENRAC as a non-
mandatory set of guidelines provided to assist employers in complying
with the requirements of proposed paragraph Sec. 1926.752(d). If an
employer follows these guidelines to prepare a site-specific erection
plan, it will be deemed as complying with the requirements of paragraph
Sec. 1926.752(d). OSHA welcomes comment on the adequacy of these
guidelines.
Appendix B to Subpart R--Acceptable Test Methods for Testing Slip-
Resistance of Walking/Working Surfaces (Non-Mandatory)
Appendix B is provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist
employers in complying with the requirements of proposed paragraph
Sec. 1926.754(c)(3). The two nationally recognized test methods
referred to in appendix B, ASTM F1678-96 (Standard Test Method for
Using a Portable Articulated Strut Slip Tester) and ASTM F1679-96
(Standard Test Method for Using a Variable Incidence Tribometer), would
provide the protocol for testing skeletal structural steel surfaces to
obtain the documentation or certification required by proposed
Sec. 1926.754(c)(3). OSHA welcomes comment on the testing procedures
contained in this appendix.
Appendix C to Subpart R--Illustrations of Bridging Terminus Points
(Non-Mandatory)
Appendix C is provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist
employers in complying with the requirements of proposed paragraph
Sec. 1926.757(c)(3). Although the appendix does not show all possible
bridging terminus points, the illustrations provide examples of common
bridging terminus points. OSHA solicits information and comment on this
proposed appendix.
Appendix D to Subpart R--Illustration on the Use of Control Lines to
Demarcate Controlled Decking Zones (CDZs) (Non-Mandatory)
Appendix D is provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist
employers in complying with the requirements of proposed paragraph
Sec. 1926.760(c)(3). If the employer follows these guidelines to
establish a control line to demarcate a CDZ, OSHA will accept the
control line as meeting the requirements of paragraph
Sec. 1926.760(c)(3). This appendix neither creates additional
obligations nor eliminates obligations otherwise contained in the
standard. It is intended to provide useful explanatory material and
information to employers and employees who wish to use it as an aid to
understanding and complying with the standard. OSHA solicits
information and comment on this proposed appendix.
Appendix E to Subpart R--Training (Non-Mandatory)
Appendix E is provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist
employers in complying with the requirements of proposed paragraph
Sec. 1926.761. Even before the existence of OSHA, the Ironworkers
International Union provided apprenticeship training in steel erection
to its members. This training has been approved by the U. S. Department
of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship Training for over forty years. As
soon as this program is updated to reflect the requirements of this new
subpart R, training under this program will be deemed as complying with
the training requirements of Sec. 1926.761. As stated in Article XI of
the current approved National Apprenticeship and Training Standards for
Ironworkers:
The [Ironworkers Joint Apprenticeship] Committee shall seek the
cooperation of all employers to instruct the apprentices in safe and
healthful work practices and shall ensure that the apprentices are
trained in facilities and other environments that are in compliance
with either the occupational safety and health standards promulgated
by the Secretary of Labor under [the OSH Act] or state [plan]
standards * * * (Ex. 9-139, p. 8).
OSHA does not intend that training approved by the U.S. Department of
Labor Bureau of Apprenticeship be the only training deemed to meet the
requirements of Sec. 1926.761. Employers may choose to provide their
own training, provided that it fulfills the requirements of
Sec. 1926.761. The Agency invites comment on this proposed appendix.
Appendix F to Subpart R--Installation of Perimeter Safety Cables (Non-
Mandatory)
Appendix F is provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist
employers in complying with the requirements of proposed paragraph
Sec. 1926.756(f), when perimeter safety cables are used to protect the
unprotected side or edge of a walking/working surface. If an employer
elects to follow the guidelines of this appendix, the perimeter safety
cable system shall be deemed to be in compliance with the provisions of
Sec. 1926.756(f). OSHA solicits information and comment on this
proposed appendix.
VI. Other Issues
As indicated above, the Committee has reached consensus on the
regulatory text. Although no negotiation sessions have been held since
December 1995, Committee members have continued to provide technical
assistance to OSHA staff in developing the ``Summary and Explanation''
section of the proposed rule. During this period, a number of
additional concerns have been raised by Committee members, SENRAC
workgroup members and OSHA staff. OSHA has determined that, rather than
reopening the negotiations, these issues can be adequately addressed in
the normal ``Sec. 6(b) rulemaking process'' that will follow the
publication of this proposal. Normal rulemaking includes a comment
period on the proposed rule, an informal public hearing, and, for those
who have elected to participate in the hearing by filing a ``Notice of
intent to appear'' (see Public Participation section), a post-hearing
comment period. In addition, OSHA has decided that, in order to develop
a complete record and to reach as many stakeholders as possible, these
and other issues should be raised in this section of the proposal. The
public is specifically requested to comment on all relevant issues,
including the following:
1. Some hazards currently addressed by the existing requirements in
Sec. 1926.105(a) may not be adequately addressed in proposed subpart R
(Ex. 9-152). Proposed Sec. 1926.754(b)(3), for example, would require
that, in multi-story structures, a fully planked or decked floor or
nets be maintained within 2 stories or 30 feet, whichever is less,
below and directly under any erection work which is being performed.
There was a difference of opinion among the Committee members as to
whether the primary purpose of this requirement is to constitute fall
protection or protection from falling objects. The Committee considered
this issue and concluded that the fully planked, decked or netted floor
provides fall protection just as the netting on a bridge provides fall
protection. Comment is requested on whether a fully planked floor
provides fall protection for falls of up to 30 feet.
Existing Sec. 1926.750(b)(1)(ii) and Sec. 1926.105(a) provide that
for buildings and other structures not adaptable to temporary floors,
safety nets must be provided when workplaces are more than 25 feet
above the ground or water surface, or other surface where the use of
ladders, scaffolds, catch platforms, temporary floors, safety lines, or
safety belts is impractical. These requirements have been applied to
fall hazards on
[[Page 43484]]
bridges, as well as fall hazards to the outside of any steel erection
structure, including those adaptable to temporary floors. However,
bridges would not be covered by the proposed Sec. 1926.754(b)(3), which
only applies to multi-story buildings. Therefore, public comment is
requested on whether a requirement should be added to subpart R to
continue to require nets for bridges over water. It is suggested that a
provision could be inserted in Sec. 1926.754(b)(2) and read as follows:
For bridges, safety nets shall be provided when workplaces are
more than 30 feet above a water surface, Sec. 1926.760(a)
notwithstanding.
Comment is requested on the need for this requirement and the
appropriateness of the suggested language as well as any other
recommended course of action on this issue.
Additionally, the proposal would raise the height at which fall
protection is required for connectors exposed to fall hazards to the
outside of a building from 25 feet (existing Sec. 1926.105) to 30 feet
(proposed Sec. 1926.760(b)(1)). Comment is also requested on the
appropriateness of making this change in the standard.
2. Proposed Sec. 1926.754(c)(3) uses the term finish-coated to
describe paints or similar materials applied to steel members. It also
prohibits workers from walking on a steel member that has been finish-
coated without documentation that the finished coat has not decreased
the COF of the steel being coated. OSHA solicits information and
comments on what should or should not be considered finish-coated.
Should all single coat primer paints or coatings be exempted from being
considered finished coats? Are there any primer paints that should not
be exempted, such as epoxy primers? Should galvanized coatings be
exempted? In addition, OSHA has received information from the
Structural Steel Painting Council (SSPC) that the term ``finished
coat'' already has a common understanding in the industry and that it
refers to paint applied to steel members after the steel members have
been erected (Ex. 9-152). Since SENRAC is concerned with the
slipperiness of painted steel before the erection of the members,
should this requirement be re-worded to avoid potential confusion?
Since slip resistance information is now attainable (see, for example,
Appendix B), please submit data to support your views. OSHA also
requests comment on whether the requirement should avoid using the term
``finish-coated'' at all; for example, should it simply state:
``Workers shall not be permitted to walk the top surface of any
structural steel member installed after [effective date of final rule]
which has a COF less than that of the original steel.''
3. The plumbing-up requirements in the proposal have been
questioned as to whether they are specific enough to ensure structural
stability as required by proposed Sec. 1926.754(a) (Ex. 9-152). Public
comment is requested on whether additional plumbing-up requirements are
necessary to protect employees. It has been suggested that the
following provisions be added to Sec. 1926.754(a):
(1) Plumbing-up equipment shall be installed in conjunction with
the steel erection process to ensure the stability of the structure;
and
(2) Plumbing-up equipment shall be in place and properly
installed before the structure is loaded with construction material
such as loads of joists, bundles of decking or bundles of bridging.
Comment is requested on the need for these requirements and the
appropriateness of the suggested language as well as any other
recommended course of action on this issue.
4. The preamble identifies the provisions in the standard which are
new or which are changed from the provisions of the existing standard.
OSHA believes that many employers are already following the procedures
that would be required by many of these proposed provisions. OSHA will
evaluate, on the basis of all the evidence submitted to the public
record, the likely effectiveness of the proposed revised and new
provisions. To assist OSHA in this area, the public is asked to provide
information on the following issues:
a. Public comment is requested on the feasibility and effectiveness
of the proposed changes. OSHA solicits information on the degree to
which implementation of the proposed changes would reduce the
occurrence or severity of accidents;
b. Public comment is requested on the amount of any costs or
savings that have not been identified by OSHA (see Section VII of this
preamble--Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis) which might result from the proposed changes.
5. In discussing the scope of proposed subpart R, the Committee
originally developed an extensive list of structures and activities
that could involve steel erection work for inclusion in an appendix
that would be referenced by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 1926.750.
However, the Committee subsequently decided that the list should be
placed in the standard itself in notes to paragraphs (a) and (b),
respectively. OSHA raised some concerns with this approach related
primarily to how the courts might interpret a scope section with such a
long and detailed list. The Agency suggested that a listed structure or
activity might erroneously be viewed as being within the scope of
subpart R, whether or not steel erection was taking place. Conversely,
failure to include an activity or structure on the list might indicate
that the activity is never to be covered by subpart R, since the list
appears to be so inclusive. Moreover, the Agency stated that if the
Committee's goal was to make the scope as broad as possible, it could
accomplish this goal more directly by specifying instead what is not
covered by the subpart. OSHA contended that voluminous lists of
examples of covered workplaces are not appropriate in regulatory text.
Nonetheless, the Committee reached consensus that the lists of
structures and activities be placed in the standard as notes to
paragraphs (a) and (b). OSHA requests comment on the scope and
application section and specifically on whether these notes clarify the
scope and application of the proposed standard; whether they restrict
or expand the scope of what is considered steel erection; and whether
such restriction or expansion is appropriate. In addition, OSHA notes
that while the lists indicate workplaces which might be covered by
subpart R, they would be covered only when steel erection work is being
performed. The Agency seeks comment on whether the lists are necessary
in light of that limitation.
6. Proposed Sec. 1926.755(a) sets forth general requirements for
ensuring erection stability. Paragraph (a)(1) would require that all
columns be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts. Additionally, this
paragraph would require that column anchor bolt assemblies, including
the welding of the column to the base plate, be designed to resist a
300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric load located 18 inches (.46 m) from the
column face in each direction at the top of the column shaft.
OSHA invites comments on the following and any other relevant
questions: Should these requirements include a 4:1 safety factor for
the design of the column base to be consistent with other OSHA
standards? Should the requirements call for the washer and nut to be
placed and hand tightened at all four anchor bolts before the hoist
line of the column is released to ensure that stability of the column
is achieved? Should a cross-reference be provided to
[[Page 43485]]
Sec. 1926.752(a)(1) since the anchor bolts would have to be designed
for the 300 lb. eccentric load when the concrete in the footings, piers
and walls or the mortar in the masonry piers and walls has attained
either 75 percent of the intended minimum compressive design strength
or sufficient strength to support loads imposed during steel erection?
Would a designer miss the provision in Sec. 1926.752(a)(1) without a
cross-reference?
7. Proposed Sec. 1926.756 sets forth requirements for connections
of beams and columns to ensure stability of the steel structure during
the erection process. However, the proposal does not have any specific
requirements for cantilevered beams, which exert different forces on
the connection than does a typical end-connected beam. A number of
accidents have occurred because of inadequate connections of
cantilevered beams during erection. Is a provision needed to require
that, ``after proper evaluation of the span and the intended load by a
competent person, cantilevered beams shall be secured with the number
of bolts necessary to ensure stability.''
Additionally, with regard to all connections, in some cases bolts
of lesser diameter and strength than the permanent bolts specified are
used on a temporary basis. If temporary bolts are used and prove to be
of insufficient strength, the intent of the proposed paragraph would
not be met. Is it necessary to require that the bolts used ``be of the
size and strength shown on the construction documents'' to avert this
situation? Comments addressing these concerns are requested.
8. Proposed Sec. 1926.757(a)(8) and Sec. 1926.757(d)(1) introduce
the term ``bay.'' Should this term be defined in the steel erection
standard or is there a common understanding of the term? In addition,
since the two provisions refer to specific sizes of bays, should the
standard include the particulars of measuring a bay?
9. Section 1926.757 of the proposal addresses SJI specification
joists. There are joists being manufactured that are not constructed to
SJI specifications (for example joists in excess of 144 feet). Should
the joist requirements of the steel erection standard include
provisions for non-SJI specification joists?
10. In the course of SENRAC's deliberations, OSHA staff, NIOSH and
Committee Workgroups made a considerable effort to study the injuries
and fatalities resulting from steel erection activities (Exs. 9-13E, 9-
14A, 9-15 and 9-42) so that SENRAC could determine what caused the
incidents which resulted in those injuries and fatalities and could
propose appropriate protective and preventive measures.
Some of the SENRAC participants suggested that the available data
were unreliable and did not accord with their experience. They believe
that structural collapse is the major cause of injuries and fatalities
in steel erection. The Committee therefore decided that the best way to
protect a worker from a fall is to eliminate structural collapses. The
Committee believes that the usefulness of fall protection in steel
erection is greatly reduced in a collapse situation. However, others
have evaluated the fatality data available to OSHA and determined that
fall fatalities not involving collapses exceed those which involve
collapses by a factor of five. Should subpart R focus, to a greater
extent, on the use of fall protection to prevent fatalities? OSHA seeks
comments and information regarding the characterizations of the injury
and fatality data and the conclusions to be drawn from that data. Also,
the Agency solicits additional information and data on the causes of
injuries and fatalities experienced by employees erecting steel
structures.
11. Proposed 1926.760(b) and (c) set alternative fall protection
measures for employees performing the initial connection of structural
steel and employees performing the installation of metal deck. Proposed
subpart R does not require employers to demonstrate that the use of
conventional fall protection (guardrails, safety nets or personal fall
arrest systems) would be infeasible or would create a greater hazard in
these cases (as do the alternative provisions to fall protection found
in Sec. 1926.501(b)(2), (12) and (13)). Currently, under
Sec. 1926.105(a), OSHA requires that employers provide fall protection
to workers who are installing roof decking on non-tiered steel
structures over 25 feet. Employers comply with this requirement in
several ways, including the use of personal fall arrest systems.
Proposed Sec. 1926.760(b)(3) permits employers to use a CDZ in place of
fall protection.
Should the Agency require employers to demonstrate that the use of
fall protection is infeasible or would create a greater hazard before
allowing employees to follow alternative measures for connecting or for
decking operations? Should the standard specify that the connector
determine that there is a greater hazard to tying-off before electing
not to tie-off? OSHA seeks comments, suggestions, information and data
regarding how a steel erection employer should determine what fall
protection is appropriate for its affected employees.
12. Proposed Sec. 1926.760(b)(3) requires that connectors be
provided with fall protection equipment and an available anchorage but
leaves the decision to the employee as to whether to tie-off. Some
steel erection companies currently require employees to use fall
protection at all times above six feet. Is it appropriate to permit
some work above this height to be performed without fall protection?
Should the standard allow employees the option of not tying-off? Should
it be the responsibility of the employer to determine whether and what
conditions warrant the use of the fall protection? Should the standard
provide more specific criteria to indicate when the connector is
required to be tied-off? Are there particular operations for which
there is evidence that tying-off either is infeasible or poses a
greater hazard to connectors? The Agency requests comments and
supporting data on these and related issues.
13. Proposed paragraph Sec. 1926.760 (a)(1) sets the general
trigger height for fall protection in steel erection at 15 feet. Do the
conditions (discussed in the preamble) justify the lack of fall
protection at 6 feet, as is required by subpart M of OSHA's
construction standards for most other construction activities? Are
there activities or structures in the scope of proposed subpart R for
which fall protection should be provided at other heights (either lower
or higher)?
14. Proposed paragraphs 1926.760 (b) and (c) provide exceptions to
the 15 foot trigger height requirement for connectors and employees
working in an established CDZ. Do the conditions discussed justify the
alternative trigger height requirements for these workers? Are the
alternative protective requirements in those paragraphs adequate to
protect connectors and CDZ workers from falls? Is there evidence or
data demonstrating that this is the case?
15. Proposed 1926.753, Hoisting and Rigging, would allow employees
to work under overhead loads under certain situations (proposed
paragraph (b)-- Working Under Loads and proposed paragraph (c)--
Multiple Lift Rigging Procedure). In addition, proposed paragraph
(a)(4) would allow the use of cranes and derricks to hoist employees on
a personnel platform without a showing that methods are infeasible or
pose a greater hazard (see 1926.500). Does the rationale (discussed in
the preamble) justify the allowance of these procedures? Are data
available to determine that hoisting using a
[[Page 43486]]
personnel platform is safe if the specified conditions are met?
16. Proposed Sec. 1926.761 provides the training requirements for
steel erection. Included in these requirements are provisions that are
specifically and uniquely found in steel erection. Re-training
requirements, a common element of the training provisions in OSHA
construction standards, however, were rejected by the Committee. Should
all steel erection employees be required to undergo refresher training?
If so, what intervals are appropriate for such training? If such
training is not required in all cases, are there certain conditions or
situations that do warrant additional re-training? If, for example, an
employee demonstrates (by using improper procedures, not following
procedures, etc.) that the employee has not retained the requisite
understanding or skill or there have been significant changes in fall
protection equipment or other techniques or technologies since the
employee was trained, should the standard require re-training? Under
what circumstances, if any, should an employee be re-trained?
An additional training requirement that is a part of many steel
erectors' safety procedures is the so-called ``tool box'' meeting.
Steel erection involves progressive sequences of erection, so that one
day's shift may involve an entirely different workplace than the day
before, possibly with different or unique new hazards. Would it be
appropriate for OSHA to require a brief safety meeting prior to each
shift or each change of activity to inform employees of identified
hazards to be encountered during that shift and to make the employees
aware of any particular procedures, equipment and work practices that
will be used? What has been your experience with such meetings? Have
you found them helpful? Protective? Cost-effective? Please provide any
information or data to support your responses.
Proposed 1926.761 does not specify the details of required training
programs to allow the employer flexibility in designing training
programs. Do the training requirements provide adequate direction or
should the frequency of training and the initial administering of
training be addressed?
17. Based on the reasons stated in the preamble, is the lack of a
specific requirement for slippery metal deck surfaces (reserved
paragraph (c)(2) of proposed 1926.754) justified or is there adequate
information to support such a requirement?
18. Proposed 1926.752(d) allows employers to elect to develop a
site-specific erection plan if compelled by site-specific
considerations. Is there adequate support for not requiring a site-
specific erection plan for all sites? Are there more (or fewer)
situations than those identified in proposed 1926.752(d) for which the
development of a site-specific erection plan would be appropriate? Does
the lack of a required site-specific erection plan for every site
reduce the protectiveness of the proposed standard in situations where
providing such plans is feasible? OSHA solicits information on the
effectiveness of erection plans and employers' and employees'
experiences in developing and implementing them.
19. OSHA invites comments and information on proposed Sec. 1926.760
(e). Specifically, to what extent do steel erection employers currently
turn over fall protection systems to general contractors or follow-up
contractor employers when steel erection operations have been
completed? To what extent do ``controlling contractors'' currently
assume responsibility for fall protection systems installed by steel
erectors, as would be required by proposed Sec. 1926.760 (e)(1) and
(e)(2)?
20. There are six provisions in the proposal that exempt the
employer from certain requirements of the standard where the design or
constructibility would not allow or would eliminate the need to comply
with the requirement. These are Sec. 1926.754(b)(1),
Sec. 1926.754(b)(2), Sec. 1926.754(e)(2)(i), Sec. 1926.754(e)(2)(ii),
Sec. 1926.756(e), and Sec. 1926.756(f). What criteria should be used to
determine whether design or constructibility would allow the exemption?
Should the employer be required to demonstrate these criteria prior to
claiming an exemption to one of the provisions?
21. Proposed Sec. 1926.760(a)(2) provides criteria for fall arrest
systems and other fall protection equipment and includes strength
requirements for anchorages used in fall arrest systems. Proposed
Sec. 1926.757(a)(10) prohibits the use of joists and joist girders as
anchorages and proposed Sec. 1926.758(g) prohibits the use of purlins
and girts in pre-engineered metal buildings as anchorages unless
``written direction to do so is obtained from a qualified person.'' In
the discussion above, the explanation for the prohibition was explored
but little was presented as to what the ``written direction'' should be
based on. Should criteria be included in these provisions to develop
the basis for the written direction and, if so, what should these
criteria be?
22. OSHA welcomes small business comments in response to the
following:
a. While conducting a negotiated rulemaking process, SENRAC
considered a number of alternatives to the final proposal. The
alternatives are presented in the preamble and the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis. Are any of these alternatives more effective
while achieving the same level of safety? Are there other cost-
effective alternatives to specific provisions in the rule that would
produce an equally safe steel erection workplace? If so, please
explain.
b. Comments are welcome from affected small businesses on all
aspects of the proposal. Comments could include anticipated costs
(including capital outlay), revenue and profit estimates, feasibility
and anticipated levels of safety resulting from the rule. In
particular, OSHA welcomes comment and any available supporting
information on the cost, feasibility and safety of the following
specific requirements.
(1) Section 1926.754(e)(1)(i) requirement disallowing hoisting by
bundle packaging and strapping, unless the packaging and strapping are
designed for hoisting.
(2) Sections 1926.755(a)(1) and 1926.758(b) requirements to anchor
all columns by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts, based on specific design
assembly specifications.
(3) Section 1926.756(f)(3) requirement that holes or other devices
be provided by the fabricator/supplier and be attached to perimeter
columns at 42-45 inches above the finished floor.
(4) Section 1926.757(a)(4) requirement that a stabilizer plate be
provided on each column for steel joists and steel joist girders.
(5) Section 1926.757(a)(8) requirement for steel joists in bays of
40 feet or more to be fabricated to allow for field bolting during
erection--a requirement which requires the use of building specific
bolt hole construction.
(6) Section 1926.757(d)(6)(iii) requirement for shop-installed
bridging clips, or functional equivalents, on all steel joists to be
provided where the bridging bolts to the steel joists.
(7) Section 1926.758(e)(2) requirement for the seat or similar
connection device to be provided by the manufacturer of the girt or
eave strut.
c. OSHA assumes that the proposed rule will require construction
and steel fabricator firms to either pass-through costs and increase
prices or assume costs in some proportion and reduce profits by some
amount. Small business representatives have expressed concern that, if
the total cost of construction increases by greater than 5 percent,
their client base will shift away from steel erection to less costly
construction methods. Is this an accurate threshold
[[Page 43487]]
for determining the effects of the rule on the competitive position of
steel erection firms? Do affected firms expect the proposed rule to
increase costs of steel erection or related fabrication by more than 5
percent? Explain the bases for this calculation. Will construction and
fabrication firms lose significant numbers of jobs or specific types of
jobs because of a price increase? Are specific types of firms within
the steel erected building industry particularly sensitive to cost
increases?
d. ``Leading edge'' construction firms have already met many of the
proposed rule's provisions. Thus, OSHA assumes that other firms will be
able to meet the rule's requirements with existing equipment and
production methods at reasonable economic costs. Is this an accurate
assumption? Firms already in basic compliance with the proposal's
provisions are welcome to comment on each of the following questions:
(1) What is the size of your firm (e.g., number of employees,
annual revenue, etc.)?
(2) Which provisions of the proposed rule do you practice?
(3) How much has compliance with these practices reduced or
increased your profit and why?
(4) How much has compliance with these practices increased or
reduced your costs and why?
(5) How much of increased costs have you been able to pass along to
the customer?
(6) When faced with the need to make a cost-competitive bid, how
does your firm absorb or reduce costs associated with the additional
safety practices?
e. The proposed rule places new requirements on pre-engineered
metal buildings. OSHA invites this industry sector to comment and
provide supplemental information on the costs and benefits of these
requirements. Specifically, the agency seeks comments on the following
information:
(1) The number of firms likely to be affected by this rule;
(2) The typical size of these firms (e.g., number of employees,
annual revenue, etc.);
(3) The size of revenues of these firms and their profitability as
a percent of revenues;
(4) The costs of the proposed requirements on these firms;
(5) The need for safety improvements associated with erection of
various sized pre-engineered metal buildings; and
(6) Regulatory alternatives that may be more appropriate or cost
effective for this sector.
f. OSHA has assumed that safety benefits accrue to employees in
small firms at a rate equal to that in medium and large firms. OSHA's
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis assumed, however, that 44
percent of iron workers affected by the rule are employed by small
firms and that these small firms would have to pay only 22.5 percent of
the costs, leaving the majority of the cost impacts to fall on medium
and larger firms. OSHA welcomes comment on whether it should assume
that benefits accrue on a different basis than costs. For example, OSHA
welcomes comment on whether it has properly estimated that only 22.5
percent of costs would fall on firms with fewer than 10 employees, even
though 44 percent of all employees in the steel erection trade work for
these very small firms? Comments are also invited on other cost and
benefit assumptions.
VII. Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
Introduction
The Administrator of OIRA has determined that this proposal is a
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and a major rule under
the Congressional Review provisions of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act. Accordingly, OSHA has provided OIRA with an
assessment of the costs, benefits and alternatives, as required by
section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, which is summarized below.
Executive Order (EO) 12866 requires regulatory agencies to conduct
an economic analysis for rules that meet certain criteria. The most
frequently used criterion under EO 12866 is that the rule will impose
annual costs on the economy of $100 million or more. OSHA's proposal to
revise the steel erection standard in construction is projected to
result in annual costs of less than $100 million; nevertheless, OSHA
has prepared this preliminary economic analysis, summarized below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended in 1996,
requires OSHA to determine whether the Agency's regulatory actions will
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Making such a determination for this proposal required OSHA to perform
a screening analysis to identify any such impacts. OSHA's screening
analysis indicated that the proposed rule might have significant
impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, OSHA
has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, summarized
below, of the proposed steel erection rule.
OSHA's preliminary economic analysis and initial regulatory
flexibility analysis include a description of the industries
potentially affected by the standard; a summary of the major changes
between OSHA's existing steel erection standard and the proposed rule;
an evaluation of the risks addressed; an assessment of the benefits
attributable to the proposed standard; a determination of the
technological feasibility of the new requirements; an estimate of the
costs employers will incur to comply with the standard; a determination
of the economic feasibility of compliance with the standard; and an
analysis of the economic and other impacts associated with this
rulemaking, including those on small businesses. OSHA's preliminary
economic analysis and initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the
proposed standard are based on risk and cost data collected and
analyzed by OSHA's contractor, Jack Faucett Associates; these data are
presented in Appendices B and C of the preliminary economic analysis.
Affected Industries
The proposed steel erection standard affects industries and
establishments within the construction industry. Table 1 presents the
industry groups in construction that will be directly affected by the
proposed standard. Construction employers who will be directly impacted
are concentrated within SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection, an
industry with 4,463 establishments and 51,108 employees in 1996, as
reported by Dun & Bradstreet [D&B, 1996a]. Within this industry, 3,724
establishments, or 83 percent of the total number of establishments,
employed nineteen or fewer employees in 1996, while 3,099
establishments (69 percent) employed nine or fewer employees. SIC 1791,
however, also includes employers and workers who perform construction
activities other than steel erection, notably pre-cast concrete
erection. Thus, any comprehensive profile of the steel erection
industry must, in addition to examining affected industry groups, focus
on the type of work and the trade of the workers engaged in this form
of construction.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[[Page 43488]]
Table 1.--Industry Groups in Construction Potentially Affected by the Proposed Steel Erection Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishments with 1- Establishments with 1- Establishments with 1- Establishments with All establishments
Iron 9 employees 19 employees 99 employees 100+ employees -----------------------
SIC Industry group workers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Establish- Establish- Establish- Establish- Establish- Employment
ments Employment ments Employment ments Employment ments Employment ments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15........................... Building Construction--General 13,760 250,639 736,753 267,669 948,795 278,225 1,310,692 3,306 185,116 281,531 1,495,808
Contractors and Operative
Builders.
154.......................... General Building Contractors-- 13,760 35,373 130,773 42,934 225,849 49,297 452,453 1,706 148,947 51,003 601,400
Nonresidential Buildings.
1541......................... Industrial Buildings and ......... 6,055 22,269 7,422 39,733 8,884 93,823 559 60,411 9,443 154,234
Warehouses.
1542......................... Nonresidential Buildings, ......... 29,318 108,504 35,512 186,116 40,413 358,630 1,147 88,536 41,560 447,166
other than in SIC 1541.
16........................... Heavy Construction other than 2,490 30,861 107,284 36,389 177,080 42,484 406,738 3,663 240,183 46,147 646,921
Building Construction.
161.......................... Highway and Street 220 11,465 40,482 13,476 65,703 15,767 153,454 906 109,699 16,673 263,153
Construction, except Elevated
Highways.
162.......................... Heavy Construction, except 2,270 19,396 66,802 22,913 111,377 26,717 253,284 2,757 130,484 29,474 383,768
Highway and Street
Construction.
1622......................... Bridge, Tunnel, and Elevated ......... 634 2,477 844 5,116 1,199 18,847 281 15,674 1,480 34,521
Highway Construction.
1623......................... Water, Sewer, Pipeline, and ......... 6,673 26,154 8,669 51,686 10,874 133,018 1,989 43,469 12,863 176,487
Communications and Power Line
Construction.
1629......................... Heavy Construction Not ......... 12,089 38,171 13,400 54,575 14,644 101,419 487 71,341 15,131 172,760
Elsewhere Classified.
17........................... Construction--Special Trade 22,730 537,914 1,617,998 582,095 2,176,861 611,076 3,165,136 7,899 335,227 618,975 3,500,363
Contractors.
176.......................... Roofing, Siding, and Sheet 1,060 37,688 116,697 41,185 160,798 43,671 244,033 451 13,315 44,122 257,348
Metal Work.
179.......................... Miscellaneous Special Trade 20,210 104,192 312,739 112,313 414,931 117,545 589,432 1,340 58,755 118,885 648,187
Contractors.
1791......................... Structural Steel Erection..... ......... 3,099 10,986 3,724 18,914 4,346 40,696 117 10,412 4,463 51,108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Totals...... ............................ 38,980 819,414 2,462,035 886,153 3,302,736 931,785 4,882,566 14,868 750,526 946,653 5,643,092
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 1993.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1998, based on Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses software, Dun & Bradstreet Information Services, 1996.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M
The workers directly benefitting from the proposed standard are
identified in occupational surveys as structural metal workers; in the
industry, they are known as iron workers. According to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment Statistics Survey [BLS,
1993], there were 38,980 structural metal workers in construction in
1993, the majority of whom are found in SIC 179, Miscellaneous Special
Trade Contractors (20,210 structural metal workers), and SIC 154,
Contractors--Nonresidential Buildings (13,760 structural metal workers)
(Table 1). For this preliminary economic analysis, OSHA used this
estimate of the number of iron workers affected by the proposed rule in
its benefits and cost analyses. In addition to these construction
workers, structural metal workers and other workers in general industry
who perform steel erection repair or renovation operations that are
defined by OSHA as construction may fall within the scope of the
proposed standard. At this time, however, OSHA lacks data on the number
of, and types of work performed by, workers not classified in
construction SICs that perform steel erection activities. OSHA requests
information on the number of structural metal workers and workers in
other trades who perform steel erection outside of the construction
industry.
Proposed Changes to OSHA's Steel Erection Standard
The proposed steel erection standard modifies and strengthens the
Agency's existing standard in a number of areas. For example, the
proposed standard includes a scope and application section that
identifies the types of construction projects and activities subject to
the rule. Structures excluded from coverage under the scope of the
standard are steel electrical transmission towers, steel communication
and broadcast towers, steel water towers, steel light towers, steel
tanks, and reinforced and pre-cast concrete. The proposed rule also
includes a new section addressing site layout and construction
sequence. Other proposed revisions to the existing standard include:
Explicit requirements for hoisting and rigging and the
resulting protection of workers and the public from the hazards of
overhead loads;
Additional and strengthened requirements for the
structural steel assembly of beams, columns, joists, decking, and pre-
engineered metal buildings, including the protection of employees from
tripping hazards and slippery surfaces on walking/working surfaces;
Strengthened and clarified requirements for fall
protection for connectors, decking assemblers, and other iron workers
during the erection of structural steel; and
New requirements for training in fall hazards, multiple
lift rigging,
[[Page 43489]]
connecting, and controlled decking zones.
For this analysis, OSHA has identified those requirements that
would create substantial impacts or generate substantial benefits. OSHA
estimates that current industry practice is at 10 percent with regard
to providing fall arrest systems and personnel nets (i.e., 10 percent
of affected firms currently use this equipment); at 75 percent for
safety training; at 80 percent for column anchor bolts; and at 87
percent for guardrail systems [Ex. 11]. OSHA anticipates that the
proposed standard's requirements pertaining to overhead loads, trips
and slips, falls, falling objects, collapses, and worker training will
both generate substantial benefits for affected employers and impose
costs on them.
Evaluation of Risk and Potential Benefits
For this preliminary economic analysis, OSHA developed a profile of
the risks facing iron workers who are performing steel erection
operations. OSHA's risk profile for steel erection is based on data
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries, data from the Bureau's Survey of Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses, and an analysis by a SENRAC workgroup of OSHA
fatality/catastrophe inspection data obtained from the Agency's
Integrated Management Information System.
OSHA anticipates that the proposed standard will significantly
reduce the number of accidents and fatalities currently reported in the
steel erection industry, particularly those accidents caused by falls
from elevated levels and by objects such as dislodged structural
members and building materials striking workers. OSHA believes that the
proposed standard's more protective requirements for fall protection,
structural stability, and training will help to save lives and prevent
injuries in the iron worker workforce. For accidents involving events
or exposures potentially addressed by the proposed standard, OSHA
estimates that approximately 28 fatalities and 1,836 lost-workday
injuries currently occur annually among structural metal workers (see
Table 2, below); this is the current industry risk baseline used in
this analysis. OSHA projects that full compliance with the proposed
standard would prevent 26 of these fatalities and 1,152 of these lost-
workday injuries. Twelve of these fatalities and 328 serious injuries
could be prevented if employers were currently in compliance with
OSHA's existing steel erection standard. The proposed standard will
prevent an additional 14 fatalities and 824 injuries not prevented by
the existing standard. Further, OSHA believes that compliance with the
steel erection standard will be enhanced because the proposed revision
is clearer, allows for more flexibility in compliance, is easier to
understand, and is effectively targeted toward steel erection hazards.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Table 2.--Summary of Estimated Number of Deaths Averted and Injuries Avoided by Full Compliance With the
Proposed Steel Erection Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number
Number of Additional of fatalities
Number of fatalities and number of and lost- Number of
fatalities and lost-workday fatalities and workday fatalities and
lost-workday injuries lost-workday injuries lost-workday
injuries preventable by injuries preventable by injuries
currently compliance preventable by compliance judged not to
occurring with the compliance with the be preventable
among iron existing with the existing and by either
workers standard proposed proposed standard
standard standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities...................... 28 12 14 26 2
Lost-Workday Injuries........... 1,836 328 824 1,152 684
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1998.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M
In addition to saving lives and improving overall safety in the
steel erection industry, OSHA believes that the proposed standard, once
fully implemented by erection contractors, would yield substantial cost
savings to parties within and connected with the industry and
ultimately to society as a whole. These monetized benefits take the
form of reductions in employer and insurer accident-related costs in
several areas: value of lost output associated with temporary total
disabilities and permanent partial disabilities, an income-based
measure derived from estimates of workers' compensation indemnity
payments; reductions in accident-related medical costs; administrative
expenses incurred by workers' compensation insurers; and indirect costs
related to productivity losses, work stoppages, and accident
investigations and reports. Applying data from the construction and
insurance industries on the direct costs of accidents and data from the
literature on the indirect costs of accidents and other tort and
administrative-related costs to OSHA's preliminary estimate of avoided
injuries (see Chapter III in the preliminary economic analysis [Ex.
11]), the Agency monetized the value of the cost savings employers and
society will accrue by avoiding these injuries. In sum, OSHA estimates
that annual costs savings of $11.6 million would result from full
compliance with the current rule and an additional $28.7 million would
be saved as a result of compliance with the proposed rule (Table 3).
Thus annual monetized benefits of $40.3 million are expected after the
proposed steel erection standard is implemented as a final rule.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Table 3.--Summary of Annual Incremental Monetized Benefits of
Preventable Lost-Workday Injuries Attributable to the Proposed Steel
Erection Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lost Output Associated with Temporary Disabilities...... $4,356,347
Lost Output Associated with Permanent Disabilities...... 14,450,838
Medical Costs........................................... 3,923,949
Insurance Costs (Administrative)........................ 2,384,945
[[Page 43490]]
Indirect Costs.......................................... 3,607,994
Costs Associated with Liability Claims Avoided.......... N/Q
---------------
Total Cost Savings.................................. 28,724,074
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/Q--Not Quantified.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis,
1998.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M
In addition to these monetized benefits, cost savings attributable
to a decline in the number of third-party liability suits can be
expected. Although quantification of these tort-related legal defense
costs and dollar awards is difficult because of the unavailability of a
sufficient volume of data, OSHA believes that these employer costs are
substantial and would be slashed significantly through compliance with
the proposed standard.
Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs
Consistent with the legal framework established by the OSH Act,
Executive Order 12866 and court decisions, OSHA has assessed the
technological feasibility of the proposed steel erection standard. The
proposed standard clarifies and strengthens the Agency's existing
standard, provides more specific requirements in some areas, and
introduces requirements for some steel erection hazards newly addressed
by the Agency. Many of the proposed revisions are consistent with
current construction means and methods used by leading firms within the
steel erection industry. The success of these firms in this competitive
industry demonstrates that the requirements of the proposed standard
can be met with existing equipment and production methods.
Moreover, the proposed standard is based on a consensus draft
recommended to the Agency by a negotiated rulemaking committee
consisting of divergent industry interests--including small employers--
who would be affected by any changes to subpart R. The committee
reached consensus on the language of the draft, thereby implicitly
acknowledging the feasibility of the proposed revisions to the
standard.
Therefore, based on the fact that many firms in the industry are
already implementing the controls and practices required by the
proposed standard and that the negotiated rulemaking committee reached
consensus on the draft underlying the proposed revisions, OSHA has
preliminarily determined that the proposed steel erection standard is
technologically feasible.
OSHA developed estimates of the costs of compliance for
construction employers subject to the proposed standard; OSHA's
analysis is based on data gathering and analysis carried out by Faucett
Associates under contract to OSHA. OSHA estimated annualized compliance
costs for two compliance scenarios: (1) costs to achieve compliance
with OSHA's existing steel erection standard, and (2) costs to achieve
compliance with the proposed standard. OSHA's cost estimates take into
account the extent of current industry compliance, i.e., the extent to
which employers are already in compliance with the requirements of
OSHA's existing standard and with the requirements of the proposed
steel erection standard. Accounting for these costs, i.e., subtracting
them from the costs attributed to the proposed standard, is important
because only those costs employers would actually incur to come into
compliance with the proposed standard are properly attributed to that
standard.
Table 4 presents OSHA's annualized compliance cost estimates, by
provision or safety control, for establishments in the industries
subject to the proposed standard. For establishments to achieve full
compliance with OSHA's existing steel erection standard, annualized
compliance costs are estimated to total $28.0 million. OSHA projects
that full compliance with the proposed standard would, after deducting
costs incurred to achieve compliance with the existing standard, result
in net (or incremental) annualized costs of $49.4 million for affected
establishments. Among incremental annualized costs, expenditures for
fall arrest systems account for $14.4 million, or 29 percent of total
costs; expenditures for the safe design and erection of steel joists
required by the proposed standard account for $13.9 million, or 28
percent of total costs; and expenditures for anchor bolts necessary for
structural stability account for $13.7 million, or 28 percent of total
costs. Other control costs associated with compliance with the proposed
steel erection standard are those for railings, cables, and barriers
($4.7 million); paperwork associated with administrative controls ($3.4
million); and training ($0.7 million).
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Table 4.--Annualized Compliance Cost of the Proposed Standard by Industry Group and Proposed Controls (a)
[1995 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed controls
-----------------------------------------
SIC Industry group and size Fall arrest Personnel nets Railings, Training Paperwork Total
systems cables and Anchor bolts Joist
barriers erection
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
154............................................ General Building Contractors--
Nonresidential Buildings
Establishments with 1-9 Employees. $1,005,697 ($104,757) $324,360 $958,333 $971,949 $50,944 $233,655 $3,440,181
Establishments with 1-99 Employees 3,664,730 (381,730) 1,181,959 3,492,139 3,541,752 185,637 851,432 12,535,919
Establishments with 100+ Employees 1,428,486 (148,796) 460,719 1,361,211 1,380,550 72,360 331,882 4,886,413
All Establishments................ 5,093,216 (530,525) 1,642,679 4,853,350 4,922,302 257,997 1,183,315 17,422,332
[[Page 43491]]
161............................................ Highway and Street Construction,
except Elevated Highways
Establishments with 1-9 Employees. 18,716 (1,949) 6,036 17,834 18,088 948 4,348 64,020
Establishments with 1-99 Employees 57,156 (5,954) 18,434 54,464 55,238 2,895 13,279 195,514
Establishments with 100+ Employees 24,276 (2,529) 7,830 23,133 23,461 1,230 5,640 83,041
All Establishments................ 81,432 (8,482) 26,264 77,597 78,700 4,125 18,919 278,555
162............................................ Heavy Construction, except Highway
and Street Construction
Establishments with 1-9 Employees. 134,569 (14,017) 43,402 128,232 130,054 6,817 31,265 460,320
Establishments with 1-99 Employees 524,969 (54,682) 169,314 500,245 507,352 26,592 121,967 1,795,757
Establishments with 100+ Employees 315,264 (32,839) 101,680 300,416 304,684 15,970 73,246 1,078,421
All Establishments................ 840,233 (87,521) 270,994 800,662 812,037 42,562 195,213 2,874,178
176............................................ Roofing, Siding and Sheet Metal
Work
Establishments with 1-9 Employees. 150,303 (15,656) 48,476 143,224 145,259 7,614 34,920 514,141
Establishments with 1-99 Employees 361,729 (37,679) 116,666 344,693 349,590 18,323 84,041 1,237,363
Establishments with 100+ Employees 30,626 (3,190) 9,878 29,184 29,599 1,551 7,115 104,764
All Establishments................ 392,355 (40,869) 126,544 373,877 379,189 19,875 91,157 1,342,127
1791........................................... Structural Steel Erection
Establishments with 1-9 Employees. 1,821,328 (189,715) 587,420 1,735,552 1,760,209 92,259 423,152 6,230,206
Establishments with 1-99 Employees 5,131,108 (534,472) 1,654,900 4,889,457 4,958,922 259,916 1,192,118 17,551,950
Establishments with 100+ Employees 2,349,553 (244,737) 757,785 2,238,900 2,270,708 119,016 545,875 8,037,100
All Establishments................ 7,480,661 (779,209) 2,412,685 7,128,357 7,229,630 378,933 1,737,994 25,589,050
Establishments with 1-9 Employees. 3,130,613 (326,095) 1,009,694 2,983,176 3,025,558 158,581 727,340 10,708,868
All Significally Affected Industry Groups...... Establishments with 1-99 Employees 9,739,692 (1,014,517) 3,141,274 9,280,999 9,412,855 493,364 2,262,838 33,316,503
Establishments with 100+ Employees 4,148,205 (432,090) 1,337,891 3,952,844 4,009,003 210,127 963,759 14,189,738
All Establishments................ 13,887,897 (1,446,607) 4,479,165 13,233,843 13,421,857 703,491 3,226,597 47,506,242
Other Affected Industry Groups (b)............. .................................. 540,414 (56,291) 74,296 514,963 522,279 27,375 125,555 1,848,590
Total...................................... .................................. 14,428,311 (1,502,898) 4,653,461 13,748,806 13,944,136 730,865 3,352,152 49,354,832
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in the table may not sum to totals due to rounding.
(a) Total compliance costs were distributed among industry groups according to the percentage of iron workers employed in that group (see Table 1). Within SIC groups, costs were distributed by
share of revenue for firms in the size class.
(b) Other industries potentially affected by the proposed steel erection standard employ a small percentage of iron workers. These industry groups are: SIC 171, Plumbing, Heating and Air-
Conditioninng;: SIC 173, Electrical Work; SIC 174, Masonry, Stone Work, Title Setting and Plastering; and SIC 175, Carpentry and Floor Work. Because firms in these industries are seldom
involved directly in structural steel erection. OSHA has grouped them separately.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1998, based on cost analysis by Jack Faucett Associates (See Appendix C of the preliminary economic analysis [Ex. 11])
and Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses software, Dun & Bradstreet Information Services, 1996.
Economic Impacts
OSHA analyzed the impacts of these compliance costs on prices,
profits, construction output and other economic indices in the steel
erection industry. In particular, OSHA examined economic impacts on SIC
1791, Structural Steel Erection, where the majority of the 39,000
structural metal workers are employed. This analysis shows that
structural steel erectors will not be severely impacted by the costs
associated with full implementation of the proposed standard.
OSHA examined the potential economic impacts of the proposed
standard by making two assumptions used by economists to bound the
range of possible impacts: the assumption of no-cost pass-through,
i.e., that employers will be unable to pass any of the costs of
compliance forward to their customers, and the assumption of full-cost
pass-through, i.e., that employers will be able to pass all of the
costs of compliance forward to their customers. As summarized in Table
5, below, OSHA estimates that, if affected firms in SIC 1791 were
forced to absorb these compliance costs entirely from profits (a highly
unlikely scenario), profits would be reduced by an average of 4.6
percent. If, at the other extreme, affected firms were able to pass all
of these compliance costs forward to general contractors and project
owners, OSHA projects that the price (revenue) increase
[[Page 43492]]
required to pay for these costs would be less than 1 percent (0.28
percent).
In addition to examining the economic effects of the proposed
standard on firms in SIC 1791, OSHA estimated the impacts of the
proposed standard on two other construction industry divisions
involving steel erection: (1) the entire construction sector; and (2)
construction activity where structural steel constitutes the physical
core of the project, termed ``steel-frame construction'' by OSHA.
For the dollar value of business for the entire construction
sector, OSHA totaled 1996 sales data for SICs 15, 16, and 17 provided
in a Dun & Bradstreet national business database [D&B, 1996a]. OSHA
derived pre-tax income (Column 2 in Table 5) for the construction
sector by, first, calculating industry profit using Dun & Bradstreet
data on post-tax return on sales (post-tax profits) and, second,
applying a formula that converts post-tax income to pre-tax income
based on tax rates in the U.S. corporate tax code. OSHA found that, for
the construction sector as a whole, price impacts under full cost pass-
through would be 0.01 percent, and profit impacts assuming no cost
pass-through would be 0.06 percent. Thus in the context of the
construction sector as a whole, the proposed standard would have little
impact.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Table 5.--Potential Economic Impacts of the Proposed Steel Erection Standard on Selected Sectors Within the
Construction Industry
[Worst-Case Conditions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar value Compliance Compliance
of business Pre-tax income costs as a costs as a
(a) ($ (b) ($ percent of percent of
millions) million) revenue (c) profit (c)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Sector as a Whole.................. $768,155.9 $77,830.1 0.01 0.06
Steel-Frame Construction (d).................... 119,979.2 12,156.4 0.04 0.41
SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection............. 9,285.7 562.4 0.28 4.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Based on data from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses, 1996.
(b) Based on data from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses, 1996; Dun & Bradstreet, Industry Norms
and Key Business Ratios, 1996; and OSHA profit calculations.
(c) Revenue and profit impacts were calculated by dividing annual compliance costs for each of the three
construction sectors shown in the table by, respectively, dollar value of business and pre-tax income.
Compliance costs assigned to these sectors are based on total costs of $49.4 million and were applied as
follows: construction sector as a whole--$49.4 million; steel-frame construction--$49.4 million; and SIC 1791,
Structural Steel Erection--$25.6 million.
(d) Steel-Frame Construction is defined by OSHA as the body of construction projects where steel framing
constitutes the physical core of the structure. Dollar value of business and pre-tax income for Steel-Frame
Construction were computed by applying the percentage of the value of the steel market share (15.6 percent),
excluding that for tanks and towers, of all construction starts to the dollar value of business and pre-tax
income for the entire construction sector. Data on the steel market share for 1995 are based on memoranda to
OSHA from Construction Resources Analysis, College of Business Administration, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville [Exs. 9-143 and 9-144].
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1998.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M
OSHA calculated the value of steel-frame construction using data
provided by the Construction Resources Analysis office of the
University of Tennessee, College of Business Administration on the
value of the steel market share of the entire construction industry. In
this calculation, OSHA applied the percentage of the value of the steel
market share (15.6 percent), excluding that for tanks and towers, of
all construction starts to the dollar value of business and pre-tax
income for the entire construction sector, thereby eliminating all non-
steel construction (as defined in the proposed standard) from the
earnings total. Price increases for steel frame construction as a whole
are of particular interest because they represent the price increases
to the ultimate customers of steel erection services, the purchasers of
buildings, bridges, etc. Under the worst-case price increase scenarios,
the price of such projects would increase by 0.04 percent. It is
exceedingly unlikely that a customer would fail to go ahead with a
project as a result of a price increase of this magnitude; as a result
cost pass-through at the project level is probably feasible.
OSHA believes that, prior to the generation of the cost savings
projected to accrue from implementation of the standard, most steel
erectors will handle the increase in direct costs by increasing their
prices somewhat and absorbing the remainder from profits. Within steel
erection markets, the particular blend of impacts experienced by a
given firm will depend on the degree of competition with concrete
erection and other alternative types of construction in the firm's
local market area. Although these minimal economic impacts would be
felt by most affected employers after implementation of the standard,
OSHA anticipates--based on testimony by members of SENRAC and other
industry representatives whose current fall protection programs and
other safety measures mirror those required by the proposed standard
[Exs. 6-3, 6-8, and 6-10]--that offsetting cost savings will soon
reverse any negative economic impacts.
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended in 1996 (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), requires regulatory agencies to determine whether
regulatory actions will adversely affect small entities. The
significance of any economic impact is measured by the effect on
profits, market share, and an entity's financial viability. Pursuant to
the RFA, OSHA has assessed the small-business impacts of the proposed
steel erection standard. On the basis of this regulatory flexibility
screening assessment and the underlying data, summarized below, OSHA
has preliminarily determined that the proposed standard will have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus,
OSHA has conducted a full Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as
required. OSHA's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis follows the
screening analysis presented in this section.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small entities, or
``concerns,'' in terms of number of employees or annual receipts. For
employers in SIC 17, small concerns are
[[Page 43493]]
defined by SBA as those with $7.0 million or less in annual receipts.
OSHA has determined that in SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection, based
on 1996 data from Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) and using D&B's estimate of
the dollar value of business to represent annual receipts, the class of
establishments with 99 or fewer employees comes closest to the class of
firms qualifying as small concerns under the SBA definition. Not all
firms in this class would have annual receipts of less than $7.0
million; however, OSHA would rather overestimate the number of small
firms than try to extrapolate the number of small firms from the
limited data available. Establishments with fewer than 99 employees
represent 97.4 percent of the 4,463 establishments and employ 79.6
percent of the 51,108 workers in SIC 1791, according to Dun &
Bradstreet's national market profile [D&B, 1996a].
OSHA projects that the magnitude of compliance costs for most
safety measures mandated by the proposed standard will depend on the
size of an employer's workforce. For requirements pertaining to fall
protection, joist erection, and structural assembly, to name a few
provisions, labor and equipment costs will vary by project size and
duration. For the requirements for training, costs will vary by
employment size. Thus, in some cases, smaller firms erecting smaller
structures will incur relatively lower compliance costs. In sum, the
proposed standard is designed to minimize requirements that would
impose significant fixed capital costs and give larger firms a
competitive advantage through economies of scale.
In this regulatory flexibility screening assessment, OSHA assessed
the impacts of compliance costs within the industry group with the
largest concentration of affected employers and employees, SIC 1791,
Structural Steel Erection. According to data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, of the approximately 39,000 iron workers in construction,
20,210 are employed in SIC 179, Miscellaneous Special Trade
Contractors. OSHA believes that the great majority of these workers are
found in SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection, because the other
industries in SIC 179 (glass and glazing, excavation work, wrecking and
demolition, installation and erection of building equipment (such as
installing elevators, revolving doors and industrial machinery) and
specialty trade contractors not elsewhere classified), are unlikely to
employ significant numbers of iron workers. This contention is
supported by the fact that available data on iron worker deaths (see
Table III-2 in the preliminary economic analysis [Ex. 11]) show that
SIC 1791 accounted for more than 90 percent of iron worker deaths in
SIC 179 in 1992-93. Total employment for all trades in SIC 1791 is
51,108 workers, according to Dun & Bradstreet. BLS and D&B data
indicate that iron workers constitute roughly 40 percent of the labor
force in SIC 1791, the largest concentration of iron workers in any
four-digit group where iron workers are employed. In addition, only
firms in SIC 1791 earn the majority of their revenues from steel
erection. (According to the definitions used in the SIC system, firms
classified in all other sectors must earn a minority of their total
revenues from their steel erection business.)
Compared with all other industry groups in the construction
industry, firms in SIC 1791 have the greatest number of iron workers
per firm and the highest percentage of iron workers relative to total
employment. Since the costs of compliance are approximately
proportional to the number of iron workers in a given firm,
establishments in SIC 1791 will experience the greatest economic
impact.
To assess the financial impacts of the proposed standard on small
firms in SIC 1791, OSHA distributed compliance costs within size
classes according to an estimate of the percent of revenue (gross
sales) earned by establishments within those size classes. Applying Dun
& Bradstreet revenue figures, OSHA has determined that costs represent
less than one percent (0.28 percent) of revenues for firms with 99 or
fewer employees, so that under the extreme case of full-cost pass-
through to consumers, prices would rise by no more than one percent
(see Table 6, below). Similarly, for the very smallest firms, those
with fewer than ten employees, price impacts are projected to be low:
0.28 percent.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Table 6.--Potential Economic Impacts of the Proposed Steel Erection Standard on Small Firms in the Steel Erection Industry Under Worst-Case Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Dollar
compliance Compliance value of Pre-tax Pre-tax Compliance Compliance
costs (a) cost per business Revenue per income (c) income per costs as a costs as a
($ establishment (b) ($ establishment (b) ($ establishment percent of percent of
millions) (a) millions) millions) (c) revenue profit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection... $25.6 $5,733.6 $9,285.7 $2,080,606.0 $562.4 $126,024.2 0.28 4.55
SIC 1791, 1-99 Employees.............. 17.6 4,038.6 6,369.2 1,465,541.8 395.8 91,074.8 0.28 4.43
SIC 1791, 1-9 Employees............... 6.2 2,010.4 2,260.8 729,530.4 95.8 30,898.0 0.28 6.51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Based on Table 5 of this summary of the preliminary economic analysis and data on number of establishments from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile
of Businesses, 1996. Compliance costs for size groups were derived by applying the percentage of revenue in the size groups to total costs for all of
SIC 1791.
(b) Based on data from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses, 1996.
(c) Based on data from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses, 1996; Dun & Bradstreet, Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios, 1995-96; and
OSHA profit calculations.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1998.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M
Under the alternate scenario of full-cost profit absorption (an
extremely unlikely scenario) among steel erection contractors with 99
or fewer employees, profit impacts would be 4.4 percent; for firms with
one to nine employees, profit impacts would be 6.5 percent. Thus, costs
as a percentage of profits and revenues for SIC 1791 are lower when a
small entity is defined to include all firms within the SBA size
standards (less than $7 million in revenue) than for small entities
employing fewer than 10 workers. The difference in these projected
profit impacts for the two smaller size categories of firms reflects a
difference in the 1995-96 profit rates
[[Page 43494]]
for the two groups [D&B, 1996b] applied by OSHA in this impacts
analysis: (1) an average 3.6 percent rate of net-profit-after-tax-to-
net-sales for establishments with fewer than ten employees (roughly
defined as those with assets of less than $250,000) and (2) an average
4.9 percent post-tax profit/sales ratio for establishments with one to
ninety-nine employees (roughly defined as those with assets of $250,000
to $1 million) (see Chapter VI in the preliminary economic analysis for
further explanation).
OSHA believes that most small erectors will, along with the rest of
the industry, receive economic benefits from compliance with the
proposed rule that will more than offset these direct cost impacts. As
noted above, employer representatives on the committee commented on
numerous occasions that the measures required by the proposed standard
will, in fact, improve profitability and competitiveness [Exs. 6-3, 6-
8, and 6-10]. Therefore, OSHA anticipates that most small entities will
experience minimal economic impacts as a result of implementation of
the proposed standard if some or all compliance costs can be passed
forward to final consumers and/or cost savings are realized. However,
OSHA believes that, when compliance costs exceed 5 percent of profits
in an industry earning reasonable profits, the standard's impact may be
significant in the context of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Thus,
OSHA has conducted a full Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as
required by that act.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended in 1996, requires that
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis contain the following
elements:
(1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed
rule; and
(6) A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed
rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
In addition, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis must contain a
description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that,
first, accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes (in this
case the OSH Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act) and that, second,
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
Reasons for the Proposed Rule
According to OSHA's analysis of accident data for an eleven-year
period (1984-1994), 319 iron worker fatalities involved hazardous
conditions that are addressed by OSHA's current and proposed steel
erection standards. Based on a review of BLS injury census data for the
period 1992-1993, OSHA estimates that an average of 28 fatalities and
1,836 lost-workday injuries annually involve circumstances that would
be addressed by provisions in the proposed OSHA steel erection
standard. For an industry with an estimated workforce of only 38,980
workers, these fatality and injury levels clearly demonstrate that the
risk confronting these workers is significant. Therefore, OSHA has
developed proposed regulatory text that is designed to address this
risk.
Objectives of the Proposed Rule
The objective of this proposal is to reduce the risk of
occupational exposure to a variety of hazards on steel erection
construction worksites, such as those involving falls, slips, trips,
being struck by or crushed by objects or loads, and structural
collapses. These occupational hazards will be reduced by this proposal
through the use of engineering controls, work practice controls,
inspections of worksite conditions, training, communication, and
recordkeeping. Implementation of these measures has been shown to
minimize or eliminate occupational exposure to these hazards during the
erection of steel structures and thus to reduce the risk of injury or
death among iron workers.
Description of the Number of Small Entities
For this rulemaking, OSHA has identified the population at risk of
injury in the construction workforce and the industry groups where
steel erection is conducted, but cannot give a precise estimate of the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply. In SIC
1791, Structural Steel Erection, where the majority of iron workers are
employed, there are roughly 4,346 establishments defined as small by
the SBA, i.e., these entities earn less than $7 million in annual
revenue. If all establishments in SIC 1791 were affected by the
proposed standard, then small entities would comprise 97 percent of all
affected entities using the SBA size standard. There are 3,724 very
small establishments, i.e., those employing fewer than 20 employees, in
SIC 1791; these very small establishments comprise 83 percent of all
establishments in the industry.
OSHA also examined the impact of the proposed standard on the
Fabricated Structural Metal Industry (SIC 3441), which produces iron
and steel for structural purposes such as the construction of bridges
and buildings. This sector would need to bore holes in certain joists--
those that are connected to steel structures in bays spanning 40 feet
or more--to enable them to be bolted rather than welded (proposed
section 1926.757). OSHA's impact analysis assumes that this sector
would bear all of the $13.9 million in annual costs associated with the
provision of the proposed standard concerning open web joists. In fact,
because of contractual arrangements among fabricators, steel erectors
and building owners, most of the costs of this provision would be
transmitted through steel erectors to building owners and would appear
in the bid price of the project or would be incurred as onsite costs.
For purposes of this analysis, OSHA has defined small firms in this
industry using the SBA definition of small firms: firms with fewer than
500 employees. Department of Commerce data show that there were 2,356
small firms in this sector in 1993. (Small firms represented 97.5
percent of all firms.) Department of Commerce data also show that these
small firms had total revenues of over $6.6 billion, almost 73 percent
of all industry revenues. Dun and Bradstreet data show that in fiscal
year 1995, the median profits for firms in this sector were a healthy
3.5 percent of sales. Small firms were assumed to bear costs in
proportion to their revenues. Even if all of the costs of this
provision of the standard are borne by the fabricated structural metal
industry, these costs represent only 0.15 percent of revenues and 4.3
percent of profits for small firms in this sector. Thus the costs of
the standard would not cause a significant impact on small firms in
this sector.
The Steel Joist Institute has argued that some small firms may lack
the equipment to prepare joists as required
[[Page 43495]]
by the standard, and that as a result such firms could be severely
impacted. However, buildings requiring joists in bays spanning 40 feet
or more represent only a portion of the total market. To the extent
that there are small firms lacking suitable equipment, such firms could
still produce fabricated steel for a variety of steel erection projects
and for portions of other projects. As a result, OSHA does not
anticipate a significant impact, if any, on those firms that lack the
proper equipment to prepare certain joists for bolting. However, OSHA
solicits comment on two issues: (1) whether there are small firms
lacking suitable equipment to prepare joists in the manner prescribed
by the regulation; and (2) the percentage of the steel framing market
that requires the use of joists in bays spanning 40 feet or more.
Description of the Proposed Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements
The proposed rule would require, in the following sections of the
proposal, that employers establish and maintain records for the use of
engineering controls, work practices, inspections, and training:
Site layout, site-specific erection plan, and construction
sequence;
Hoisting and rigging;
Structural steel assembly;
Open web steel joists;
Pre-engineered metal buildings; and
Training
Most steel erection employers would be affected by the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements in these sections, with the exception of
the requirements pertaining only to pre-engineered buildings. Of an
estimated 17,587 steel erection projects constructed annually, 7,391
pre-engineered metal buildings are erected each year.
In estimating the cost of establishing and maintaining the records
for each of these control areas, OSHA used the wage rate of the
applicable professional personnel. To give two examples: (1) for the
cost of certifying crane visual inspections, OSHA applied the wage rate
for a crane operator; and (2) for the costs of documentation of
alternative methods for joist erection, OSHA applied the wage rates of
a project manager and a structural engineer. All recordkeeping
requirements included in the proposed rule could be performed by the
existing staff in any of the covered industries. A detailed description
of the proposed requirements appears in Chapter II, INDUSTRY PROFILE
and Chapter III, COSTS OF COMPLIANCE, in the preliminary economic
analysis.
Relevant Federal Rules
OSHA is proposing to revise the current safety standard for steel
erection that has been in place with little change for over 25 years.
OSHA believes that this thorough and comprehensive revision to existing
subpart R will provide greater protection and eliminate ambiguity and
confusion, thereby improving safety in this important segment of the
construction industry.
At present there are no other federal workplace rules or guidelines
that overlap with the OSHA steel erection standard.
Significant Alternatives Considered
OSHA is confident that the proposed steel erection standard has
been written in such a way as to minimize impacts on small employers
while still ensuring significant protection for affected employees.
Through the efforts of key stakeholders participating in the negotiated
rulemaking, the proposed standard features, wherever possible,
performance language that permits maximum flexibility for achieving
safety outcomes. For example, the proposal provides an opportunity to
those employers, who select alternative means and methods for complying
with certain sections of the standard, to incorporate these
alternatives into a site-specific erection plan. The committee
considered small contractors when it elected not to recommend that OSHA
propose a universal requirement for a site-specific erection plan for
all steel erection sites. Instead, the proposal provides guidelines for
establishing a site-specific erection plan in a non-mandatory appendix
to assist employers who choose to develop such a plan, as recommended
by the committee.
Other areas of the proposed standard that are particularly
responsive to the concerns of small contractors include rules for the
safe use of cranes and other lifting equipment and the proper assembly
of metal buildings other than those constructed of heavy structural
steel. In light of the number of small steel erectors potentially
affected by the hoisting and rigging section of the proposed standard,
OSHA has attempted to minimize the burden of the pre-shift visual crane
inspections by having the inspection checklist apply only to the most
essential safety elements, as recommended by SENRAC. Additionally,
since there are a large number of small builders who erect pre-
engineered metal structures exclusively, OSHA determined that a
separate section in the proposal dedicated to this type of steel
erection would ease compliance for small erectors.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act emphasizes the importance of
performance-based standards for small businesses. OSHA considers the
proposed standard to be highly performance oriented and believes that
smaller contractors will benefit especially from that orientation. For
example, in proposed Sec. 1926.760, Fall Protection, employers are
required to protect certain employees exposed to fall distances of 15
feet or greater. Paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1926.760 lists the types of
general safety systems--e.g., guardrail systems, safety net systems, or
personal fall arrest systems--that must be used by employers to provide
fall protection to their employees. However, the proposed standard does
not mandate particular engineering solutions by structure type, site
location, crew size, or other criteria. Employers are free to select
any one system or combination of systems that is most compatible with
company practice and employee protection so long as the performance
measure--fall protection at 15 feet--is achieved. OSHA welcomes comment
on other ways that the standard can be made more performance oriented.
As another example of OSHA's sensitivity to the potential impacts
on small businesses, the proposal minimizes paperwork burden where
training, notifications, and other forms of communication are required,
as recommended by SENRAC. Regarding training provisions, general
instruction in fall hazards is mandated for all employees exposed to
that risk, but the scope of additional special training is limited to
three particularly hazardous activities: multiple lift rigging,
connecting, and decking. Employers are to ensure that the training is
provided but do not have to document or certify the program. Other
requirements where communication will be necessary, including those
involving field curing of concrete footings and modification of anchor
bolts, were written in such a way as to limit the notifications to
cover only the most essential information. Supplementary explanatory
materials, presented in appendices to the proposed standard, are
intended to assist employers in complying with the rule and otherwise
providing a safer workplace.
Another approach recommended by the Regulatory Flexibility Act is
compliance date phase-ins for small businesses. Throughout their
deliberations, SENRAC recognized the importance of effective outreach
to the steel erection community prior to and following promulgation of
the proposed standard. In fact, as stated recently by a committee
member, many employers in
[[Page 43496]]
the industry are aware of, and have already begun to align their safety
programs with, the proposed revisions to subpart R (Ex. 9-156). At
present, the proposed standard contains no dates for implementation.
Barring evidence in the record that would compel the Agency to delay
the compliance dates, OSHA anticipates that the final standard will
become effective for all employers within a few months after it is
published. At this time, OSHA believes that any compliance extensions
for affected employers, including small employers, would only
marginally ease the economic burden, given the progress in occupational
safety already underway throughout industry and the non-capital-
intensive nature of the rule, and would delay unnecessarily the
protection of workers who would otherwise benefit from compliance with
the proposed rule. OSHA welcomes comment on the appropriateness of
compliance phase-in dates for the proposed standard.
In sum, throughout the pre-proposal process of negotiated
rulemaking for OSHA's steel erection standard, the needs and concerns
of small employers have been considered and addressed on a regular
basis. After considering a number of alternatives as candidates for the
requirements in the proposed rule and adopting those that were
consistent with the mandate imposed by the OSH Act, OSHA has developed
a proposed rule that will minimize the burden on small employers, while
maintaining the necessary level of worker protection.
Non-Regulatory Alternatives
The primary objective of this proposed standard is to minimize the
number of construction worker injuries and fatalities. To develop this
proposed steel erection standard, OSHA employed negotiated rulemaking
using an advisory committee composed of representatives from the
construction industry (both labor and management and both small and
larger firms), the insurance industry, the engineering field, and
Federal and State government regulatory and research agencies. OSHA
examined a number of non-regulatory approaches to enhancing workplace
safety, including the operation of the classical free market, the tort
liability insurance system and the workers' compensation insurance
system.
OSHA believes that these social and economic alternatives to a
Federal workplace regulation fail to adequately protect workers from
the hazards associated with structural steel erection in the
construction industry. The private market offers economic signals that
could have the potential to direct workers toward desirable
combinations of risk and reward, but market imperfections and
institutional rigidities prevent workplaces from achieving the most
optimal safety outcomes, creating inefficient, inadequately compensated
risks for workers. Tort liability laws and workers' compensation
provide some protection, but fall far short of fully compensating
injured employees for the loss of wages, the medical costs, and the
legal and other costs resulting from workplace accidents. Furthermore,
these approaches are inherently reactive, rather than proactive, and
largely fail to introduce progressive safety programs at all levels of
industry. Therefore, OSHA believes that this proposed revision to the
steel erection standard provides the necessary remedy.
VIII. Environmental Assessment
The proposed standard has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Part 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures
(29 CFR Part 11). The provisions of the standard focus on the reduction
and avoidance of accidents occurring during structural steel erection.
Consequently, no major negative impact is foreseen on air, water or
soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other aspects of
the environment.
IX. Federalism
This proposed Rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987) regarding Federalism. The
Order requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from
limiting state policy options, consult with States prior to taking any
actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions
only when there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a
problem of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State
law only if there is a clear Congressional intent for the agency to do
so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
Section 18 of the Act, expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt
state laws relating to issues on which Federal OSHA has promulgated
occupational safety and health standards. Under the OSH Act, a State
can avoid preemption only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval
of, a plan for the development of such standards and their enforcement.
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such State Plan
States must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing
safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
standards. Where such standards are applicable to products distributed
or used in interstate commerce, they may not unduly burden commerce or
must be justified by compelling local conditions (see Sect. 18(c)(2)).
The Federal standard on steel erection addresses hazards which are
not unique to any one state or region of the country. Nonetheless,
states with occupational safety and health plans approved under Section
18 of the OSH Act can develop their own State standards to deal with
any special problems which might be encountered in a particular state.
Moreover, because this standard is written in general, performance-
oriented terms, there is considerable flexibility for State plans to
require, and for employers to use, methods of compliance which are
appropriate to the working conditions covered by the standard.
In brief, this proposed rule addresses a clear national problem
related to occupational safety and health hazards of steel erection in
the construction industry. Those States which have elected to
participate under Section 18 of the OSH Act will not be preempted by
this standard and will be able to address any special conditions within
the framework of the Federal Act while ensuring that the State
standards are at least as effective as that standard. State comments
are invited on this proposal and will be fully considered prior to
promulgation of a final rule.
X. Unfunded Mandates
For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as
well as Executive Order 12875, this rule does not include any Federal
mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, and
tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of
more than $100 million in any year.
XI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains collections of information as defined
in OMB's regulations at 60 FR 44978 (August 29, 1995) in
Sec. 1926.752(a)(1), Sec. 1926.752(a)(2), Sec. 1926.753(a)(1)(iv),
Sec. 1926.753(a)(5), Sec. 1926.753(c)(2), Sec. 1926.754(c)(3),
Sec. 1926.757(a)(3), Sec. 1926.757(a)(11), Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i),
Sec. 1926.758(g), and Sec. 1926.761.
The paperwork estimates contained in this section are based on
OSHA's preliminary economic analysis (PEA). A more detailed discussion
of project and
[[Page 43497]]
time estimates can be found in Chapter V, Costs of Compliance, of
OSHA's PEA (Ex. 11).
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, agencies are required to
seek OMB approval for all collections of information. As a part of the
approval process, agencies are required to solicit comment from
affected parties with regard to the collection of information,
including the financial and time burdens estimated by the agencies for
the collection of information. OSHA believes it is necessary for
employers to prepare certifications and or obtain required information
for the above-mentioned requirements.
Proposed Sec. 1926.752(a)(1) requires that the controlling
contractor provide the steel erector with written notification that the
concrete in the footings, piers and walls or the mortar in the masonry
piers and walls has attained, on the basis of an appropriate ASTM
standard test method of field cured samples, either 75 percent of the
intended minimum compressive design strength or sufficient strength to
support loads imposed during steel erection. OSHA believes it is
necessary for employers to provide the written verification that the
concrete in footings, piers and walls or the mortar in masonry piers
has cured properly prior to beginning steel erection activities. To
comply with this requirement, the controlling contractor must provide
the steel erector with documentation to this effect. Since the concrete
supports the steel structure, the steel erector must be assured that
the concrete is adequate to support the structure to prevent the
possibility of collapse from erecting steel on improperly cured
concrete. OSHA estimates that 12,311 projects will require these tests
to be performed. The number of tests will vary depending on the size of
the project. The average is estimated to be three tests per project,
and the time for the notification to be transferred is estimated at
five minutes. The tests are already required to be performed in
accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) building code and
OSHA's Concrete standard (subpart Q), and it is usual and customary
that the testing facility provide a written certification to the
controlling contractor. Therefore, the only burden taken is the
transfer of the information from the controlling contractor to the
steel erector. The total estimated annual respondent burden for steel
erection worksites is $92,716 and 3,078 burden hours.
Proposed Sec. 1926.752(a)(2) requires that the controlling
contractor provide the steel erector with written notification that any
repairs, replacements and modifications to anchor bolts have been
conducted in accordance with Sec. 1926.755(b). As explained in the
discussion for this proposed paragraph, without notification from the
controlling contractor, the steel erector may not know that an anchor
bolt has been damaged and subsequently repaired. Improper repair has in
the past caused columns to collapse. This notification is intended to
prevent those collapses. OSHA estimates that 5,862 projects have anchor
bolts that need repair. Approximately half of those projects are not
currently getting the approval of the structural engineer of record.
For the projects that are already getting the engineer's approval, it
is estimated that it will take the engineer five minutes to transfer a
piece of paper to the controlling contractor. For the projects that are
not currently obtaining engineer approval, it is estimated that the
approval time for repairs to anchor bolts will take an average of three
hours for the whole process. The total estimated annual respondent
burden for steel erection worksites is $459,891 and 9,458 burden hours.
Proposed Sec. 1926.753(a)(1)(iv) requires that the employer obtain
and/or prepare a certification record of the pre-shift inspection
required by paragraph Sec. 1926.753(a)(1)(i), which includes the date
the crane items were inspected; the signature of the person who
inspected the crane items; and a serial number, or other identifier,
for the crane inspected. OSHA believes it is necessary for the employer
to obtain and/or prepare the certification record required to verify
that each crane operator has inspected the crane and determined that it
is in the proper working condition to perform his/her duties safely.
This requirement can be complied with by the simple use of a crane
operator's log book. OSHA estimates that 17,586 projects will require
the use of a crane (the number of projects differs from the total
number of steel erection projects due to rounding calculations; see Ex.
11). Each inspection is estimated to take ten minutes. The length of
each project varies and one shift is estimated per day. The total
estimated annual respondent burden for steel erection worksites is
$2,336,390 and 56,848 burden hours.
Proposed Sec. 1926.753(a)(5) prohibits safety latches on hooks from
being deactivated or made inoperable except as determined by a
qualified rigger during hoisting and placing of purlins and single
joists or as included in a site-specific erection plan. In the
situation where an employer elects to deactivate a safety latch and
create a potential safety hazard, the employer must receive approval
from a qualified rigger or include a means for safely performing the
activity in a site-specific erection plan. OSHA estimates that 7,391
projects will contain joist erection operations. Assuming that all of
the employers will seek such an exemption and will elect to use a site-
specific erection plan, it is estimated to take five minutes to
document a means of performing the alternative method of erection and
it will occur an average of ten times per project. The total estimated
annual respondent burden for steel erection worksites is $299,489 and
6,159 burden hours.
Proposed Sec. 1926.753(c)(2) requires that components of a multiple
lift rigging assembly be specifically designed and assembled with a
certified capacity for total assembly and for each individual
attachment point and that the certification must be based on the
manufacturer's specifications with a 5 to 1 safety factor for all
components. OSHA believes it is necessary for employers to prepare this
certification since multiple lifts are highly specialized operations
and improperly designed assemblies could result in multiple steel
members free falling. Special precautions must be taken when performing
multiple lifts. Preparing this certification is essential to a safe
multiple lift. OSHA estimates that employers will elect to perform
multiple lifts on approximately 1,870 projects. The number of pieces of
lifting equipment varies based on the project size. Assuming an average
of two pieces of lifting equipment per project, one certificate per
lifting assembly, and five minutes to prepare the certificate based on
information already available from the manufacturer's specifications,
the total estimated annual respondent burden for steel erection
worksites is $17,422 and 312 burden hours.
Proposed Sec. 1926.754(c)(3) prohibits 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 is
provided that the finish paint or coating has not decreased the
coefficient of friction (COF). The documentation or certification must
be available at the site and to the steel erector. As explained in the
summary and explanation section, coated steel can be an extremely
dangerous hazard to steel erectors. OSHA believes it is necessary for
the documentation to be prepared to assure the steel erector that the
surface the employees are walking on is not any more slippery than
uncoated steel. Without this documentation, slips and falls will
[[Page 43498]]
continue to occur due to slippery coated surfaces. OSHA estimates that
17,587 projects will have coated or painted steel and that only one
certification need be prepared for all of the surfaces coated with the
particular coating being used on each project. Assuming that it will
take the manufacturer five minutes to prepare the documentation and the
employer five minutes to transfer the information to the steel erector,
the total estimated annual respondent burden for steel erection
worksites is $132,086 and 2,932 burden hours.
Proposed Sec. 1926.757(a)(3) requires that, when steel joists at
columns span more than 60 feet (18.3 m), the joists shall be set in
tandem with all bridging installed unless an alternative method of
erection, which provides stability to the steel joist, is designed by a
qualified person and is included in a site-specific erection plan. OSHA
believes that a site-specific erection plan is necessary because the
employer is choosing an alternative erection method to the one required
in the standard. It is necessary to document the alternative method to
ensure that it provides equivalent safety to the method specified in
the standard. OSHA estimates that 7,391 projects will contain joist
erection. Approximately 5 percent of the joists used span more than 60
feet. It is estimated that it will take the employer five minutes to
include a description of the alternative erection method in the site-
specific erection plan for all occurrences on the project. The total
estimated annual respondent burden for steel erection worksites is
$1,497 and 31 burden hours.
Proposed Sec. 1926.757(a)(11) prohibits modifications from being
made to steel joists that affect the strength of the joist without
approval of the project structural engineer of record. OSHA believes it
is necessary for this approval to be obtained from the engineer since
any deviation from the initial design of the joist could alter the
performance of the joist and ultimately affect the strength of the
joist. Committee members stated that the approval could simply be a
phone call to the engineer to evaluate the effect of the modification.
OSHA estimates that 7,391 projects will include joist erection. A
modification to a joist is only expected to occur about 5 percent of
the time. It is usual and customary that any modifications be approved
by the project structural engineer of record, therefore, the only
burden taken is for the transfer of information. When a modification
occurs, the engineer would review the modification once, and it would
take five minutes for the transfer of information. The total estimated
annual respondent burden for steel erection worksites is $928 and 31
burden hours.
Proposed Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i) prohibits placing a bundle of
decking on fewer than three steel joists unless the employer has
determined from a qualified person and documented in a site-specific
erection plan that the structure or portion of the structure is capable
of supporting the load. OSHA believes it is necessary for employers to
provide this documentation in a site-specific erection plan since it is
the employer who has elected to deviate from the standard requirement.
Landing decking bundles on joists has been determined by the Committee
to be a dangerous activity. If an employer elects to perform this
activity in a manner other than that described in the standard, it is
essential that there be documentation that the alternative means is as
safe as the requirement in the standard. This documentation would
simply be an entry in the site-specific erection plan to describe the
procedure to be used as approved by a qualified person. OSHA estimates
that 7,391 projects will include joist erection. It is anticipated that
only 2 percent of employers will elect to deviate from the standard.
Only in very rare instances would an employer elect not to place deck
bundles over at least three joists. For those who choose another means,
it is expected that it will take an employer five minutes to describe
the procedure in the site-specific erection plan covering all
occurrences on the project. The total estimated annual respondent
burden for steel erection worksites is $599 and 12 burden hours.
Proposed Sec. 1926.758(g) prohibits purlins and girts from being
used as an anchorage point for a fall arrest system unless written
direction is obtained from a qualified person. OSHA believes that it is
necessary to require written notification to verify that these
lightweight members are capable of supporting the forces of a fall
arrest system. Tying-off to purlins or girts can be extremely dangerous
if the employer and employees do not know that these members have
adequate strength for that use. OSHA estimates that 7,391 steel
erection jobs will contain purlin and girt erection and approximately
10 percent of employers will elect to use the members as anchorage
points for a fall arrest system. One written record can be obtained for
the entire job and it is estimated that it will take an employer 30
minutes to prepare the written approval. The total estimated annual
respondent burden for steel erection worksites is $11,133 and 370
burden hours.
Proposed Sec. 1926.761 requires the employer to provide training
for employees exposed to fall hazards, to those who will be engaged in
multiple lift activities, to those who will work in controlled decking
zones and to workers performing ``connecting'' activities. Information
currently available to OSHA indicates that many workers are already
receiving training in the above mentioned activities either to comply
with other requirements in the construction standards or as a normal
business practice. It should be noted that employers would have to
instruct employees on the safe way to rig materials for multiple lifts
and to ``connect'' as a normal business activity to accomplish the work
of erecting the structure. Nearly all workers covered by the proposed
rule are now using some fall protection measure, either while
connecting, while working in decking operations or performing other
tasks. OSHA estimates that it will take 30 minutes for an instructor to
prepare for each training session and 60 minutes to communicate (or
deliver) information to workers as required by the proposed standard.
OSHA estimates the 38,980 employees will be trained in groups of 7
resulting in 5569 initial training sessions. To account for turnover,
OSHA estimates 13% of the workforce (5067 employees) will receive
turnover training annually thereafter and 2% of the workforce (780
employees) will need remedial training annually. These employees will
also be instructed in groups of 7 and the preparatory time and delivery
time remain the same. There are no records or other record keeping
activities associated with this collection of information. The total
estimated first year respondent burden for training is $536,975 and
9606 burden hours. For the second and subsequent years, only turnover
and remedial training will be taken as a burden. Therefore, the total
estimated respondent burden for the second and subsequent years is
reduced to $70,043 and 1253 hours.
The total estimated annual respondent burden for all of the
information collection requirements in this proposal for steel erection
worksites is $3,889,127 and 88,834 burden hours.
OSHA believes that compliance with all of these requirements will
help to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries in steel erection
work.
OSHA requests comment from the public on all aspects of this
collection of information. Specifically, OSHA requests comment on
whether each proposed collection of information:
[[Page 43499]]
Ensures that the collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
Estimates accurately the projected burden including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used accurately;
Enhances the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizes the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submissions of responses.
Comments on the collections of information for the proposed
provisions should be sent to the OMB Desk Officer for OSHA at Room
10235, 726 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. Commenters are
encouraged to send a copy of their comments on the collection of
information to OSHA along with their other comments. The supporting
statements for the collection of information requirements are available
in both OSHA and OMB Docket Offices.
The proposed collections of information have been submitted to OMB
for review under 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995. OMB is currently reviewing these OSHA proposed collections of
information to determine their consistency with the Act. At this time
OMB has not approved these collections of information.
XII. State Plan Standards
The 25 States and territories with their own OSHA approved
occupational safety and health plans must adopt a comparable standard
within six months of the publication date of a final standard. These 25
states and territories are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut
(for state and local government employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York
(for state and local government employees only), North Carolina,
Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming. Until such time as a
state standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA will provide interim
enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in these states.
XIII. Public Participation
Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments with respect to this proposal. These comments must be
postmarked or e-mailed by November 12, 1998. Comments 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 steelerection@osha-no.osha.gov. 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 disk or in the e-mail (e.g.,
studies, articles) must be submitted in quadruplicate. Written
submissions must clearly identify the issues or specific provisions of
the proposal which are addressed and the position taken with respect to
each issue or provision. The data, views and arguments that are
submitted will be available for public inspection and copying at the
above address. All timely submissions received will be made a part of
the record of this proceeding. The preliminary economic analysis and
the exhibits cited in this document will be available for public
inspection and copying at the above address. OSHA invites comments
concerning the conclusions reached in the preliminary economic
analysis.
Public Hearing
OSHA will hold an informal public hearing to begin at 10:00 a.m. on
December 1, 1998. The hearing will be held in the Auditorium of the
Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20210.
Notice of Intention To Appear at the Informal Hearing
Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act, OSHA will provide interested persons with an opportunity to submit
oral testimony concerning the issues raised by the proposed standard,
including economic and environmental impact, at the informal public
hearing. The hearing is scheduled for December 1, 1998. If OSHA
receives sufficient requests to participate in the hearing, the length
of the hearing period may be extended. Conversely, the hearing may be
shortened if there are few requests.
All persons desiring to participate at the hearing, including
exercising their right to question witnesses, must file, in
quadruplicate, a notice of intention to appear. The notice of intention
to appear must be postmarked on or before November 12, 1998. The notice
of intention to appear, which will be available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Technical Data Center Docket Office (Room N2625),
telephone (202) 219-7894, must contain the following information:
1. The name, address, and telephone number of each person to
appear;
2. The capacity in which the person will appear;
3. The approximate amount of time required for the presentation;
4. The specific issues that will be addressed;
5. A brief statement of the position that will be taken with
respect to each issue addressed; and
6. Whether the party intends to submit documentary evidence and, if
so, a brief summary of it.
The notice of intention to appear shall be mailed 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.
A notice of intention to appear also may be transmitted by
facsimile to (202) 219-5046 (Attention: Docket Officer), by the same
date, provided the original and three copies are sent to the same
address and postmarked no more than three days later.
Individuals with disabilities wishing to attend the hearings should
contact the Docket Officer to obtain appropriate accommodations at the
hearing.
Filing of Testimony and Evidence Before the Hearing
Any party requesting more than ten minutes for a presentation at
the hearing or who will present documentary evidence, must provide in
quadruplicate, the complete text of its testimony, including all
documentary evidence to be presented at the hearing. One copy must be
unstapled and unbound and suitable for copying. These materials must be
postmarked no later than November 17, 1998 and sent
[[Page 43500]]
to the Docket Officer at the address given above.
Each submission will be reviewed in light of the amount of time
requested in the notice of intention to appear. In instances where the
information contained in the submission does not justify the amount of
time requested, a more appropriate amount of time will be allocated and
the participant will be notified of that fact. Any party who has not
substantially complied with the above requirements, may be limited to a
ten minute presentation and may be requested to return for questioning
at a later time. Any party who has not filed a notice of intention to
appear may be allowed to testify, as time permits, at the discretion of
the Administrative Law Judge who presides at the hearing.
Notices of intention to appear, testimony and evidence will be
available for inspection and copying at the Docket Office at the
address above.
Conduct and Nature of the Hearing
The hearing is scheduled to commence at 10:00 a.m. on December 1,
1998. At that time, any procedural matters relating to the proceeding
will be resolved. OSHA rulemaking hearings are informal, as established
in the legislative history of section 6 of the Act and codified in 29
CFR part 1911, OSHA's hearing regulations (cf. 29 CFR 1911.15(a)).
Although the presiding officer is an Administrative Law Judge and
questioning by interested persons is allowed on crucial issues, the
proceeding will be essentially legislative in nature. The intent, in
essence, is to provide an opportunity for effective oral presentation
by interested persons which can be carried out expeditiously and in the
absence of rigid procedures which might unduly impede or protract the
rulemaking process.
Additionally, since the hearing is primarily for information
gathering and clarification, it is an informal administrative
proceeding rather than an adjudicative one.
The technical rules of evidence, for example, do not apply. The
regulations that govern hearings and the pre-hearing guidelines to be
issued for this hearing will ensure fairness and due process and also
facilitate the development of a clear, accurate and complete record.
Those rules and guidelines will be interpreted in a manner that
furthers that development. Thus, questions of relevance, procedure and
participation generally will be decided so as to favor development of
the record.
The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 29 CFR part 1911.
It should be noted that Sec. 1911.4 specifies that the Assistant
Secretary may, upon reasonable notice, issue alternative procedures to
expedite proceedings or for other good cause.
The hearing will be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge
who makes no decision or recommendation on the merits of OSHA's
Proposal. The responsibility of the Administrative Law Judge is to
ensure that the hearing proceeds at a reasonable pace and in an orderly
manner. The Administrative Law Judge, therefore, will have the powers
necessary and appropriate to conduct a full and fair informal hearing
as provided in 29 CFR 1911, including the powers:
1. To regulate the course of the proceedings;
2. To dispose of procedural requests, objections and comparable
matters;
3. To confine the presentation to the matters pertinent to the
issues raised;
4. To regulate the conduct of those present at the hearing by
appropriate means;
5. In the Judge's discretion, to question and permit the
questioning of any witness, and to limit the time for questioning; and
6. In the Judge's discretion, to keep the record open for a
reasonable stated time to receive written information and additional
data, views, and arguments from any person who has participated in the
oral proceedings.
Following the close of the hearing, the presiding Administrative
Law Judge will certify the record of the hearing to the Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
XIV. Authority
This document was prepared under the direction of Charles N.
Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926
Structural steel erection, Construction industry, Construction
safety, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Occupational
safety and health.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 3d day of August, 1998.
Charles N. Jeffress,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); section
107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C.
333), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 6-96 (62 FR 111), and 29 CFR part
1911, it is proposed to amend part 1926 of Title 29 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below.
PART 1926--[AMENDED]
Subpart M--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart M of Part 1926 would be
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 4, 6, 8,
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Orders No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033) and No. 6-96
(62 FR 111); and 29 CFR Part 1911.
2. Paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1926.500 would be revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 1926.500 Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this
subpart.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Fall protection requirements for employees performing steel
erection work (except for towers and tanks) are provided in subpart R
of this part.
* * * * *
Sec. 1926.500 [Amended]
3. Paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (a)(2)(v), and (a)(2)(vi) of
Sec. 1926.500 would be redesignated as (a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(vi) and
(a)(2)(vii) respectively.
4. Paragraph (a)(2)(iv) Sec. 1926.500 would be added to be revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.500 Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this
subpart.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Requirements relating to fall protection for employees engaged
in the erection of tanks and towers are provided in Sec. 1926.105.
* * * * *
5. Paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of Sec. 1926.500 would be revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 1926.500 Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this
subpart.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Section 1926.502 does not apply to the erection of tanks and
towers. (Note: Section 1926.104 sets the criteria for body belts,
lanyards and lifelines used for fall protection during tank and tower
erection. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) of Sec. 1926.107 provide
definitions for the pertinent terms.)
* * * * *
Subpart R--[Amended]
6. The authority citation for subpart R of Part 1926 would be
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 4, 6, and 8,
[[Page 43501]]
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 6-96 (62 FR 111), and 29 CFR
part 1911.
7. Subpart R of Part 1926 would be revised to read as follows:
Subpart R--Steel Erection
1926.750 Scope and application.
1926.751 Definitions.
1926.752 Site layout, site-specific erection plan and construction
sequence.
1926.753 Hoisting and rigging.
1926.754 Structural steel assembly.
1926.755 Anchor bolts.
1926.756 Beams and columns.
1926.757 Open web steel joists.
1926.758 Pre-engineered metal buildings.
1926.759 Falling object protection.
1926.760 Fall protection.
1926.761 Training.
Appendix A to Subpart R--Guidelines for Establishing the Components of
a Site-Specific Erection Plan: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying
With Sec. 1926.752(d)
Appendix B to Subpart R--Acceptable Test Methods for Testing Slip-
Resistance of Walking/Working Surfaces: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for
Complying With Sec. 1926.754(c)(3)
Appendix C to Subpart R--Illustrations of Bridging Terminus Points:
Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.757(c)(3)
Appendix D to Subpart R--Illustration of the Use of Control Lines to
Demarcate Controlled Decking Zones (CDZs): Non-Mandatory Guidelines for
Complying With Sec. 1926.760(c)(3)
Appendix E to Subpart R--Training: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for
Complying With Sec. 1926.761
Appendix F to Subpart R--Installation of Perimeter Safety Cables: Non-
Mandatory Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.756(f) to Protect the
Unprotected Side or Edge of a Walking/Working Surface
Subpart R--Steel Erection
Sec. 1926.750 Scope and Application.
(a) Scope. This subpart sets forth requirements to protect
employees from the hazards associated with steel erection activities
involved in the construction, alteration, and/or repair of single and
multi-story buildings, bridges, and other structures where steel
erection occurs. The requirements of this subpart apply to employers
engaged in steel erection unless otherwise specified. This subpart does
not cover electrical transmission towers, communication and broadcast
towers, or tanks.
Note: Examples of structures where steel erection may occur
include but are not limited to the following: single and multi-story
buildings; pre-engineered metal buildings; lift slab/tilt-up
structures; energy exploration structures; energy production,
transfer and storage structures and facilities; auditoriums; malls;
amphitheaters; stadiums; power plants; mills; chemical process
structures; bridges; trestles; overpasses; underpasses; viaducts;
aqueducts; aerospace facilities and structures; radar and
communication structures; light towers; signage; billboards;
scoreboards; conveyor systems, conveyor supports and related
framing; stairways; stair towers; fire escapes; draft curtains; fire
containment structures; monorails; aerialways; catwalks; curtain
walls; window walls; store fronts; elevator fronts; entrances;
skylights; metal roofs; industrial structures; hi-bay structures;
rail, marine and other transportation structures; sound barriers;
water process and water containment structures; air and cable
supported structures; space frames; geodesic domes; canopies; racks
and rack support structures and frames; platforms; walkways;
balconies; atriums; penthouses; car dumpers; stackers/reclaimers;
cranes and craneways; bins; hoppers; ovens; furnaces; stacks;
amusement park structures and rides; and artistic and monumental
structures.
(b) Application. Steel erection activities include hoisting,
connecting, welding, bolting, and rigging structural steel, steel
joists and metal buildings; installing metal deck, siding systems,
miscellaneous metals, ornamental iron and similar materials; and moving
point-to-point while performing these activities.
Note: Activities which could be considered covered by this
subpart when they occur during the process of steel erection include
but are not limited to the following: rigging, hoisting, laying out,
placing, connecting, guying, bracing, dismantling, burning, welding,
bolting, grinding, sealing, caulking, and all related activities for
construction, alteration and/or repair of materials and assemblies
such as structural steel; ferrous metals and alloys; non-ferrous
metals and alloys; glass; plastics and synthetic composite
materials; structural metal framing and related bracing and
assemblies; anchoring devices; structural cabling; cable stays;
permanent and temporary bents and towers; falsework for temporary
supports of permanent steel members; architectural precast concrete,
stone and other architectural materials mounted on steel frames;
safety systems for steel erection; steel and metal joists; metal
decking and raceway systems and accessories; metal roofing and
accessories; metal siding; bridge flooring; cold formed steel
framing; elevator beams; grillage; shelf racks; multi-purpose
supports; crane rails and accessories; miscellaneous, architectural
and ornamental metals and metal work; ladders; railings; handrails;
fences and gates; gratings; trench covers; floor plates; castings;
sheet metal fabrications; metal panels and panel wall systems;
louvers; column covers; enclosures and pockets; stairs; perforated
metals; ornamental iron work; expansion control including bridge
expansion joint assemblies; slide bearings; hydraulic structures;
fascias; soffit panels; penthouse enclosures; skylights; joint
fillers; gaskets; sealants and seals; doors; windows; hardware,
detention/security equipment and doors, windows and hardware;
curtain walls/sloped glazing systems/structural glass curtain walls;
translucent wall systems; conveying systems; building specialties;
building equipment; machinery and plant equipment, furnishings and
special construction.
Sec. 1926.751 Definitions.
Anchored bridging means that the steel joist bridging is connected
to a bridging terminus point.
Bolted diagonal bridging means diagonal bridging which is bolted to
a steel joist or joists.
Bridging clip means a device that is attached to the steel joist to
allow the bolting of the bridging to the steel joist.
Bridging terminus point means a wall, beam, tandem joists (with all
bridging installed and a horizontal truss in the plane of the top
chord) or other element at an end or intermediate point(s) of a line of
bridging that provides an anchor point for the steel joist bridging.
Choker means a wire rope or synthetic fiber rigging assembly that
is used to attach a load to a hoisting device.
Clipped connection means 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 removing the bolt(s)
holding the first member.
Cold formed joist means an open web joist fabricated with cold
formed steel components.
Cold forming means the process of using press brakes, rolls, or
other methods to shape steel into desired cross sections at room
temperature.
Competent person (also defined in Sec. 1926.32) means one who is
capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the
surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or
dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt
corrective measures to eliminate them.
Composite joists means 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.
Connector means an employee who, working with hoisting equipment,
is placing and connecting structural members and/or components.
[[Page 43502]]
Construction load for joist erection means any load other than the
weight of the employee(s), the joists and the bridging bundle.
Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ) means an area in which certain work
(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 and where access to the zone is controlled.
Controlled load lowering means lowering a load by means of a
mechanical hoist drum device that allows a hoisted load to be lowered
with maximum control using the gear train or hydraulic components of
the hoist mechanism. Controlled load lowering requires the use of the
hoist drive motor, rather than the load hoist brake, to lower the load.
Controlling contractor means a prime contractor, general
contractor, construction manager or any other legal entity at the site
who has, by contract with other parties, the overall responsibility for
the project, its planning, quality and completion.
Critical lift means a lift that exceeds 75 percent of the rated
capacity of the crane or derrick, or requires the use of more than one
crane or derrick.
Decking hole means a gap or void more than 2 inches (5.1 cm) in its
least dimension and less than 12 inches (30.5 cm) in its greatest
dimension in a floor, roof or other walking/working surface. Pre-
engineered holes in cellular decking are not included in this
definition.
Derrick floor means an elevated floor of a building or structure
that has been designated to receive hoisted pieces of steel prior to
final placement.
Double connection means an attachment method where the connection
point is intended for two pieces of steel which share common bolts on
either side of a central piece.
Erection bridging means the bolted diagonal bridging that is
required to be installed prior to releasing the hoisting cables from
the steel joists.
Fall restraint (Positioning device) system means 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. It consists of an
anchorage, connectors, a body belt or harness and may include a
lanyard, deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combination of
these.
Girt (in pre-engineered metal buildings) means a ``Z'' or ``C''
shaped member formed from sheet steel spanning between primary framing
and supporting wall material.
Headache ball means a weighted hook that is used to attach loads to
the hoist load line of the crane.
Hoisting equipment means commercially manufactured lifting
equipment designed to lift and position a load of known weight to 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. A ``come-a-
long'' (a mechanical device, usually consisting of a chain or cable
attached at each end, that is used to facilitate movement of materials
through leverage) is not considered ``hoisting equipment.''
Leading edge means the unprotected side and edge of a floor, roof,
or formwork for a floor or other walking/working surface (such as deck)
which changes location as additional floor, roof, decking or formwork
sections are placed, formed or constructed.
Metal deck means a commercially manufactured, structural grade,
cold rolled metal panel formed into a series of parallel ribs; for this
subpart, this includes metal floor and roof decks, standing seam metal
roofs, other metal roof systems and other products such as bar
gratings, checker plate, expanded metal panels, and similar products.
After installation and proper fastening, these decking materials serve
a combination of functions including, but not limited to: a structural
element designed in combination with the structure to resist,
distribute and transfer loads, stiffen the structure and provide a
diaphragm action; a walking/working surface; a form for concrete slabs;
a support for roofing systems; and a finished floor or roof.
Multiple lift rigging means a rigging assembly manufactured by wire
rope rigging suppliers that facilitates the attachment of up to five
independent loads to the hoist rigging of a crane.
Opening means a gap or void 12 inches (30.5 cm) or more in its
least dimension in a floor, roof or other walking/working surface. For
the purposes of this subpart, skylights and smoke domes that do not
meet the strength requirements of Sec. 1926.760(d)(1) shall be regarded
as openings.
Permanent floor means a structurally completed floor at any level
or elevation (including slab on grade).
Personal fall arrest system means a system used to arrest an
employee in a fall from a working level. A personal fall arrest system
consists of an anchorage, connectors, a body belt or body harness and
may include a lanyard, deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable
combination of these. (As of January 1, 1998, the use of a body belt
for fall arrest is prohibited by subpart M of this part.)
Pre-engineered metal building means 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.
Project structural engineer of record means the registered,
licensed professional responsible for the design of structural steel
framing and whose seal appears on the structural contract documents.
Purlin (in pre-engineered metal buildings) means a ``Z'' or ``C''
shaped member formed from sheet steel spanning between primary framing
and supporting roof material.
Qualified person (also defined in Sec. 1926.32) means one who, by
possession of a recognized degree, certificate, or professional
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training, and experience, has
successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems
relating to the subject matter, the work, or the project.
Safety deck attachment means an initial attachment that is used to
secure an initially placed sheet of decking to keep proper alignment
and bearing with structural support members.
Seat means 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.
Shear connector means headed steel studs, steel bars, steel lugs,
and similar devices which are attached to a structural member for the
purpose of achieving composite action with concrete.
Steel erection means the 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.
Steel joist means an open web, secondary load-carrying member of
144 feet (43.9 m) or less suitable for the support of floors and roofs.
This does not include structural steel trusses or cold-formed joists.
Steel joist girder means an open web, primary load-carrying member,
[[Page 43503]]
designed by the manufacturer, suitable for the support of floors and
roofs. This does not include structural steel trusses.
Steel truss means an open web member designed of structural steel
components by the project structural engineer of record. For the
purposes of this subpart, a steel truss is considered equivalent to a
solid web structural member.
Unprotected sides and edges means 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.
Sec. 1926.752 Site layout, site-specific erection plan and
construction sequence.
(a) Approval to begin steel erection. Before authorizing the
commencement of steel erection, the controlling contractor must provide
the steel erector with the following written notifications:
(1) The concrete in the footings, piers and walls or the mortar in
the masonry piers and walls has attained, on the basis of an
appropriate ASTM standard test method of field-cured samples, either 75
percent of the intended minimum compressive design strength or
sufficient strength to support loads imposed during steel erection.
(2) Any repairs, replacements and modifications to the anchor bolts
were conducted in accordance with Sec. 1926.755(b).
(b) Site layout. The controlling contractor shall provide and
maintain the site layout as follows:
(1) Adequate access roads into and through the site for the safe
delivery and movement of derricks, cranes, trucks, other necessary
equipment, and the material to be erected and means and methods for
pedestrian and vehicular control; and
(2) A firm, properly graded, drained area, readily accessible to
the work with adequate space for the safe storage of materials and the
safe operation of the erector's equipment.
(c) Overhead protection. All hoisting operations in steel erection
shall be pre-planned in accordance with Secs. 1926.753(b) and 1926.759
to ensure that no employee is required to be exposed to overhead
hazards.
(d) Site-specific erection plan. Where employers elect, due to
conditions specific to the site, to develop alternate means and methods
that provide employee protection in accordance with
Sec. 1926.753(a)(5), Sec. 1926.757(a)(3) or Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i), a
site-specific erection plan shall be developed by a qualified person
and be available at the work site. Guidelines for establishing a site-
specific erection plan are contained in appendix A to this subpart.
Sec. 1926.753 Hoisting and rigging.
The following provisions supplement the requirements of
Sec. 1926.550 regarding the hazards associated with hoisting and
rigging.
(a) General. (1) Pre-shift visual inspection of cranes.
(i) Cranes being used in steel erection activities shall be
visually inspected prior to each shift by a competent person; the
inspection shall include observation for deficiencies during operation.
At a minimum, this inspection shall include the following:
(A) All control mechanisms for maladjustments;
(B) Control and drive mechanisms for excessive wear of components
and contamination by lubricants, water or other foreign matter;
(C) Safety devices, including but not limited to, boom angle
indicators, boom stops, boom kick-out devices, anti-two block devices,
and load moment indicators where required;
(D) Air, hydraulic, and other 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.
(ii) If any deficiencies are identified, an immediate determination
shall be made by the competent person as to whether the deficiency
constitutes a hazard.
(iii) If the deficiency is determined to constitute a hazard, the
hoisting equipment shall be removed from service until the deficiency
has been corrected.
(iv) The employer shall obtain and/or prepare a certification
record of the pre-shift inspection required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of
this section which includes the date the hoisting equipment items were
inspected; the signature of the person who inspected the hoisting
equipment items; and a serial number, or other identifier, for the
hoisting equipment inspected.
(v) The operator shall be responsible for those operations under
the operator's direct control. Whenever there is any doubt as to
safety, the operator shall have the authority to stop and refuse to
handle loads until safety has been assured.
(2) A qualified rigger (i.e., a rigger who is also a qualified
person) shall inspect the rigging prior to each shift in accordance
with Sec. 1926.251.
(3) The headache ball, hook or load shall not be used to transport
personnel except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(v)(4) of this section.
(4) Paragraph (g)(2) of Sec. 1926.550 notwithstanding, cranes or
derricks may be used to hoist employees on a personnel platform when
work under this subpart is being conducted, provided that all other
provisions of Sec. 1926.550(g) are met.
(5) Safety latches on hooks shall not be deactivated or made
inoperable except:
(i) When a qualified rigger has determined that the hoisting and
placing of purlins and single joists can be performed more safely by
doing so; or
(ii) When equivalent protection is provided in a site-specific
erection plan.
(b) Working under loads. (1) Routes for suspended loads shall be
pre-planned to ensure that no employee is required to work directly
below a suspended load, except for:
(i) Employees engaged in the initial connection of steel; or
(ii) Employees necessary for the hooking or unhooking of the load.
(2) When working under suspended loads, the following criteria
shall be met:
(i) Materials being hoisted shall be rigged to prevent
unintentional displacement;
(ii) Hooks with self-closing safety latches or their equivalent
shall be used to prevent components from slipping out of the hook; and
(iii) All loads shall be rigged by a qualified rigger.
(c) Multiple lift rigging procedure. (1) A multiple lift shall only
be performed if the following criteria are met:
(i) A multiple lift rigging assembly is used;
(ii) A maximum of five (5) members is hoisted per lift;
(iii) Only structural members are lifted; and
(iv) All employees engaged in the multiple lift have been trained
in these
[[Page 43504]]
procedures in accordance with Sec. 1926.761(c)(1).
(2) Components of the multiple lift rigging assembly shall be
specifically designed and assembled with a maximum capacity for total
assembly and for each individual attachment point. This capacity,
certified by the manufacturer or a qualified rigger, shall be based on
the manufacturer's specifications with a 5 to 1 safety factor for all
components.
(3) The total load shall not exceed:
(i) The rated capacity of the hoisting equipment specified in the
hoisting equipment load charts; or
(ii) The rigging capacity specified in the rigging rating chart.
(4) The multiple lift rigging assembly shall be rigged with the
members:
(i) Attached at their center of gravity and maintained reasonably
level;
(ii) Rigged from the top down; and
(iii) Rigged at least 7 feet (2.1 m) apart.
(5) The members on the multiple lift rigging assembly shall be set
from the bottom up.
(6) Controlled load lowering shall be used whenever the load is
over the connectors.
Sec. 1926.754 Structural steel assembly.
(a) Structural stability shall be maintained at all times during
the erection process.
(b) The following additional requirements shall apply for multi-
story structures:
(1) The permanent floors shall be installed as the erection of
structural members progresses, and there shall be not more than eight
stories between the erection floor and the upper-most permanent floor,
except where the structural integrity is maintained as a result of the
design.
(2) At no time shall there be more than four floors or 48 feet
(14.6 m), whichever is less, of unfinished bolting or welding above the
foundation or uppermost permanently secured floor, except where the
structural integrity is maintained as a result of the design.
(3) A fully planked or decked floor or nets shall be maintained
within 2 stories or 30 feet (9.1 m), whichever is less, directly under
any erection work being performed.
(c) Walking/working surfaces--(1) Shear connectors and other
similar devices--(i) Tripping hazards. Shear connectors (such as headed
steel studs, steel bars or steel lugs), reinforcing bars, deformed
anchors or threaded studs shall not be attached to the top flanges of
beams, joists or beam attachments so that they project vertically from
or horizontally across the top flange of the member until after the
decking, or other walking/working surface, has been installed.
(ii) Installation of shear connectors on composite floors, roofs
and bridge decks. When shear connectors are utilized in construction of
composite floors, roofs and bridge decks, employees shall lay out and
install the shear connectors after the decking has been installed,
using the deck as a working platform. Shear connectors shall not be
installed from within a controlled decking zone (CDZ), as specified in
Sec. 1926.760(c)(8).
(2) Metal decking. [Reserved]
(3) Skeletal structural steel. Workers shall not be permitted to
walk the top surface of any structural steel member installed after
[effective date of final rule] which has been finish-coated with paint
or similar material unless documentation or certification, based on an
appropriate ASTM standard test method, is provided that the finished
coat has not decreased the coefficient of friction (COF) from that of
the original steel before it was finish-coated. Such documentation or
certification shall be available at the site and to the steel erector
(see appendix B of this subpart).
(d) Plumbing-up. (1) Connections of the equipment used in plumbing-
up shall be properly secured.
(2) Plumbing-up equipment shall be removed only with the approval
of a competent person.
(e) Decking--(1) Hoisting, landing and placing of deck bundles. (i)
Bundle packaging and strapping shall not be used for hoisting unless
specifically designed for that purpose.
(ii) If loose items such as dunnage, flashing, or other materials
are placed on the top of deck bundles to be hoisted, such items shall
be secured to the bundles.
(iii) Bundles of decking on joists shall be landed in accordance
with Sec. 1926.757(e)(4).
(iv) Bundles shall be landed on framing members so that enough
support is provided to allow the bundles to be unbanded without
dislodging the bundles from the supports.
(v) At the end of the shift or when environmental or jobsite
conditions require, decking shall be secured against displacement.
(2) Roof and floor openings. Metal deck at roof and floor openings
shall be installed as follows:
(i) Where structural design and constructability allow, framed deck
openings shall have structural members turned down to allow continuous
deck installation.
(ii) Roof and floor openings shall be covered during the decking
process. Where structural design does not allow openings to be covered,
they shall be protected in accordance with Sec. 1926.760(a)(2).
(iii) Decking holes and openings shall not be cut until essential
to the construction process, and openings shall be protected
immediately in accordance with Sec. 1926.760(d) or be otherwise
permanently filled.
(3) Space around columns. Wire mesh, exterior plywood, or
equivalent, shall be used around columns where planks or decking do not
fit tightly.
(4) Floor decking. Floor decking shall be laid tightly and secured
to prevent accidental movement or displacement.
(5) Derrick floors. (i) A derrick floor shall be fully decked and/
or planked and the steel member connections completed to support the
intended floor loading.
(ii) Temporary loads placed on a derrick floor shall be distributed
over the underlying support members so as to prevent local overloading
of the deck material.
Sec. 1926.755 Anchor bolts.
(a) General requirements for erection stability. (1) All columns
shall be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts. Each column anchor
bolt assembly, including the welding of the column to the base plate,
shall be designed to resist a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric load
located 18 inches (.46 m) from the column face in each direction at the
top of the column shaft.
(2) Columns shall be set on level finished floors, pre-grouted
leveling plates, leveling nuts, or shim packs which are adequate to
transfer the construction loads.
(3) Unstable columns shall be evaluated by a competent person and
be guyed or braced where deemed necessary.
(b) Repair, replacement or field modification.
(1) Anchor bolts shall not be repaired, replaced or field-modified
without the approval of the project structural engineer of record.
(2) Such approval under paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall
state whether the repair, replacement or modification has made guying
or bracing of the column necessary.
(3) Prior to the erection of a column, the controlling contractor
shall provide written notification to the steel erector if there has
been any repair, replacement or modification of the anchor bolts of
that column.
[[Page 43505]]
Sec. 1926.756 Beams and columns.
(a) General. During the final placing of solid web structural
members, the load shall not be released from the hoisting line until
the members are secured with at least two bolts per connection drawn up
wrench-tight or the equivalent as specified by the project structural
engineer of record, except as specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Diagonal bracing. Solid web structural members used as diagonal
bracing shall be secured by at least one bolt per connection drawn up
wrench-tight or the equivalent as specified by the project structural
engineer of record.
(c) Double connections at columns and/or at beam webs over a
column. When two structural members on opposite sides of a column web,
or a beam web over a column, share common connection holes, at least
one bolt with its wrench-tight nut shall remain connected to the first
member unless a shop-attached or field-bolted seat or similar
connection device is present to secure the second member and prevent
the column from being displaced. When seats are provided, the
connection between the seat and the structural member that it supports
shall be bolted together before the nuts are removed for the double
connection.
(d) Column splices. Each column splice shall be designed to resist
a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric load located 18 inches (.46 m) from
the column face in each direction at the top of the column shaft.
(e) Perimeter columns. Perimeter columns shall extend a minimum of
48 inches (1.2 m) above the finished floor to permit installation of
perimeter safety cables prior to erection of the next tier except where
structural design and constructibility do not allow. (See appendix F to
this subpart.)
(f) Perimeter safety cables. (1) Perimeter safety cables shall be
installed at the perimeter during the structural steel assembly of
multi-story structures.
(2) Perimeter safety cables shall consist of \1/2\-inch wire rope
or equivalent installed at 42-45 inches above the finished floor and at
the midpoint between the finished floor and the top cable.
(3) Holes or other devices shall be provided by the fabricator/
supplier and shall be in or attached to perimeter columns at 42-45
inches above the finished floor and the midpoint between the finished
floor and the top cable to permit installation of perimeter safety
cables except where structural design and constructibility allow. (See
appendix F to this subpart.)
Sec. 1926.757 Open web steel joists.
(a) General. (1) In steel framing, where steel joists or steel
joist girders are utilized and columns are not framed in at least two
directions with solid web structural steel members, the steel joist or
steel joist girder shall be field-bolted at or near columns to provide
lateral stability to the column during erection.
(2) Where steel joists at or near columns span 60 feet (18.3 m) or
less, the joist shall be designed with sufficient strength to allow one
employee to release the hoisting cable without the need for erection
bridging.
(3) Where steel joists at columns span more than 60 feet (18.3 m),
the joists shall be set in tandem with all bridging installed unless an
alternative method of erection, which provides equivalent stability to
the steel joist, is designed by a qualified person and is included in
the site-specific erection plan.
(4) A stabilizer plate shall be provided on each column for steel
joists and steel joist girders and shall extend at least 3 inches (76
mm) below the bottom chord of the joist with a 13/16 inch (21 mm) hole
to provide an attachment point for guying or plumbing cables.
(5) Bottom chords of steel joist girders and steel joists required
by paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be stabilized to prevent
rotation during erection.
(6) A steel joist shall not be placed on any support structure
unless such structure is stabilized.
(7) When steel joist(s) are landed on a structure, they shall be
secured to prevent unintentional displacement prior to installation.
(8) Except for steel joists that have been pre-assembled into
panels, connections of individual steel joists to steel structures in
bays of 40 feet (12.2 m) or more shall be fabricated to allow for field
bolting during erection.
(9) A bridging terminus point shall be established before bridging
is installed. (See appendix C to this subpart.)
(10) Steel joists and steel joist girders shall not be used as
anchorage points for a fall arrest system unless written direction to
do so is obtained from a qualified person.
(11) No modification that affects the strength of a steel joist
shall be made without the approval of the project structural engineer
of record.
(b) Attachment of steel joists and steel joist girders. (1) Each
end of ``K'' series steel joists shall be attached to the support
structure with a minimum of two \1/8\-inch (3 mm) fillet welds 1 inch
(25 mm) long or with two \1/2\-inch (13 mm) bolts, or the equivalent.
(2) Each end of ``LH'' and ``DLH'' series steel joists and steel
joist girders shall be attached to the support structure with a minimum
of two \1/4\-inch (6 mm) fillet welds 2 inches (51 mm) long, or with
two \3/4\-inch (19 mm) bolts, or the equivalent.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, each
steel joist shall be attached to the support structure, at least at one
end, immediately upon placement in the final erection position and
before additional joists are placed.
(4) Steel joists that have been pre-assembled into panels through
the installation of bridging shall be attached to the structure at each
corner before the hoisting cables are released.
(c) Erection of steel joists. (1) One end of each steel joist shall
be attached to the support structure before an employee is allowed on
the steel joist.
(2) On steel joists that span 40 feet (12.2 m) or less and that do
not require erection bridging per Tables A and B, only one employee
shall be allowed on the joist until all bridging is installed and
anchored.
(3) Employees shall not be allowed on steel joists that span more
than 40 feet except in accordance with Sec. 1926.757(d).
(4) When permanent bridging terminus points cannot be used during
erection, additional temporary bridging terminus points are required to
provide stability. (See appendix C of this subpart.)
(d) Erection bridging. (1) Where the span of the steel joist is
equal to or greater than the span shown in Tables A and B, or in bays
of 40 feet (12.2 m) through 60 feet (18.3 m), the following shall
apply:
(i) The row of erection bridging nearest the midspan of the steel
joist shall be bolted diagonal bridging;
(ii) Hoisting cables shall not be released until this bolted
diagonal erection bridging is installed; and
(iii) No more than one employee shall be allowed on these spans
until all other bridging is installed and anchored.
(2) Where the span of the steel joist is over 60 feet (18.3 m)
through 100 feet (30.5 m), the following shall apply:
(i) The two rows of erection bridging nearest the third points of
the steel joist shall be bolted diagonal bridging;
(ii) Hoisting cables shall not be released until this bolted
diagonal erection bridging is installed; and
(iii) No more than two employees shall be allowed on these spans
until all other bridging is installed and anchored.
(3) Where the span of the steel joist is over 100 feet (30.5 m)
through 144 feet (43.9 m), the following shall apply:
(i) All rows of bridging shall be bolted diagonal bridging;
[[Page 43506]]
(ii) Hoisting cables shall not be released until all bridging is
installed; and
(iii) No more than two employees shall be allowed on these spans
until all bridging is installed.
(4) For steel members spanning over 144 feet (43.9 m), the erection
methods used shall be in accordance with Sec. 1926.756.
(5) Where any steel joist specified in paragraphs (c)(2) and
(d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section is a bottom chord bearing
joist, a row of bolted diagonal bridging shall be provided near the
support(s). This bridging shall be installed before the hoisting
cable(s) is released.
(6) When bolted diagonal erection bridging is required by this
section, the following shall apply:
(i) The bridging shall be indicated on the erection drawing;
(ii) The erection drawing shall be the exclusive indicator of the
proper placement of this bridging;
(iii) Shop-installed bridging clips, or functional equivalents,
shall be provided where the bridging bolts to the steel joists;
(iv) When two pieces of bridging are attached to the steel joist by
a common bolt, the nut that secures the first piece of bridging shall
not be removed from the bolt for the attachment of the second; and
(v) Bridging attachments shall not protrude above the top chord of
the steel joist.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Table A.--Erection Bridging for Short Span Joists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joist Span
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8K1........................................ NM
10K1....................................... NM
12K1....................................... 23-0
12K3....................................... NM
12K5....................................... NM
14K1....................................... 27-0
14K3....................................... NM
14K4....................................... NM
14K6....................................... NM
16K2....................................... 29-0
16K3....................................... 30-0
16K4....................................... 32-0
16K5....................................... 32-0
16K6....................................... NM
16K7....................................... NM
16K9....................................... NM
18K3....................................... 31-0
18K4....................................... 32-0
18K5....................................... 33-0
18K6....................................... 35-0
18K7....................................... NM
18K9....................................... NM
18K10...................................... NM
20K3....................................... 32-0
20K4....................................... 34-0
20K5....................................... 34-0
20K6....................................... 36-0
20K7....................................... 39-0
20K9....................................... 39-0
20K10...................................... NM
22K4....................................... 34-0
22K5....................................... 35-0
22K6....................................... 36-0
22K7....................................... 40-0
22K9....................................... 40-0
22K10...................................... 40-0
22K11...................................... 40-0
24K4....................................... 36-0
24K5....................................... 38-0
24K6....................................... 39-0
24K7....................................... 40-0
24K8....................................... 40-0
24K9....................................... 40-0
24K10...................................... 40-0
24K12...................................... 40-0
26K5....................................... 38-0
26K6....................................... 39-0
26K7....................................... 40-0
26K8....................................... 40-0
26K9....................................... 40-0
26K10...................................... 40-0
26K12...................................... 40-0
28K6....................................... 40-0
28K7....................................... 40-0
28K8....................................... 40-0
28K9....................................... 40-0
28K10...................................... 40-0
28K12...................................... 40-0
30K7....................................... 40-0
30K8....................................... 40-0
30K9....................................... 40-0
30K10...................................... 40-0
30K11...................................... 40-0
30K12...................................... 40-0
10KCS1..................................... NM
10KCS2..................................... NM
10KCS3..................................... NM
12KCS1..................................... NM
12KCS2..................................... NM
12KCS3..................................... NM
14KCS1..................................... NM
14KCS2..................................... NM
14KCS3..................................... NM
16KCS2..................................... NM
16KCS3..................................... NM
16KCS4..................................... NM
16KCS5..................................... NM
18KCS2..................................... 35-0
18KCS3..................................... NM
18KCS4..................................... NM
18KCS5..................................... NM
20KCS2..................................... 36-0
20KCS3..................................... 39-0
20KCS4..................................... NM
20KCS5..................................... NM
22KCS2..................................... 36-0
22KCS3..................................... 40-0
22KCS4..................................... 40-0
22KCS5..................................... 40-0
24KCS2..................................... 39-0
24KCS3..................................... 40-0
24KCS4..................................... 40-0
24KCS5..................................... 40-0
26KCS2..................................... 39-0
26KCS3..................................... 40-0
26KCS4..................................... 40-0
26KCS5..................................... 40-0
28KCS2..................................... 40-0
28KCS3..................................... 40-0
28KCS4..................................... 40-0
28KCS5..................................... 40-0
30KC53..................................... 40-0
30KCS4..................................... 40-0
30KCS5..................................... 40-0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM=diagonal bolted bridging not mandatory for joists under 40 feet.
Table B.--Erection Bridging for Long Span Joists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joist Span
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18LH02.............................. 33-0.
18LH03.............................. NM.
18LH04.............................. NM.
18LH05.............................. NM.
18LH06.............................. NM.
18LH07.............................. NM.
18LH08.............................. NM.
18LH09.............................. NM.
20LH02.............................. 33-0.
20LH03.............................. 38-0.
20LH04.............................. NM.
20LH05.............................. NM.
20LH06.............................. NM.
20LH07.............................. NM.
[[Page 43507]]
20LH08.............................. NM.
20LH09.............................. NM.
20LH10.............................. NM.
24LH03.............................. 35-0.
24LH04.............................. 39-0.
24LH05.............................. 40-0.
24LH06.............................. 40-0.
24LH07.............................. 40-0.
24LH08.............................. 40-0.
24LH09.............................. 40-0.
24LH10.............................. 40-0.
24LH11.............................. 40-0.
28LH05.............................. 40-0.
28LH06.............................. 40-0.
28LH07.............................. 40-0.
28LH08.............................. 40-0.
28LH09.............................. 40-0.
28LH10.............................. 40-0.
28LH11.............................. 40-0.
28LH12.............................. 40-0.
28LH13.............................. 40-0.
32LH06.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
32LH07.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
32LH08.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
32LH09.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
32LH10.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
32LH11.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
32LH12.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
32LH13.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
32LH14.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
32LH15.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
36LH07.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
36LH08.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
36LH09.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
36LH10.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
36LH11.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
36LH12.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
36LH13.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
36LH14.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
36LH15.............................. 40-0 through 60-0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM = diagonal bolted bridging not mandatory for joists under 40 feet.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M
(e) Landing and placing loads. (1) During the construction period,
the employer placing a load on steel joists shall ensure that the load
is distributed so as not to exceed the carrying capacity of any steel
joist.
(2) Except for paragraph (e)(4) of this section, no construction
loads are allowed on the steel joists until all bridging is installed
and anchored and all joist-bearing ends are attached.
(3) The weight of a bundle of joist bridging shall not exceed a
total of 1000 pounds (454 kg). A bundle of joist bridging shall be
placed on a minimum of 3 steel joists that are secured at one end. The
edge of the bridging bundle shall be positioned within 1 foot (.30 m)
of the secured end.
(4) No bundle of decking may be placed on steel joists until all
bridging has been installed and anchored and all joist bearing ends
attached, unless all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The employer has first determined from a qualified person and
documented in a site-specific erection plan that the structure or
portion of the structure is capable of supporting the load;
(ii) The bundle of decking is placed on a minimum of 3 steel
joists;
(iii) The joists supporting the bundle of decking are attached at
both ends;
(iv) At least one row of bridging is installed and anchored;
(v) The total weight of the decking does not exceed 4000 pounds
(1816 kg); and
(vi) The edge of the bundle of decking is placed within 1 foot (.30
m) of the bearing surface of the joist end.
(5) The edge of the construction load shall be placed within 1 foot
(.30 m) of the bearing surface of the joist end.
Sec. 1926.758 Pre-engineered metal buildings.
(a) Erection of pre-engineered metal buildings shall not begin
until the site layout has been completed in accordance with
Sec. 1926.752(b).
(b) Each column shall be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts.
(c) Rigid frames shall have 50 percent of their bolts or the number
of bolts specified by the manufacturer (whichever is greater) installed
and tightened on both sides of the web adjacent to each flange before
the hoisting equipment is released.
(d) Construction loads shall not be placed on any structural steel
framework unless such framework is safely bolted, welded or otherwise
adequately secured.
(e) In girt and eave strut to frame connections, when girts or eave
struts share common connection holes the following shall apply:
(1) At least one bolt with its wrench-tight nut shall remain
connected to the second member unless a field-attached seat or similar
connection device is present to secure the first member so
[[Page 43508]]
that the girt or eave strut is always secured against displacement; and
(2) The seat or similar connection device shall be provided by the
manufacturer of the girt or eave strut.
(f) Both ends of all steel joists or cold-formed joists shall be
fully bolted and/or welded to the support structure before:
(1) Releasing the hoisting cables;
(2) Allowing an employee on the joists; or
(3) Allowing any construction loads on the joists.
(g) Purlins and girts shall not be used as an anchorage point for a
fall arrest system unless written direction to do so is obtained from a
qualified person.
(h) Purlins may only be used as a walking/working surface when
installing safety systems, after all permanent bridging has been
installed and fall protection is provided.
(i) Construction loads may be placed only within a zone that is
within 8 feet (2.5 m) of the centerline of the primary support member.
Sec. 1926.759 Falling object protection.
(a) Securing loose items aloft. All materials, equipment, and
tools, which are not in use while aloft, shall be secured against
accidental displacement.
(b) Overhead protection. The controlling contractor shall ensure
that no other construction processes take place below steel erection
unless adequate overhead protection for the employees below is
provided.
Sec. 1926.760 Fall protection.
(a) General requirements. (1) Except as provided by paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, each employee covered by this subpart who is on
a walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge more than 15
feet (4.6 m) above a lower level shall be protected from fall hazards.
(2) Protection from fall hazards required by this subpart shall
consist of perimeter safety cable systems, guardrail systems, safety
net systems, or personal fall arrest or fall restraint (positioning
device) systems. Guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall
arrest systems and fall restraint (positioning device) systems shall
conform to the criteria set forth in Sec. 1926.502.
(3) Connectors and employees working in controlled decking zones
shall be protected from fall hazards as provided in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section, respectively.
(b) Connectors. Each connector shall:
(1) Be protected from fall hazards of more than two stories or 30
feet (9.1 m) above a lower level, whichever is less;
(2) Have completed connector training in accordance with
Sec. 1926.761; and
(3) Be provided, at heights over 15 and up to 30 feet above a lower
level, with a personal fall arrest or fall restraint (positioning
device) system and wear the equipment necessary to be able to be tied
off; or be provided with other means of protection from fall hazards in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(c) Controlled decking zone (CDZ). A controlled decking zone may be
established in that area of the structure over 15 and up to 30 feet
above a lower level where metal deck is initially being installed and
forms the leading edge of a work area. In each CDZ, the following shall
apply:
(1) Each employee working at the leading edge in a CDZ shall be
protected from fall hazards of more than two stories or 30 feet (9.1
m), whichever is less.
(2) Access to a CDZ shall be limited exclusively to those employees
engaged in leading edge work.
(3) The boundaries of a CDZ shall be designated and clearly marked.
The CDZ shall not be more than 90 feet (27.4 m) wide and 90 feet (27.4
m) deep from any leading edge. The CDZ shall be marked by the use of
control lines or the equivalent. Examples of acceptable procedures for
demarcating CDZ's can be found in Appendix D to this subpart.
(4) Each employee working in a CDZ shall have completed CDZ
training in accordance with Sec. 1926.761.
(5) During initial placement, deck panels shall be placed to ensure
full support by structural members.
(6) Unsecured decking in a CDZ shall not exceed 3000 square feet
(914.4 m \2\).
(7) Safety deck attachments shall be performed in the CDZ from the
leading edge back to the control line and shall have at least two
attachments per deck panel.
(8) Final deck attachments and installation of shear connectors
shall not be performed in the CDZ.
(d) Covering roof and floor openings. (1) Covers for roof and floor
openings required by Sec. 1926.754 (e)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii) shall be
capable of supporting, without failure, the greater of either:
(i) 30 psf for roofs and 50 psf for floors; or
(ii) twice the weight of the employees, equipment and materials
that may be imposed on the cover at any one time.
(2) All covers shall be secured when installed to prevent
accidental displacement by the wind, equipment or employees.
(3) All covers shall be painted with high-visibility paint or shall
be marked with the word ``HOLE'' or ``COVER'' to provide warning of the
hazard.
(4) Smoke dome or skylight fixtures, which have been installed, are
not considered covers for the purpose of this section unless they meet
the strength requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(e) Custody of fall protection. Fall protection provided by the
steel erector shall remain in an area to be used by other trades after
the steel erection activity has been completed only if the controlling
contractor or its authorized representative:
(1) Has directed the steel erector to leave the fall protection in
place; and
(2) Has inspected and accepted control and responsibility of the
fall protection prior to authorizing persons other than steel erectors
to work in the area.
Sec. 1926.761 Training.
The following provisions supplement the requirements of
Sec. 1926.21 regarding the hazards addressed in this subpart.
(a) Training personnel. Training required by this section shall be
provided by a qualified person(s).
(b) Fall hazard training. The employer shall provide a training
program for all employees exposed to fall hazards. The program shall
include training and instruction in the following areas:
(1) The recognition and identification of fall hazards in the work
area;
(2) The use and operation of perimeter safety cable systems,
personal fall arrest systems, fall restraint (positioning device)
systems, safety net systems, controlled decking zones and other
protection to be used;
(3) The correct procedures for erecting, maintaining,
disassembling, and inspecting the fall protection systems to be used;
(4) The procedures to be followed to prevent falls to lower levels
and through or into holes and openings in walking/working surfaces and
walls; and
(5) The fall protection requirements of Sec. 1926.760.
(c) Special training programs. In addition to the training required
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the employer shall provide
special training to employees engaged in the following activities.
(1) Multiple lift rigging procedure. The employer shall ensure that
each employee who performs multiple lift rigging has been provided
training in the following areas:
(i) The nature of the hazards associated with multiple lifts; and
(ii) The proper procedures and equipment to perform multiple lifts
required by Sec. 1926.753(c).
[[Page 43509]]
(2) Connector procedures. The employer shall ensure that each
connector has been provided training in the following areas:
(i) The nature of the hazards associated with connecting; and
(ii) The establishment, access, proper connecting techniques and
work practices required by Secs. 1926.760(b) and 1926.756(c).
(3) Controlled decking zone procedures. Where CDZs are being used,
the employer shall ensure that each employee has been provided training
in the following areas:
(i) The nature of the hazards associated with work within a
controlled decking zone; and
(ii) The establishment, access, proper installation techniques and
work practices required by Secs. 1926.760(c) and 1926.754(e).
Note to Appendices to Subpart R: The following appendices to
subpart R of this part serve as non-mandatory guidelines to assist
employers in complying with the appropriate requirements of subpart
R of this part.
Appendix A to Subpart R--Guidelines for Establishing the Components
of a Site-Specific Erection Plan: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for
Complying With Sec. 1926.752(d)
(a) General. This appendix serves as a guideline to assist
employers who elect to develop a site-specific erection plan in
accordance with Sec. 1926.752(d) with alternate means and methods to
provide employee protection in accordance with Secs. 1926.752(d),
1926.753(a)(5), 1926.757(a)(3) and 1926.757(e)(4)(i).
(b) Development of a site-specific erection plan. Pre-
construction conference(s) and site inspection(s) are held between
the erector and the controlling contractor, and others such as the
project engineer and fabricator before the start of steel erection.
The purpose of such conference(s) is to develop and review the site-
specific erection plan that will meet the requirements of this
section.
(c) Components of a site-specific erection plan. In developing a
site-specific erection plan, a steel erector considers the following
elements:
(1) The sequence of erection activity, developed in coordination
with the controlling contractor, that includes the following:
(i) Material deliveries:
(ii) Material staging and storage; and
(iii) Coordination with other trades and construction
activities.
(2) A description of the crane and derrick selection and
placement procedures, including the following:
(i) Site preparation;
(ii) Path for overhead loads; and
(iii) Critical lifts, including rigging supplies and equipment.
(3) A description of steel erection activities and procedures,
including the following:
(i) Stability considerations requiring temporary bracing and
guying;
(ii) Erection bridging terminus point;
(iii) Anchor bolt notifications regarding repair, replacement
and modifications;
(iv) Columns and beams (including joists and purlins);
(v) Connections;
(vi) Decking; and
(vii) Ornamental and miscellaneous iron.
(4) A description of the fall protection procedures that will be
used to comply with Sec. 1926.760.
(5) A description of the procedures that will be used to comply
with Sec. 1926.759.
(6) A description of the special procedures required for
hazardous non-routine tasks.
(7) A certification for each employee who has received training
for performing steel erection operations as required by
Sec. 1926.761.
(8) A list of the qualified and competent persons.
(9) A description of the procedures that will be utilized in the
event of rescue or emergency response.
(d) Other plan information. The plan:
(1) Includes the identification of the site and project; and
(2) Is signed and dated by the qualified person(s) responsible
for its preparation and modification.
Appendix B TO Subpart R--Acceptable Test Methods for Testing Slip-
Resistance of Walking/Working Surfaces (Sec. 1926.754(c)(3)) Non-
mandatory Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.754(c)(3).
The following references provide acceptable test methods for
complying with the requirements of Sec. 1926.754(c)(3).
Standard Test Method for Using a Portable Articulated
Strut Slip Tester (PAST) (ASTM F1678-96)
Standard Test Method for Using a Variable Incidence
Tribometer (VIT) (ASTM F1679-96)
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[[Page 43510]]
Appendix C to Subpart R--Illustrations of Bridging Terminus Points:
Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.757(c)(3)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AU98.000
[[Page 43511]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AU98.001
[[Page 43512]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AU98.002
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
[[Page 43513]]
Appendix D to Subpart R--Illustration of the use of Control Lines
to Demarcate Controlled Decking Zones (CDZs): Non-Mandatory
Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.760(c)(3)
(1) When used to control access to areas where leading edge and
initial securement of metal deck and other operations connected with
leading edge work are taking place, the controlled decking zone (CDZ)
is defined by a control line or by any other means that restricts
access.
(i) A control line for a CDZ is erected not less than 6 feet (1.8
m) nor more than 90 feet (27.4 m) from the leading edge.
(ii) Control lines extend along the entire length of the
unprotected or leading edge and are approximately parallel to the
unprotected or leading edge.
(iii) Control lines are connected on each side to a guardrail
system, wall, stanchion or other suitable anchorage.
(2) Control lines consist of ropes, wires, tapes, or equivalent
materials, and supporting stanchions as follows:
(i) Each line is rigged and supported in such a way that its lowest
point (including sag) is not less than 39 inches (1.0 m) from the
walking/working surface and its highest point is not more than 45
inches (1.3 m) from the walking/working surface.
(ii) Each line has a minimum breaking strength of 200 pounds (90.8
kg).
Appendix E to Subpart R--Training: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for
Complying With Sec. 1926.761
The training requirements of Sec. 1926.761 will be deemed to have
been met if employees have completed a training course on steel
erection, including instruction in the provisions of this standard,
that has been approved by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of
Apprenticeship.
Appendix F to Subpart R--Installation of Perimeter Safety Cables:
Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying with Sec. 1926.756(f) To
Protect the Unprotected Side or Edge of a Walking/Working Surface.
In multi-story structures, the project structural engineer of
record (SER) may facilitate the ease of erecting perimeter safety
cables, where structural design allows, by placing column splices
sufficiently high so as to accommodate perimeter safety cables located
at 42-45 inches above the finished floor. The SER may also consider
allowing holes to be placed in the column web, when the column is
oriented with the web perpendicular to the structural perimeter, at 42-
45 inches above the finished floor and at the midpoint between the
finished floor and the top cable. When holes in the column web are
allowed for perimeter safety cables, the column splice must be placed
sufficiently high so as not to interfere with any attachments to the
column necessary for the column splice. Column splices are recommended
to be placed at every other or fourth levels as design allows. Column
splices at third levels are detrimental to the erection process and
should be avoided if possible.
[FR Doc. 98-21112 Filed 8-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
